McCumber Daniels Wins Summary Judgment Motion

David Nilsen, an attorney with McCumber Daniels successfully argued a motion for summary judgment bringing to an end a lawsuit against the McCumber Daniels’ client, Lifestyle Family Fitness (LFF). 

The Plaintiff was rear ended in an automobile crash and suffered back and neck injuries.  Nearly a year after the car crash, Plaintiff allegedly fell off a piece of gym equipment at LFF and allegedly aggravated prior injuries and suffered new injuries.  Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that a connecting/locking mechanism on a universal weight machine malfunctioned.  Plaintiff underwent lengthy treatments that included physical therapy, injections, and multiple surgeries (cervical and lumbar spine).  Plaintiff filed suit against the automobile insurance company and against the fitness center. 

Mr. Nilsen pushed this case forward toward resolution by filing a motion for summary judgment.  Mr. Nilsen’s position was that the Plaintiff signed and agreed to the terms of a membership agreement which contained exculpatory clauses. 

There have been two relatively new cases in Florida that involved gym/fitness club membership agreements and exculpatory clauses wherein the courts have upheld exculpatory clauses in membership agreements.  In Shaw v. Premier Health and Fitness Center, Inc., 937 So.2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) the court in upholding summary judgment held that waiver provision contained in health club's membership agreement clearly and unequivocally released health club from liability for its own negligent acts.  In Gayon v. Bally’s Total Fitness Corporation, 802 So.2d 420, 421 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2001), the Court affirmed a final summary judgment stating:

“[Exculpatory] clauses are enforceable only where and to the extent that the intention to be relieved was made clear and unequivocal in the contract, and the wording must be so clear and understandable that an ordinary and knowledgeable party will know what he is contracting away.”

Success at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment came after a proposal for settlement.  The Defendant has a pending motion for fees and costs associated with the plaintiff’s rejection of the proposal for settlement.