If This is Not Fraud on the Court, I Don't Know What Is

In Jiang v. Tri-Coumty Repairs LLC, Case No. 2022-010631-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Apr. 16, 2026), a cellphone video recording of a conversation between plaintiff and defendant was held not protected from use as evidence by Florida Security of Communications Act, as the Court found the plaintiff did not have s subjective expectation that the conversation was not being intercepted where his statements reveal that he was aware of possibility that he was being recorded. Specifically, the plaintiff stated in the recording “Even you record me, you have no permission…so it’s not going to bring to the judge.” The Court found that any expectation would not be objectively reasonable where conversation between the parties took place while plaintiff was on porch of multi-tenant residence and defendant was standing in a driveway plainly visible and accessible to third parties.

Why would a plaintiff fight so hard to keep the recording out? Because he was facing a motion for sanctions pursuant to Florida Statute Sec. 57.105. The Court found that the case required dismissal to preserve the integrity of the Court where plaintiff's recorded statements revealed an attempt to coerce the defendant not to defend lawsuit so as to enable plaintiff to obtain an insurance recovery and an offer of payout for potential settlement proceeds from the defendant's insurer. The plaintiff stated , inter alia, the following: “…If I win the case, you lose the case, I collect $700,000 from the insurance company…I’m thinking about two options. Either let me win the case and I give you some money back. Or for this case, you take your company to bankruptcy, and I give you the money back…let me win the case and give you some money back…”

The Court rejected plaintiff’s attempt to characterize the discussion as a settlement discussion but rather “a coercive attempt to induce Defendant’s non-participation in the litigation so plaintiff could obtain an insurance recovery.” The Court went further and noted “that dismissal for fraud on the court is warranted even where a party may have some legitimate basis for a claim.” The Court considered lesser sanctions and found that they would be inadequate to address the severity of plaintiff’s misconduct and preserve the integrity of the proceedings.

It is difficult to have a motion for fraud on the court granted in Florida. It appears that a recording or some other solid third-party evidence is required to make such a motion stick. Certainly, if this was not fraud on the court, then it is hard to see what would be. If you are interested in receiving a copy of this decision, please reach out to me by email at blog@miamimaritimelaw.co or admin@miamimaritimelaw.co or by phone at 305.377.3700.

The Bahamas Update Their Boating/Yachting Fees Due to Backlash But Did Much Change?

Everyone remembers July 2025, when The Bahamas announced huge fee increases for boating and yachting fees. When announced at that time, the fee for pleasure crafts for a period not exceeding 12 months were as follows:

• For vessels under 50 feet in length - $500.

• For vessels 50 to 99 feet in length - $1,000.

• For vessels over 100 feet in length - $3,000.

The fees covered the cruising permit under regulation 90(a), attendance fees by a customs officer for attendance and travel expenses, overtime and travel expenses in respect of the attendance of an immigration officer, entrance into The Bahamas twice within a 30 day period and other new fees.

The Association of Bahamas Marinas announced that new boating fees are now in effect. The amendments come after pushback in the boating industry to the above fees from 2025. The new fee structure goes into effect on April 1, 2026. The fees for pleasure vessels are now:

Up to 30 days

• $150 for vessels not exceeding 30 feet in length

• $250 for vessels 31-50 feet in length

• $350 for vessels 51-100 feet in length

• $600 for vessels more than 100 feet in length

• Vessels on a 30-day cruising permit are not entitled to a free reentry.

Up to 6 months

• $300 for vessels not exceeding 50 feet in length

• $750 for vessels 51 to 100 feet in length

• $2,000 for vessels more than 100 feet in length

• Vessels on a 6-month cruising permit are entitled to one free reentry within the duration of the permit.

Up to 12 months

• $500 for vessels not exceeding 50 feet in length

• $1,000 for vessels 51 to 100 feet in length

• $3,000 for vessels more than 100 feet in length

• Vessels on a 12-month cruising permit are entitled to two free reentries within the duration of the permit.

These fees cover cruising permits under regulation 90(a), attendance fees by a customs officer for attendance and travel expenses, overtime and travel expenses in respect of the attendance of an immigration officer and entrance into The Bahamas twice within a 30-day period. As in 2025, the fees do not apply to ancillary equipment being towed or on board a pleasure vessel, excluding tenders exceeding 25 feet in length. The fee for tender vessels exceeding 25 feet will be $500 for a period not exceeding 12 months. When a pleasure vessel carries more than three passengers, every additional passenger of or above the age of six and who is not an ordinary resident of The Bahamas will be subjected to a tax of $30.

Fishing permits are no longer included in cruising permit fees. Fishing permits are only valid for 30 days, even if the holder possesses a 12-month cruising permit. Foreign pleasure vessel fishing permits fees are:

• $100 for vessels under 50 feet in length

• $300 for vessels 50 feet in length and over

Anchorage fees for foreign vessels, not mooring at a marina, have been amended in a new regulation 91B.

Up to 30 days

• $50 for vessels not exceeding 30 feet in length

• $100 for vessels 31 to 100 feet in length

• $200 for vessels more than 100 feet in length

Up to 6 months

• $150 for vessels not exceeding 50 feet in length

• $350 for vessels 51 to 100 feet in length

• $1,000 for vessels more than 100 feet in length

Up to 12 months

• $200 for vessels not exceeding 50 feet in length

• $350 for vessels 51 to 100 feet in length

• $1,500 for vessels more than 100 feet in length

Frequent Digital Cruising Card (FDCC) Permit fees are as follows:

• $200 for vessels not exceeding 50 feet in length

• $350 for vessels 51 to 100 feet in length

• $1,500 for vessels more than 100 feet in length

• Anchorage fees are valid for two years.

Frequent Digital Cruising Cards (FDCC) are now available, allowing unlimited visits for up to two years.

• $1,500 for vessels under 50 feet in length

• $2,500 for vessels 50 to 99 feet in length

• $8,000 for vessels more than 100 feet in length

However, be aware that FDCC fees do not cover:

• Attendance fees by a customs officer for attendance and travel expenses

• Overtime and travel expenses in respect of the attendance of an immigration officer.

​Travelling to The Bahamas now requires an owner to evaluate how many times they will be travelling there. If an owner travels to The Bahamas by vessel more than three times each year, it is suggested by the Bahamians that the FDCC may be lower in cost. However, without identifying the costs of attendance fees and the like, this assertion is questionable, unless transits to the Bahamas are frequent in a two-year period.

If you are interested in contact us or wish to learn more, you may reach out to us at blog@miamimaritimelaw.co or by phone at 305.377.3700.

Insurance Brokers Note: Even If Insurance Unavailable Broker Must Advise Florida Insureds

In Brown & Brown of Florida, Inc. v. Houligan’s Pub & Club, Inc., 51 Fla. L. Weekly D49b (Fla. 5th DCA Jan. 2, 2026), an action was brought against an insurance broker after it was determined that insured's claims for hurricane damage were not covered by the procured policy. The loss involved sewage entering several restaurant properties through floor drains after Hurricane Matthew, causing substantial damage, which was ultimately found by a separate declaratory judgment action that the policy did not provide coverage for these types of damages. The appellate court ruled that proof of available insurance in the marketplace was not required for recovery for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation claims. The court reasoned that an insurance agent or broker who agrees or undertakes to procure certain insurance coverage owes his principal a duty to do so within a reasonable time. When the agent fails to do so, even if the agent is not to blame for the failure, he may nevertheless become liable for damages if he fails to inform his principal that the requested insurance has not been procured.

Applying this principle, the court found that a reasonable jury could find that even if the insurance the insured wanted was unavailable in the marketplace, the insurance broker should have timely notified the insured of that fact so that it could consider its alternatives. So on this basis, the appellate court concluded that the insured would be entitled to damages and remanded the case for a new trial on damages only.

This case makes clear that insurance agents and brokers need to be upfront with insureds on what a policy does and does not cover. Failing to do so exposes that insurance agent or broker to damages.

If you are interested in receiving a copy of this decision or wish to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact us at blog@miamimaritimelaw.co or 305.377.3700.

Finally Some Common Sense on the Applicability of the Florida Building Code

In Jackson v. Florida Department of Transportation, 2025 WL 2881680 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 10, 2025), an action was brought against the Department of Transportation and the contractor who built a portion of a public sidewalk where plaintiff tripped. When deposed, the plaintiff testified that she tripped on an expansion joint of the sidewalk where one section of concrete was approximately ¾ of an inch higher than the adjacent section. The plaintiff’s retained engineering expert inspected the sidewalk and opined that the uneven sidewalk constituted a tripping hazard because the vertical misalignment at the expansion joint was greater than ½ inch, in violation of the Florida Building Code.

The appellate court found that the trial court did not err by entering summary judgment in favor of defendants based on the conclusion that the less-than-one-inch vertical misalignment in public sidewalk was so open, obvious, and ordinary that it did not constitute a dangerous condition as a matter of law. More importantly, the appellate court also found that the trial court properly rejected plaintiff’s expert's opinion that building code applied to public sidewalk at issue where express scope of the code prohibits its application to the right-of-way sidewalk where plaintiff fell, and expert was unable to provide any support for his novel interpretation applying the building code to a public sidewalk unconnected to any building or structure. The court noted that “[w]hether the Florida Building Code is applicable to this case ultimately is a question of law belonging to the court, not the witness.” See Jackson at *3, quoting Lindsey v. Bill Arflin Bonding Ag., Inc., 645 So. 2d 565, 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (“The legal effect of a building code presents a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury.”) (citation omitted).

This case is important in defending maritime cases, as we are seeing more and more plaintiffs utilizing engineering experts applying building code standards to non-building code matters, including vessels, docks, boat show ramps and other such places. Many judges choose to refer the matter to the jury rather than address the applicability of the Florida Building Code to a given case, which Jackson confirms is something that the court should decide. Jackson will be important ammunition for the defense, even if a sidewalk is not involved.

If you are interested in receiving a copy of this decision or wish to contact us, feel free to do so at blog@miamimaritimelaw.co or 305.377.3700.