Car Accident

Florida’s Second District Overturns Punitive Damages Award Where Evidence Did Not Demonstrate a Reckless Disregard for Human Life

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

In L.E. Myers Co. v. Young, a business contracted with a Florida utility company to install several new power poles in Manatee County, Florida. As part of the contract, the business was tasked with installing four 85-foot-long concrete poles that weighed about 21,000 pounds each along a Bradenton street in compliance with the utility company’s specifications. In addition, the company was required to provide traffic control while working along the street.

Each pole was installed using a crane that was provided and operated by a third party. While one of the poles was being installed, one of the tractor-trailers used to transport the poles was parked in the emergency lane of the roadway. Although the pole was completely off the street, a truck tire was hanging over the white line that was painted on the road. Because of this, a safety supervisor who was employed by the contractor placed traffic cones and warning signs on the street near the work site.

Not All Evidence is Admissible in a South Florida Car Accident Case

Published on: March 5, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Frost v. McNeilus, two defendants admitted to liability for a Florida motor vehicle collision that resulted in injuries to a plaintiff. Although the parties came to an agreement regarding the amount of past medical bills the plaintiff was entitled to receive, they disagreed about her future medical expenses as well as her pain and suffering. Prior to trial, the defendants filed a motion in limine with the Middle District of Florida. In general, such a motion is used to ask a judge to exclude certain evidence at trial.

In their motion, the defendants argued the plaintiff should not be allowed to introduce evidence they felt was irrelevant and offered solely to “curry favor with the jury.” The defendants stated that information related to the plaintiff’s Christian missionary upbringing and education as well as her son’s military service would be unfairly prejudicial to them. The plaintiff countered that information regarding her background would help jurors more accurately apportion damages, particularly with regard to the types of activities she claimed she could no longer enjoy as a result of the crash. The plaintiff also claimed that her religious beliefs were relevant because she believes divorce is not an option even though she felt the accident put unnecessary strain on her marriage.

Florida Supreme Court Says Auto Insurer Issued New Policy When it Changed the Sole Named Insured in UM Benefits Dispute

Published on: March 2, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Florida has resolved a conflict between two District Courts of Appeal in an uninsured motorist insurance dispute. In Chase v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., a man purchased motor vehicle insurance with bodily injury liability limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident from an insurance company. At the time, the man also elected uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per incident. The man’s daughter was listed as a driver on the policy, but she was not a named insured.

Three years later, the insurer made the man’s daughter the sole named insured on the automobile policy and listed the father as a driver. The insured vehicle which was titled in the daughter’s name was also updated. When the change was made, the daughter was not presented with a UM rejection form. Around the same time, the insurer issued an entirely new policy to the father. Although the daughter eventually moved out of her father’s home and removed him from her auto policy, she later moved back in and once again added him as a driver on her policy. At no point was she provided with the opportunity to select lower UM limits or reject coverage in writing.

First District Court of Appeal in Florida Overturns Summary Judgment in Favor of Auto Insurer Despite That Applicant Made Material Misrepresentations

Published on: February 25, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Echo v. MGA Insurance Co., Inc., a Florida woman purchased an automobile using another individual’s name. Despite doing so, she obtained a motor vehicle insurance policy on the vehicle in her own name. In her application, the woman stated she was the owner of the insured vehicle and the only licensed driver in the household. About one year after purchasing the insurance policy, the woman was involved in a traffic wreck while driving the car. Following the crash, the woman apparently sought medical care from a number of physicians. After that, she submitted a personal injury protection (“PIP”) claim related to her medical expenses to her auto insurer.

In response to the woman’s medical benefits claim, the auto insurer denied coverage as a result of the purportedly material misrepresentation she made on her vehicle insurance application. According to the insurance company, it would have chosen not to issue the automobile policy or it would have charged a higher premium if the woman had been truthful on her application. In addition to denying the woman’s accident claim, the insurer stated the policy was void ab initio, or from the beginning, and refunded all premiums that were paid to it by the woman. The woman apparently did not cash the refund check.

Florida Appeals Court Holds Employer May Select Different UIM Policy Limits for its Insureds

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

In Germany v. Darby, a Florida man was hurt in a work-related motor vehicle collision that was caused by an uninsured driver. At the time of the traffic wreck, the man was driving a car that was owned by his employer. The employer carried an underinsured and uninsured motorist (“UIM”) policy on the vehicle with limits of up to $500,000 for company “executives, owners, and their family members” and $30,000 for all other individuals. When the employer purchased the policy, the company elected UIM policy limits that were lower than its $1 million bodily injury liability insurance limits on an approved Florida Office of Insurance Regulation form.

Following the crash, the man challenged the limits of his employer’s UIM insurance coverage in a Florida court. According to the man, different UIM policy limits are not allowed under Section 627.727(1) of the Florida Statutes. After analyzing the statute at issue, the trial court disagreed with the man and held that differing UIM coverage limits were permitted under the law. Next, the man filed an appeal with Florida’s First District Court of Appeal.

Middle District of Florida Denies Motion for Summary Judgment in Bad Faith Insurance Case

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

In Taylor v. Geico Indemnity Co., a driver was involved in an at-fault motor vehicle collision with a motorcyclist. Following the traffic wreck, the biker was treated for numerous broken bones. The motorcyclist elected to receive compensation from his own motor vehicle insurer, which would then seek subrogation from the at-fault driver’s liability insurance company. At the time of the collision, the automobile driver carried $10,000 in bodily injury and property damage liability accident coverage.

Eventually, 90 percent of the fault for the collision was attributed to the insured car driver. As a result, the man’s liability insurer notified him that he may be liable for any damages to the motorcyclist that exceeded the limits of the liability insurance policy he carried.

Northern District of Florida Rules Bad Faith Insurance Case Was Filed Prematurely

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

In Mann v. Taylor, a woman was hurt in a traffic collision that was allegedly caused by another driver. As a result of her accident, she filed a negligence lawsuit against the at-fault motorist in a Florida court. The injured woman also sought uninsured motorist benefits from her own automobile insurance company. In addition, the hurt motorist accused the company of refusing to settle her claim in good faith and asked the court to issue a declaratory judgment against the insurer. After the insurer successfully removed the woman’s case to the Northern District of Florida based on diversity of citizenship, the business filed a motion to dismiss or strike portions of the hurt driver’s claims against the company.

First, the federal court stated an injured person may bring an uninsured motorist case against his or her auto insurance company before resolving the individual’s claim against the negligent party. After examining the woman’s complaint, however, the Northern District of Florida found that the injured driver’s request for relief was unclear and ambiguous. Since the claim was not sufficiently pleaded, the court dismissed the hurt woman’s uninsured motorist benefits claim with leave to amend it in the future.

Florida’s Second District Reverses Over Trial Court’s Erroneous PIP Offset Ruling

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

In Moody v. Dorsett, a man was hurt in a motor vehicle collision that a jury determined was caused by another driver. As a result, jurors returned a verdict of about $11,000 against the negligent woman. Prior to trial, the man received approximately $5,500 in personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits from his automobile insurer. After the jury returned its verdict, the negligent driver asked the court to offset the award by the amount of PIP benefits that were received by the injured man. The trial court refused, and the woman filed an appeal with Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal.

In the State of Florida, drivers must maintain $10,000 in PIP insurance protection. This coverage allows a motorist or other individual to collect up to $10,000 in order to pay for any immediate medical expenses regardless of fault. In order to recover under a PIP policy, current Florida law requires an individual who was injured in a motor vehicle collision to seek medical care within two weeks of the traffic wreck. A PIP policy will typically pay for 80 percent of an accident victim’s medical costs up to the policy’s limit of liability. A Florida motorist may increase that coverage to 100 percent of his or her accident-related medical expenses by purchasing an optional extended PIP policy.

Southern District of Florida Holds UIM Benefits Case Must be Adjudicated Before Bad Faith Insurance Claim May be Considered

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

In Shapiro v. Government Employees Insurance Co., a couple was seriously injured in a Florida automobile accident that was caused by an uninsured motorist. At the time of the collision, the hurt individuals maintained an uninsured and underinsured motorist (“UIM”) policy on each of their vehicles. Following the automobile crash, the couple sought financial compensation from their UIM insurer. Unfortunately, the insurance company refused to pay the couple damages for the harm each sustained in the traffic wreck. As a result, the couple filed a claim for UIM benefits in Broward County. The couple also sought a declaratory judgment under Sections 86.011 and 86.111 of the Florida Statutes and accused their UIM insurer of committing bad faith.

In response to the couple’s complaint, the insurance company removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, based on diversity of citizenship. After that, the company filed a motion to dismiss the couple’s bad faith claim as well as their request for a declaratory judgment.

Appeals Court Says Video Deposition Evidence May be Used During Closing Argument in Florida

Published on: January 5, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s First District has refused to order a new trial in a truck accident case. In Borden Dairy Co. of Alabama, LLC v. Kuhajda, a woman was apparently hurt in a Florida traffic collision that was caused by the driver of a 30-foot delivery truck. Following the accident, the woman filed a negligence lawsuit against the driver of the truck and his employer in state court. In her complaint, the woman sought financial compensation for the injuries she allegedly sustained in the motor vehicle crash.

The delivery truck driver’s videotaped deposition was admitted into evidence at trial. At the time, neither defendant objected to its inclusion. In addition, the driver testified before jurors that the collision occurred while he was turning left out of a parking lot across a divided highway. The man claimed that another car unexpectedly pulled out of a different parking lot and prevented him from continuing on his intended path. As a result, the driver stated the delivery truck was stopped with the trailer blocking each of the southbound lanes of the roadway when the accident occurred.