GROVIN FARMS, LLC
v.
INTERCOUNTY ENGINEERING, INC., ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE GRAY INSURANCE COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An appellant must adequately brief the important issues on appeal; failure to do so results in affirmance.
[1] An appellant must adequately brief the important issues on appeal; if the gaps in the initial brief would require the court to rebrief the appeal, the argument is insuffi…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To carry its burden, an appellant must, at a minimum, adequately brief the important issues along the decisional path so the court is not left to do the lion's share of the work. . . . If the gaps left by an initial brief would require the court to rebrief the appeal, the argument is insufficient, and we will affirm on that basis.”
Court's statement of the standard for appellate briefing and the consequence of inadequate briefing
Grovin Farms, LLC appealed a decision from the Circuit Court for Volusia County involving a dispute with Intercounty Engineering, Inc., Arch Insurance…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 5D2025-2863 LT Case No. 2022-10384-CIDL
GROVIN FARMS, LLC, Appellant,
v.
INTERCOUNTY ENGINEERING,
INC., ARCH INSURANCE
COMPANY, and THE GRAY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees.
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County. Randell H. Rowe, III, Judge.
Grant Van Aman, of Van Aman Law, PLLC, Tampa, for Appellant.
Mike Piscitelli, Joseph W. Lawrence, II, and Christina Strandell, of VLP Copenhaver Espino, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellees Intercounty Engineering, Inc. and Arch Insurance Company.
No Appearance for Remaining Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
September 4, 2026
AFFIRMED. See Bolick v. Sperry, 82 So. 2d 374, 376 (Fla. 1955) (“Under our system of procedure the burden is always upon the appellant to make reversible error clearly appear."); Ford Motor Co. v. Hetsler, No. 5D2024-2368, 15 Fla. L. Weekly D1582b, 2026 WL 2207050, at *8 (Fla. 5th DCA July 31, 2026) (“To carry its burden, an appellant must, at a minimum, adequately brief the important issues along the decisional path so the court is not left to do the lion's share of the work. . . . If the gaps left by an initial brief would require the court to rebrief the appeal, the argument is insufficient, and we will affirm on that basis." (citation modified)).
JAY, C.J., and EISNAUGLE and SOUD, JJ., concur.