A Brevard County, Florida jury has awarded $14,147,525.39 to a woman who ate contaminated ice cream containing metal nails and fragments, a product defect that ultimately left her permanently infertile. The verdict, announced in a March 29, 2026 press release from Alpizar Law, closes out a products liability trial that lasted approximately two and a half weeks.
The case is one of the more striking Florida food contamination verdicts in recent years, and it carries implications that reach well beyond a single franchise location.
What Happened to Brandy Buckley
The plaintiff, Brandy Buckley, purchased ice cream from a Malabar franchise of Bruster's Ice Cream. According to evidence presented at trial, the product contained two nails and several small metal fragments.
After consuming the ice cream, Buckley required emergency medical treatment. Surgeons removed one of the nails along with multiple metal fragments during the procedure.
The medical ordeal did not end there.
Following surgery, Buckley developed serious complications. According to trial testimony, those complications included portal vein thrombosis and significant internal bleeding. A second procedure became necessary. Doctors performed an ablation, which, according to testimony in the case, ultimately resulted in permanent infertility.
The Jury's Findings
After approximately two and a half weeks of trial, the Brevard County jury returned a verdict totaling $14,147,525.39.
The jury did not limit responsibility to the individual franchise location. Jurors found the national franchisor liable under an agency theory, extending accountability to Bruster's Ice Cream and its parent company, Malabar Creameries, at the corporate level.
That finding is legally significant. It signals that juries are willing to hold national brands responsible for the actions of their franchise operators when the franchisor exercises sufficient control over the business.
What Alpizar Law Said
The case was tried by Scott Alpizar, with John Alpizar assisting. Both attorneys are with Alpizar Law, a personal injury firm based in Palm Bay, Florida.
John Alpizar addressed the jury's role in the outcome directly.
"We are grateful that this jury of six fulfilled their civic duty and listened carefully to all of the evidence," he said. "This verdict reflects the seriousness of the harm our client endured and ensures accountability at all levels."
Scott Alpizar framed the verdict as a broader consumer safety statement.
"This case highlights the critical importance of food safety and the responsibility that both local operators and national brands have to protect consumers," he said. "We are proud to have secured a result that brings justice and accountability for our client."
Why This Verdict Matters for Product Liability Law
Food contamination cases can be difficult to litigate. Plaintiffs must connect the ingestion of a defective product to a chain of medical complications, some of which may develop weeks or months after the original incident.
In Buckley's case, the connection between the contaminated ice cream and permanent infertility involved multiple surgical procedures and a medical timeline that unfolded over time. Building that causation narrative before a jury, and winning on it, represents a meaningful result in consumer products litigation.
The agency theory finding against the national franchisor adds another layer. Plaintiffs in franchise cases often face arguments that the corporate parent is too far removed from day-to-day operations to bear liability. The Brevard County jury rejected that argument here.
For plaintiff attorneys handling products liability or food contamination cases, verdicts like this one offer a data point on how Florida juries value catastrophic, life-altering injuries where the defendant is a recognizable national brand.
The Broader Picture on Food Safety Liability
The lawsuit was filed in 2019. The case took roughly seven years from filing to verdict, which is not unusual for complex personal injury litigation involving corporate defendants and medical causation.
The result is a reminder that contamination events at franchise businesses carry real exposure for parent companies, not only the franchisees operating individual locations. When a product defect causes injuries this severe, juries are capable of awarding damages that reflect the full scope of the harm.
Buckley told PEOPLE that she hopes the outcome prevents similar incidents. "Mistakes happen, even from the most trusted national brands," her attorney said. "She hopes something like this never happens again."
Attorneys who have secured significant verdicts in products liability, food safety, or catastrophic injury cases can showcase those results publicly on Major Verdict. The platform gives plaintiff lawyers a dedicated space to display trial outcomes and connect with potential clients researching case values. Join Major Verdict to create your profile and post your verdicts where they can be found.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2026 Major Verdict, LLC. All rights reserved. For more information visit our reuse and editorial standards information.
