Haedo Transportation Solutions, LLC, Etc. v. Signature Flight Support, LLC, Etc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: August 20, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-1258
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed August 20, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1258 Lower Tribunal No. 20-1996-CA-01 ________________

Haedo Transportation Solutions, LLC, etc., Appellant,

vs.

Signature Flight Support, LLC, etc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Tanya Brinkley and Gina Beovides, Judges.

Aero Law Center, and Kristin E. Marrero (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.

The Brownlee Law Firm, P.A., and Stacy Ford and Michael March Brownlee (Orlando), for appellee.

Before SCALES, C.J., and EMAS 1 and GOODEN, JJ.

EMAS, J.

1 Judge Emas did not participate in oral argument. The underlying negligence action arose from an aircraft storage

agreement between Haedo Transportation Solutions, LLC (Haedo) and

Landmark Aviation Miami, LLC d/b/a Signature Flight Support (Signature).

Pursuant to that agreement, Haedo’s aircraft was hangared at Signature’s

property, and Signature provided ancillary services, including towing of the

aircraft into and out of the hangar. The agreement included, in pertinent part,

purported exculpatory clauses, as well as a provision in which each party

waived its right to a jury trial. The agreement also included a “non-waiver”

clause, which provided: “No waiver by any Party of any of the provisions

hereof shall be effective unless explicitly set forth in writing and signed by

the Party so waiving. . . . No failure to exercise, or delay in exercising, any

right, remedy, power or privilege arising from this [agreement] shall operate

or be construed as a waiver thereof . . . .”

About a month later, Haedo’s aircraft was damaged. Haedo contended

that Signature’s employee damaged the aircraft by over-torquing the nose of

the plane during a tow, and sued Signature for simple and gross negligence.

Haedo’s complaint contained a demand for jury trial.

During the course of the proceedings, the trial court granted summary

judgment in Signature’s favor on Haedo’s simple negligence claim, citing the

exculpatory clauses; granted Signature’s motion to strike Haedo’s demand

2 for jury trial; and, following a bench trial on Haedo’s remaining gross

negligence claim, entered final judgment in favor of Signature, concluding

Haedo failed to establish any negligent act by Signature that caused damage

to Haedo’s aircraft.

On appeal, Haedo contends the trial court erred in (1) finding the

exculpatory clauses unambiguous, construing the clauses to preclude a

simple negligence claim, and entering summary judgment in favor of

Signature on that count; (2) striking Haedo’s demand for jury trial based on

the jury trial waiver provision (and non-waiver provision) contained in the

agreement, and proceeding to a non-jury trial on the gross negligence claim;

and (3) finding in favor of Signature (and entering final judgment for

Signature) on Haedo’s remaining claim for gross negligence.

We affirm, holding that: (1) the trial court properly interpreted the

parties’ agreement to mean that each agreed to waive their right to a jury

trial, and that the waiver of any provision of the agreement must be in writing,

see Goodenow v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 305 So. 3d 13, 14 (Fla. 3d DCA

2019); Rybovich Boat Works, Inc. v. Atkins, 587 So. 2d 519, 521-22 (Fla. 4th

DCA 1991); (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking Haedo’s

demand for jury trial, upon a finding that Signature did not waive the

contractual provision, see Wolfe v. Steven A. Smilack, P.A., 166 So. 3d 931,

3 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“We review an order on a jury trial demand for an

abuse of discretion.”); Smith v. Carlton, 348 So. 3d 52, 56 (Fla. 5th DCA

2022) (“[T]he question of waiver is an issue of fact, for which a trial judge's

finding will be reversed ‘only if there is no competent, substantial evidence

to support’ it.”) (citation omitted); id. at 57 (“mere delay is insufficient to

support waiver” (quoting O’Brien v. O’Brien, 424 So. 2d 970, 971 (Fla. 3d

DCA 1983))); and (3) any error in the trial court’s construction of the

purported exculpatory clauses (and any resulting error in granting summary

judgment on the simple negligence claim) was rendered harmless when,

following a bench trial, the trial court determined that “the preponderance of

the evidence does not support that [Signature] caused damage to the nose

gear of [Haedo's] aircraft.” Because the trial court, as the finder of fact,

determined there was no negligent act by Signature or its employees, Haedo

would not have prevailed had the bench trial proceeded on both the simple

negligence and gross negligence counts. Therefore, any error in this regard

was harmless. See Special v. W. Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So. 3d 1251, 1256

(Fla. 2014) (explaining that error is harmless when there is no reasonable

possibility that it contributed to the outcome of the case).2

Affirmed.

2 We find no merit in the remaining claims raised by Haedo.