Brian E. Catelli, Elder Law Attorney in Orlando, Florida

Brian E. Catelli is a member of the Casualty department with 14 years of courtroom experience. He focuses his practice on general liability cases involving property and personal injury claims, premise liability, and nursing home defense matters.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Brian was an associate in the Orlando office of an insurance defense law firm, providing coverage of complex litigation cases from inception of matter through to judgment in the areas of premise liability, automotive and general liability. Previously, he was founder of his law practice in Orlando where he handled civil, criminal and bankruptcy matters. He also practiced with other law firms in Orlando, handling large caseloads of foreclosure and bankruptcy cases.

Brian worked as an assistant state attorney for four years with the Orange County Prosecution Office. He is well versed in legal issues that stem from criminal conviction. He handled numerous criminal matters, ranging from DUI manslaughter to aggravated assault with firearm, including crimes ranging in sentence from 20 year minimum mandatory to life in prison and acting as first chair in over 20 trials, second-chaired over 30 trials, and 35 bench trials. He managed caseloads from initial arrest through to disposition and appeals of Circuit Court rulings.

Brian received his juris doctor from Florida A&M University College of Law in May 2010 and a Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration from Walla Walla College, Washington in May 2006.

He is licensed to practice law in Florida.

Thought Leadership

Case Law Alerts

Florida Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment, Stresses Need to Properly File Video Evidence to Preserve Record

January 1, 2026

Marilyn Reynolds was a customer in the Belk, Inc. store when she tripped over an unsecured, wide-based metal stanchion and sustained injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment based on screen shots from store surveillance video, finding that the hazard was open and obvious and that the stanchion was not inherently dangerous. However, none of the screen shots actually depicted the stanchion that caused the fall, nor did they show the plaintiff looking at any stanchions located behind her.The appellate court held that the defendant’s summary judgment evidence failed to conclusively negate the plaintiff’s sworn testimony that she was unaware of the stanchion until the fall occurred. Citing Muurahainen v. TJX Cos., 397 So. 3d 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024), the court emphasized that summary judgment evidence must conclusively, clearly, and completely negate a plaintiff’s sworn testimony to establish an open and obvious defense as a matter of law. Because the screen shots did not depict the actual hazard or the plaintiff’s visual perspective, triable issues of fact remained.Notably, the court highlighted the critical importance of properly incorporating video evidence into the record. Although the defendant provided a copy of the full surveillance video to the trial court the day before the hearing, the video was never filed with the lower court or made part of the appellate record. The trial court commented on and appeared to rely upon the video in granting summary judgment, but the appellate court could not consider the video or any descriptions of its contents on appeal. This procedural deficiency underscores that parties relying on video evidence at summary judgment must ensure such evidence is formally filed and included in the record to preserve it for appellate review.Accordingly, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The decision reinforces that defendants seeking summary judgment on open and obvious grounds must present evidence that directly addresses the specific hazard at issue and the plaintiff’s ability to perceive it, and they must properly incorporate that evidence into the court record.

Case Law Alerts

Property Owner Not Liable for Injuries Caused by Unforeseeable Third-Party Vehicle Misconduct

October 1, 2025

The plaintiff, Jarvis Coleman, attended an event hosted by Via at an entertainment venue and, upon leaving the premises, was struck by a truck driven by another patron while waiting in line to exit the parking lot. Coleman claimed that Via negligently failed to implement traffic control measures and direct vehicle flow, which he alleged proximately caused his injuries.The appellate court rejected this argument, holding that Via’s alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of Coleman’s injuries because the intervening criminal and negligent actions of the third-party driver were unforeseeable and broke the chain of causation. The court emphasized that a defendant is generally not liable for harm caused by the extraordinary misconduct of third parties unless such conduct is reasonably foreseeable. Citing precedent, the court noted that premises owners cannot be expected to anticipate highly unusual or improbable vehicle behavior, such as a parked vehicle suddenly accelerating into pedestrians due to the actions of a passenger.Because the chain of events leading to Coleman’s injury was extraordinary and unforeseeable, the court concluded that Via could not be held liable as a matter of law. Accordingly, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was affirmed. The decision reinforces that property owners are not liable for third-party conduct that constitutes a superseding cause beyond the scope of foreseeable risk. Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

News

Marshall Dennehey Bolsters Florida Casualty Practice With Addition of Litigation Trio in Orlando

July 25, 2024