Aaron M. Jacobs is a Senior Associate practicing in our subrogation and recovery department at Butler since 2010. In addition, he covers commercial litigation involving construction, trucking, product liability, and product recall.
After graduating with honors from Florida State University, Aaron went on to earn his Juris Doctor degree from Stetson University College of Law in 2007, again graduating with honors. While in law school, he was the recipient of a “Book Award” for the highest grade in Criminal Law and Professional Responsibility. He also served as a certified legal intern for the Public Defender's Office of the Sixth Judicial Circuit.
Aaron boasts a record that includes a number of important, high-payout subrogation lawsuits. In Lexington Insurance Company, LLC v. Advance Water Technology, Corp., he settled a pipe failure case with damages exceeding $7.8 million. He also worked on Home Quality Management v. Turner Roofing Company, Inc., a $1.8 million dollar settlement involving a catastrophic roof leak.
- Florida State University
Bachelor of Arts in Communications/Advertising
- Stetson University College of Law
- All State Courts of Florida
- United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
- United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Lexington Insurance Company, a/s/o 1111 Brickell Office, LLC v. Advance Water Technology, Corp.(subrogation lawsuit arising from a flood loss caused by a pipe failure in a high-rise office building. Damages exceeded $7.8 million.)
Zurich American Insurance Company, as subrogee of Douglas Development Group, Inc., et. al., v. Pass International, Inc., et. al. (subrogation lawsuit arising from a fire that occurred during an office building renovation. Damages exceeded $4.7 million)
Home Quality Management, et. al., v. Turner Roofing Company, Inc., et. al. (subrogation lawsuit arising from a catastrophic roof leak. Damages exceeded $1.8 million)
October 01, 2014
PUBLICATIONOptimizing the Use of Technology in Mediation
Read More »
From cell phones, to the world wide web, to electronic mail, and beyond, over the past twenty years, we have experienced an unprecedented growth in technology, as well as a growing dependence in our day-to-day lives on these technologies. Accordingly, it is of little surprise parties and mediators alike have implemented the advancements in information technology to the mediation process. Various forms of technology can be utilized to assist parties from the initial stages of selecting a mediator to the actual day of the mediation conference, and all points in between. This article details a number of ways technology advancements have affected the way parties mediate.
June 26, 2014
PUBLICATIONThe Language Was Not Enough: Florida Supreme Court Holds that the Standard "Transfer of Rights" Provision Does Not Abrogate the "Made Whole Rule"
Read More »
The scope of these transferred rights had not been addressed in Florida until the Eleventh Circuit certified the issue to the Florida Supreme Court. In its recent opinion, the Florida Supreme Court clarified that a basic transfer of rights provision, without more, does not give the insurer a right of priority. Under such circumstances, priority of recovery remains dictated by Florida's common law "made whole doctrine."
May 01, 2013
PUBLICATIONStuck Between a Collapsed Wall and a Hard Place: The Failure to Establish the "Standard of Care" in a Negligence Claim
Read More »
Generally, "to establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant had a legal duty to conform to a certain standard of conduct; (2) the defendant breached that duty; and (3) the plaintiff sustained damage that was proximately caused by the defendant's breach.
February 10, 2012
PUBLICATIONDoes the "Case-by-Case" Approach in Florida Apply Only on a Case-by-Case Basis?
Read More »
The "Anti-Subrogation Rule" dictates that an insurer is generally precluded from seeking recovery against its own insured. While this premise on its face seems simple, a speCIal circumstance arises in the context of damage to leased property caused by a tenant's negligence, Where "the obvious intent of the parties [to a lease] was to shift the risk of daruages ... to an Insurer ... [the lessee] qualifies as an intended beneficiary under the Insurance policy;" and therefore, the insurer is prohiblted from subrogating against the lessee.1 However, the lease provisions are commonly unclear, if not contradlctory, as to which party-landlord or tenant-is to bear the risk of a loss to the leased premises, or whether the tenant is considered a "co-insured" under the landlord's property insurance policy. Most jurisdictions have been presented with these types of cases, and courts have implemented one of three recognized "analytic approaches," Recently, the Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida addressed this very issue in Underwriters of Lloyds of London v. Cape Publications, Inc., 2011 WL 2415845 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).