Car Accident

Jury’s Pain and Suffering Award Upheld Following Miami-Dade County Car Accident

Published on: January 7, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal has reinstated a jury’s award in a traffic accident case. In Ortega v. Belony, a Florida man suffered a broken neck in a Miami-Dade County automobile collision. Following the car accident, the man was hospitalized for eight days and wore a medical halo device for about three months. The man also refused to undergo the neck surgery that was recommended by his treating doctors.

While recuperating, the injured man apparently moved into a relative’s home, where he received assistance with his daily needs from his brother. According to the man, he suffered from sleeping difficulties and was forced to return to the hospital in order to have his halo adjusted. After the medical device was removed, the man reportedly suffered from mild neck discomfort and residual back pain. Despite this, the man’s physicians did not recommend further treatment for his traffic wreck injuries.

Middle District of Florida Remands Negligence Lawsuit Back to State Court

Published on: December 14, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Middle District of Florida in Fort Myers has remanded a car accident case back to state court after the defendants failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded the federal diversity jurisdiction requirements enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). In Bess v. Day, a Florida man was apparently injured in a car accident that was allegedly caused by a Canadian citizen. Following the crash, the hurt man filed a negligence complaint against the driver and his spouse in a Florida court. The defendants then removed the case to the Middle District of Florida based on diversity of citizenship. Under federal law, diversity jurisdiction exists when the parties to a lawsuit are citizens of different states and the amount of damages exceeds $75,000.

In response to the defendants’ removal, the injured man filed a motion for remand back to state court. According to the man, the defendants failed to establish that the amount in controversy in the case was more than $75,000. The federal court stated removal statutes must be narrowly construed by courts, and any ambiguities are required to be resolved in favor of remanding a case back to state court. In addition, the Middle District said the party who seeks to remove a lawsuit to federal court bears the burden of establishing that removal is appropriate.

Florida Appeals Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Fatal Pedestrian Accident Case

Published on: December 11, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal has affirmed a trial court’s order granting summary judgment in a fatal pedestrian accident case. In Panzera v. O’Neal, a man was unfortunately struck by a semi-truck while attempting to cross Interstate 75 on foot in 2011. Following the crash, the man’s estate filed a negligence lawsuit, seeking damages from the truck driver and the supermarket chain that employed him. In response, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

In general, a motion for summary judgment asks a court to rule that there are no material facts in dispute and declare that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When reviewing such a motion, a court is required to view all information offered in the most favorable light for the non-moving party. If a material fact is in dispute, a motion for summary judgment should not be granted.

Middle District of Florida Holds Bad Faith Insurance Claim Should be Decided by a Jury

Published on: December 4, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Middle District of Florida has denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a bad faith insurance lawsuit. In Hines v. Geico Indemnity Co., a Florida woman apparently caused a motor vehicle collision while driving a car that was owned by her husband. At the time, the vehicle carried liability coverage with bodily injury limits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per incident. Following the car accident, the wife was arrested for driving while intoxicated.

After the crash, the other motorist retained a lawyer to represent her in the case. The driver’s attorney then offered to settle her claim against the couple and their insurance company for the bodily injury policy limits of $25,000. The attorney also submitted medical and other evidence in support of the driver’s request for damages. The couple’s insurer responded by stating the driver’s personal injury protection coverage already paid her $10,000. In addition, the insurance company offered to pay the injured motorist $3,500 to resolve her claim.

Florida Appeals Court Overturns Unsupported Additur Award in Traffic Wreck Case

Published on: December 1, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals has overturned an additur award after the trial court failed to provide its findings in support of the additional damages. In Ferrer v. La Serna, a woman was apparently injured when her vehicle was struck by another car in Florida. A few days after the traffic collision, the woman sought medical treatment from her physician. The doctor diagnosed the woman with a neck injury and found that the woman’s spine was afflicted with a degenerative condition. According to the physician, although the crash did not cause the degenerative condition, it did cause the woman to begin suffering symptoms.

The woman’s doctor recommended that she refrain from receiving chiropractic care for her car accident injuries. According to the physician, such adjustments could potentially aggravate her underlying spinal condition. Against the advice of her doctor, the woman purportedly saw a chiropractor several times per week for multiple months.

Tampa Court Holds Woman Entitled to Receive UM Auto Accident Benefits

Published on: November 30, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Tibbetts v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., a Florida woman sought uninsured motorist (“UM”) benefits from her parents’ automobile insurer following a September 2014 traffic wreck. At the time of the collision, the woman was living with her parents and riding as a passenger in one of the vehicles insured under the policy. The insurance policy provided $100,000 in both bodily injury and UM benefits. Although the driver of the vehicle was not a named insured, nor did he have permission to be operating the vehicle, the woman was a “resident relative” under the policy terms. Additionally, the driver did not possess motor vehicle insurance at the time of the incident.

Following the car accident, the insurer denied the woman’s request for UM benefits. In response to the insurance company’s denial of benefits, the woman filed a lawsuit against the company in the Middle District of Florida in Tampa. According to the woman, the insurer breached the terms of the insurance policy by refusing to pay her UM benefits.

Insurance Company Ordered to Pay Legal Fees and Costs After Denying Benefits to Insured Florida Driver Following Collision

Published on: November 17, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Explorer Insurance Co. v. Cajusma, a Florida man obtained liability coverage from an insurance company. Later, the man and his passengers were involved in a traffic wreck with another vehicle that was carrying two individuals. Following the accident, the man and his passengers each sought chiropractic care from a local clinic. Each of the man’s passengers also sought personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits.

Next, the driver of the other vehicle and his own passenger filed a negligence claim against the man. After the man’s insurer denied each individual’s claim, they filed separate lawsuits against the man in a Florida court. In addition, the chiropractic clinic filed a lawsuit against the man and one of his passengers, seeking payment for the services it performed following the collision.

Appeals Court Orders New Trial in Florida Car Accident Case

Published on: November 10, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Maniglia v. Carpenter, two men were involved in a nighttime car accident on Interstate 95 in Florida in 2009. The accident was purportedly caused when the left front portion of one car struck the right rear corner of another vehicle while changing lanes. Although the driver who was changing lanes and his passenger asserted that the collision was minor, the other driver complained that it was a serious accident.

Following the crash, the allegedly hurt motorist sought chiropractic treatment for neck and back pain. An x-ray showed no injuries except for “normal wear and tear.” As a result, the chiropractor did not place any work restrictions on the injured driver. About one month later, the injured man collided with a car while driving a golf cart. The man was apparently thrown to the ground as a result. He was also arrested following an altercation with law enforcement authorities who responded to the incident. Despite this, the injured driver apparently failed to disclose the subsequent accident to his chiropractor. The hurt man also sought treatment from a surgeon, who suggested the man undergo surgery after examining magnetic resonance images taken following the golf cart incident.

Appeals Court Rules Florida Car Accident Victim’s PIP Benefits Subject to Contracted-For Deductible

Published on: November 6, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Mercury Insurance Co. v. Emergency Physicians of Central Florida, a Florida woman was injured in a car accident. At the time of the traffic wreck, the woman carried $10,000 in personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits that she purchased from her auto insurer. As part of the PIP policy, the woman elected a $500 deductible. Following the collision, the woman sought medical treatment from an emergency clinic. Within 30 days of the accident, the clinic submitted a bill for $191 to the woman’s PIP insurer. After that, no further bills were received by the insurance company.

More than two months later, the emergency clinic submitted a statutory demand letter seeking payment for the care it provided to the insured woman to her insurance company. The insurer ignored the demand letter, and the clinic filed a lawsuit against the company in a Florida county court. According to the insurance company, it was not required to pay the medical bill because the amount was well below the deductible provided for in the PIP policy.

Southern District of Florida Allows First-Party Bad-Faith Action Against Insurer to Proceed

Published on: October 30, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Levesque v. Government Employees Insurance Co., a Florida woman sustained serious injuries in a car accident that was caused by an uninsured motorist. Following the crash, the woman sought uninsured motorist (“UM”) benefits from her automobile insurance provider. Since the insurance company failed to provide the woman with the full policy limits of $100,000 within 60 days of being provided with a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation, the woman filed a lawsuit against the company in a Florida state court. The insurer admitted the woman was entitled to recover the full policy limits and moved for entry of final judgment.

After procuring a final judgment against the auto insurer, the woman filed a statutory bad-faith case against the company under Section 624.155 of the Florida Statutes. In her lawsuit, the woman sought damages for the full value of her injuries from the insurance company. The insurer responded to the hurt woman’s complaint by filing a motion to dismiss or stay the case. According to the company, the woman’s action was premature because she failed to establish her total damages in her underlying UM lawsuit.