Paleschic, Dale - Hamilton Miller & Birthisel

partner

Dale Paleschic

phone

download vCard

Dale Paleschic is a partner in the firm’s Tallahassee office. He is a trial lawyer with over 30 years of litigation experience. Dale concentrates his practice on commercial litigation, medical and legal malpractice, premises and product liability, catastrophic personal injury, negligent security and other areas. In his three decades of practice, Dale has consulted, directed and litigated many high exposure claims and cases, aggressively defending his clients to obtain favorable results in a cost-effective and efficient manner.

Before joining HM&B, Dale worked as a managing partner and partner at esteemed law firms. Dale is a Past President of the Florida Defense Lawyers Association, a member of the Board of Directors and a frequent lecturer and panelist at FDLA conferences. He is AV Preeminent rated by Martindale-Hubbell

PRACTICE AREAS

Commercial Litigation
Insurance
Legal Malpractice
Medical Malpractice
Negligent Security
Personal Injury
Premises Liability
Product Liability

Education

J.D.with honors, University of Florida

Ralph R. Bailey Legal Scholarship
Dean’s List
Student Honor Court Bar

B.B.A., with honors, Florida Atlantic University

4.0 GPA, Dean’s List all Semesters at FAU

ACEDS E-Discovery Specialist Certification

Experience

Obtained an order granting final summary judgment in a wrongful death case against a hospital facility where the allegations were that the hospital failed to properly supervise and discharge a nurse who subsequently stole the drug Propofol from the facility and used it to murder an acquaintance. Herndon v. Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., No. 01-2008-CA-1804 (Alachua County, Florida Circuit Court, January 19, 2012).
Obtained an order granting final summary summary judgment in a personal injury case where the Plaintiff, a tow truck operator, alleged that the Highway Patrol failed to warn and protect him from an area where a motor carrier hauling “wet” batteries had crashed and burned off the highway. Lieupo v. State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Florida Highway Patrol, No. 2014-051-CA (Hamilton County, Florida Circuit Court, April 18, 2016)
Obtained a jury verdict in a personal injury injury case where the Plaintiff alleged that the defendant retailer failed to warn about and correct a dangerous condition in its store. The dangerous condition was a leaking bottle of detergent that had pooled on the floor. Although not directly visible on camera, it was shown that the Plaintiff’s behavior was not consistent with suffering an injury at the time alleged. Juan Mendiola vs Walmart Stores East LP, No. 16-696-CA (Gadsden County, Florida Circuit Court, November 1, 2017).
Prevailed in a precedent setting appeal in the First District Court of Appeal. The appeal turned on the resolution of an issue of first impression involving an interpretation of section 768.24 of Florida’s Wrongful Death Act. That statute provides that “[a] survivor’s death before final judgment shall limit the survivor’s recovery to lost support and services to the date of his or her death.” The underlying wrongful death case was brought by the father as the sole survivor of his deceased daughter, who died in an automobile accident. At trial, he sought recovery for pain and suffering but not for lost support and services. The jury returned a net verdict of $1,700,000.00 after assigning the substantial majority of fault on two non-party Fabre Defendants. Thereafter, the trial court entered “Final Judgment”. Shortly after Defendant’s appeal had commenced, it was discovered that the decedent’s father had passed away while Defendant’s motion for new trial was still pending. A motion to set aside the final judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) was filed arguing that although the trial court originally entered a “Final Judgment”, the judgment was not truly “final” until such time as the trial court ruled on the timely filed motion for new trial. Because the decedent’s father passed away while the motion for new trial was still pending, his death occurred before “final judgment” and, under section 768.24, his recovery was limited to lost support and services to the date of the decedent’s death. The trial court agreed, set aside the final judgment and, because there was no claim for lost support and services, entered a new final judgment in the amount of $0. In a unanimous decision, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed. In so doing, the district court rejected the Estate’s argument that the language in section 768.24 has the same effect as an abatement and, accordingly, abatement law should govern. The First District went on to state that although the phrase “final judgment” is not expressly defined under the Wrongful Death Act, the principle that a judgment is not truly final until at least such time as the trial court rules on timely filed motions for new trial and/or motions for rehearing is so well-settled that to reach any different result under section 768.24 would create an inconsistency in the law that would only lead to confusion. Accordingly, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s entry of a new final judgment in the amount of $0 wiping out the Plaintiff’s verdict. Hamblen v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, Case No. 1D19-1613 (Fla. 1st DCA February 26, 2021).

Recognition

Florida Defense Lawyers Association – President (2014-15)
AV Preeminent rated by Martindale-Hubbell

Admissions

Florida
U.S. District Court for the Northern, Southern and Middle Districts of Florida
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District
U.S. Supreme Court

Presentations

“Navigating the Current Malpractice Environment and Tort System”
“An Overview Of The Dynamics Of Slip/Trip/Fall, The Associated Biomechanics Of Injury Causation, And Applicable Standards And Technical Methods”
“Ethical Obligations of Lawyers to Learn About the Information Systems of Their Clients and Ensure E-discovery Compliance”