Car Accident

Lakeland Appeals Court Rules Car Accident Defendant Entitled to Legal Fees After Plaintiff Rejects Settlement Offer

Published on: July 24, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Miley v. Nash, a woman was injured in a Florida automobile collision. Following the accident, the woman filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver who allegedly caused the crash and the owner of the vehicle in a Florida Court. In addition, her spouse sought damages for his loss of consortium. Prior to trial, the defendants made a settlement offer of more than $58,000 to the woman. The offer required the woman to dismiss all of her claims against both defendants and pay her own legal fees. Although the offer did not address her husband’s loss of consortium cause of action, he later dropped his claim.

The woman rejected the defendants’ settlement proposal, and the case proceeded to trial. Following a jury trial, jurors issued a verdict of nearly $18,000 in favor of the woman. Next, the defendants filed a request for attorney’s fees and costs under Section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes. Under the law, a plaintiff who receives a verdict that is at least 25 percent less than a written settlement offer may be ordered to pay the legal fees of the opposing party.

Pensacola Court Considers Proposed Evidence in Florida Semi-Truck Accident Case

Published on: July 23, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Bryan v. Whitfield, a Florida man apparently suffered a traumatic brain injury in a car accident that occurred on Interstate 10 in Santa Rosa County. More than two years after the collision occurred, the man filed a personal injury lawsuit against a tractor-trailer driver and his employer in the Northern District of Florida. According to the injured man’s complaint, the semi-truck driver committed negligence when he struck another car from behind and caused the multi-vehicle crash in which the man was hurt.

Following the collision, the company that owned the big rig admitted the driver committed negligence. The company also stated it was liable for the driver’s negligent acts under the doctrine of respondeat superior. This legal doctrine states an employer may be held responsible for the negligent acts of a worker when the acts are performed within the course of the worker’s employment. In addition, the company admitted the plaintiff suffered permanent harm in the collision. As a result, the only issue at trial was the injured man’s past and future non-economic damages.

Appeals Court Holds Apportionment Must be Based on Reliable Methods in Florida Workers’ Compensation Case

Published on: July 9, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Giaimo v. Florida Autosport, Inc., an automobile mechanic was apparently injured when he was struck from behind while test driving a customer’s vehicle in Florida. Due to the man’s resulting neck and back harm, the worker underwent surgery that was performed by an authorized neurosurgeon. Prior to his workplace accident, however, the man was deemed to be eight percent permanently impaired due to a prior car accident in which he also hurt his neck and back.

At a workers’ compensation benefits hearing, both the mechanic and his employer agreed that he was permanently and totally disabled. Despite this, the man’s employer argued that the man’s benefits should be apportioned because the workplace accident aggravated the mechanic’s preexisting injuries. During the hearing, the man’s surgeon, an authorized pain manager, and one of the worker’s initial treating surgeons offered medical testimony.

Florida Court Overturns Judgment in Car Accident Case Due to Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel

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

In Government Employees Insurance Company v. Kisha, a couple purchased a motor vehicle insurance policy that included uninsured motorist coverage (“UIM”). Both members of the couple were named insureds on the automobile policy. After the couple was involved in a traffic wreck, each claimed UIM benefits under the policy. The insurer denied both of their claims due to non-payment of policy premiums. According to the insurance company, the couple’s policy was not in effect when the collision occurred.

Next, the wife filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment in a Florida court. The woman argued the auto insurer waived its right to cancel the couple’s policy and was estopped from denying coverage as a result. Although he offered testimony in his wife’s case, the husband did not join the lawsuit. Following trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the wife. The husband then filed his own declaratory judgment action. Additionally, he asked the court to enter a Motion for Entry of Judgment based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. As a result, the trial court issued a judgment in the man’s favor.

Florida Court of Appeal Orders Juror Interview Following Car Accident Verdict

Published on: May 26, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Barrios v. Locastro, two women were involved in a motor vehicle collision in Florida. As a result, one of the drivers apparently suffered a neck injury. Following two surgeries designed to correct her neck harm, the hurt woman filed a personal injury action against the other driver in a Florida court.

During jury selection, prospective members of the panel were asked to raise their hand if they or any of their close family members was ever a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit or settlement. In addition, they were also asked to indicate whether they had ever suffered from certain back injuries or sought disability payments in the past. After the defendant used each of her peremptory juror challenges, two jurors who indicated their family members were previously involved in an auto collision were placed on the jury.

Florida Court Holds Insurer Has No Duty to Defend Rental Car Lessee’s Permitee Following Car Accident

Published on: May 15, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Allstate Fire and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Paolino, an automobile insurance company issued a liability policy to a couple beginning in July 2011 and terminating on December 25, 2011. The policy listed four motor vehicles and provided bodily injury coverage up to $250,000 for each person and $500,000 per occurrence. The accident policy also stated the insurer would defend the named insureds in the event of a collision in a covered motor vehicle. The accident policy specifically excluded coverage for any bodily injury or property damage that arose out of the use of a substitute vehicle that was being driven by an individual who was not a named insured or a resident of the insured’s household.

At some point, the husband apparently rented a car from an agency and allowed the couple’s housekeeper to operate the vehicle solely for his benefit. At all other times, the vehicle was parked in a garage at the couple’s home. While the housekeeper was returning from a shopping trip that was requested by the couple, she was apparently involved in a traffic wreck. After that, the driver of the vehicle the housekeeper allegedly struck filed a personal injury case against the couple, their housekeeper, and the couple’s auto insurer in a Florida Court.

$1 Million Florida Jury Verdict Overturned After Irrelevant and Prejudicial Evidence Admitted in Car Accident Case

Published on: April 22, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Hurtado v. DeSouza, a man filed a personal injury claim against another driver after the motorist allegedly struck his stopped vehicle from behind at a traffic light. Following the apparently minor crash, the man filed a personal injury action in a Florida court against the driver who hit his car. Although he initially denied liability, the motorist eventually admitted liability immediately prior to trial. As a result, only the issues of causation and damages were submitted to a jury.

At trial, the court allowed certain irrelevant and prejudicial evidence suggesting the defendant attempted to flee the scene of the crash to be admitted. Over the defendant’s objections, the court also allowed the plaintiff to offer evidence that the defendant’s delay in admitting liability for the accident caused him mental anguish, even though Florida law did not support a claim based on that theory. The court also allowed the plaintiff to testify that the motorist never apologized to him and that he suffered significant financial hardship, including home foreclosure, as a result of his injuries. Next, the trial court refused to declare a mistrial or issue a curative instruction. The following day, however, the court issued a directed verdict on the issue of mental anguish and read a curative instruction to the jury without objection from the plaintiff. Ultimately, the jury issued an award of more than $1 million in favor of the plaintiff.

Florida Appeals Court Refuses to Overturn Jury Verdict in Wrongful Death Lawsuit Where Decedent Was Not Wearing a Seat Belt

Published on: April 16, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Jones v. Alayon, a Florida driver was hit from behind by an off-duty police officer in a rear-end automobile collision. As a result of the impact, the man’s automobile struck a guard rail and rolled. The motorist was ejected from his car, and he landed on the roadway. Tragically, the driver was also hit by other vehicles after he landed on the pavement. As a result of the collision, the driver suffered an untimely death.

Following the fatal accident, the allegedly at-fault driver apparently fled the scene of the traffic wreck. He also reported that his vehicle was stolen before later admitting he was driving at the time of the deadly crash. The man was later incarcerated over the incident.

Florida Court Refuses to Dismiss First-Party Bad-Faith Claim Filed Against Auto Insurer

Published on: April 8, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Baham v. Property & Casualty Insurance Co. of Hartford, a motorist was involved in a traffic wreck that was apparently caused by another driver. At the time of the crash, the at-fault driver carried $25,000 in bodily injury liability insurance. Since this amount was allegedly insufficient to cover the motorist’s injuries and lost wages, the man filed a request for the full amount of his uninsured motorist (“UM”) policy limits of $200,000 from his own automobile insurer. The man’s insurer denied coverage and claimed his accident injuries did not exceed the limits of the at-fault driver’s bodily injury policy.

Next, the hurt motorist filed a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”) with his insurance company and the Florida Department of Financial Services. According to the man, the insurer refused to settle his valid claims. In response, the insurance company stated the evidence it received did not support the hurt man’s claim and requested any additional information that was available in order to continue to evaluate the insured’s claim. About two years later, the insurer agreed to pay the man $100,000 in UM benefits and stated the amount constituted the insured’s full UM policy limits. After that, the injured motorist filed a second CRN as well as a lawsuit against his insurance company seeking the remaining $100,000 in UM benefits he believed he was entitled to.

Tampa Federal Court Holds Insurer Did Not Commit Bad Faith Following Motorcycle Accident

Published on: March 18, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Rodriguez v. Integon Indemnity Corp., a motorcycle rider was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision. At the time of the crash, the at-fault driver carried bodily injury insurance with a liability limit of up to $100,000 per person and $300,000 per incident. The day after the traffic wreck, the insurer was notified about the accident. A few days later, the claims representative who was assigned to the case sent a letter to the hurt biker stating he would be handling the injured man’s claim. In addition, the insurer sent two letters to the hurt motorcyclist’s attorney stating the company would settle the man’s claim for the full policy limits of $100,000. In both letters, the insurance company misstated the injured man’s first name but provided the appropriate claim number and date of loss.

Less than two weeks after the traffic wreck, the at-fault driver’s insurer sent a proposed release form and a check for $100,000 to the motorcyclist’s lawyer. An accompanying letter asked the man to hold the check in trust until an agreed-upon release could be executed. After the insurer unsuccessfully attempted to contact the law firm on multiple occasions, the motorcyclist’s attorney filed a lawsuit against the at-fault driver and the owner of the vehicle that struck the biker.