Car Accident

Jacksonville Court Rules That Jury Verdict Must be Offset in Underinsured Motorist Coverage Case

Published on: December 3, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Primo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., a man was allegedly injured when his car was struck from behind by an underinsured motorist. As a result of the collision, the man received a $10,000 settlement from the negligent driver. After that, the injured man filed a lawsuit in the Middle District of Florida seeking underinsured motorist benefits from his automobile insurer. In Florida, underinsured motorist coverage is a supplemental automobile insurance policy option that provides a driver with bodily injury and property damage coverage in the event that he or she is involved in a collision with a motorist who lacks sufficient liability insurance coverage.

Prior to trial, the man and his insurer agreed that the underinsured driver acted negligently. Because of this, the only issue for the jury was whether and to what degree the negligent motorist caused the man’s harm. Following trial, the jurors returned a verdict stating the negligent driver caused the man more than $57,000 in past damages. In addition, the jury found that the injured man did not sustain any permanent injuries and declined to award damages based on his future impairment or medical expenses. Ultimately, the jurors failed to award the man any non-economic damages. In general, non-economic damages include pain, suffering, loss of consortium, and other subjective types of harm.

Florida Federal Court Refuses to Dismiss Statutory Bad Faith Claim Arising Out of Broward County Car Accident

Published on: November 24, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Eads v. Allstate Indemnity Co., a Florida woman was permanently injured when the motor vehicle she was traveling in was struck while stopped at a red light in Broward County. The unfortunate car accident apparently hurt at least seven people. Following the collision, the seriously harmed woman and six other individuals filed a personal injury claim against the automobile insurance company that provided liability coverage for the driver who negligently caused the traffic wreck. In response, the insurance company agreed to pay the injured parties a combined total of $20,000. As a result, six of the people who were hurt in the crash received $2,857.

Instead of accepting the settlement offer, the permanently hurt woman filed a lawsuit against the driver who caused the collision and the owner of the automobile in the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. According to the woman’s complaint, the vehicle owner’s insurance company did not investigate or fully evaluate the various personal injury claims filed in connection with the traffic accident. Instead, the woman alleged the insurer offered her a capricious amount of damages and refused to allow its insured to negotiate a settlement with her. Following trial, a Broward County jury awarded the woman more than $300,000 in damages.

Florida’s Fourth District Discusses Essential Elements of a Settlement Agreement in Tragic Auto Accident Case

Published on: November 20, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Thompson v. Estate of Maurice, a young man was unfortunately killed while riding as a passenger in an automobile. Following the collision, the decedent’s parents demanded payment from the liability insurance company that provided coverage for the vehicle. The letter included a settlement offer that expired in one month. The insurer responded with a counteroffer that was nearly identical but requested that the young man’s parents sign a release of all claims against the vehicle’s owner and the liability insurer as a condition of settlement. The release was never signed, and no money exchanged hands.

About two years later, the decedent’s parents filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the estate of the individual who was driving the vehicle at the time of the deadly accident and the owner of the car. In their complaint, the decedent’s parents claimed that the driver caused their son’s death by negligently operating the automobile. They also asserted vicarious liability claims against the owner of the car.

Florida Appeals Court Says Summary Judgment Was Not Proper in Car Accident Dispute

Published on: November 13, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal has reversed and remanded a trial court’s order granting summary judgment in an insurance dispute. In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Manzo-Pianelli, a woman who was operating an insured motor vehicle with permission was involved in a car accident with another automobile. At the time of the collision, the owner of the vehicle carried a liability policy of $100,000 as well as a $1 million umbrella policy with another company. After the traffic wreck, the owner’s auto insurance company provided the policy limits to a woman who was seriously hurt in the collision. In exchange for the payment, the woman agreed to issue a partial release against the owner of the automobile that apparently struck her. The injured woman next sought coverage under the vehicle owner’s umbrella policy. In response, the insurer refused her claim.

About two years later, the woman filed a lawsuit seeking uninsured motorist coverage from her own motor vehicle insurer. After that, the woman’s liability insurer filed a third-party case seeking to clarify “priority of coverage” against the woman, the company that issued the owner of the vehicle’s umbrella policy, and the driver who allegedly caused the accident. Nearly three years later, the injured woman amended her complaint to include the purportedly negligent driver who caused her injuries. Throughout the court proceedings, the owner of the vehicle was never named as a defendant by any party.

Florida Supreme Court Answers Two Certified Questions Over Uninsured Motorist Benefits

Published on: November 6, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Travelers Commercial Insurance Co. v. Harrington, a woman was seriously hurt in a one-car accident while riding as a passenger in her father’s car. The man driving the automobile was not related to the woman, but he was driving the vehicle with her father’s permission. At the time of the single-car crash, the woman and both of her parents carried liability and non-stacked uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage on three vehicles, including the one involved in the accident. The driver also carried liability insurance with a different automobile insurance company.

Following the single-vehicle collision, the driver’s liability insurer paid the woman the policy limits of $50,000 for her harm. In addition, the woman’s own insurance company paid her the $100,000 liability limit under the terms of the policy. Since the woman incurred medical expenses that exceeded this amount, she also sought to recover UM benefits from her insurer. The company stated the vehicle was not uninsured under the terms of the auto insurance policy and denied her claim. According to the company, the policy excluded a family car or truck from the definition of an uninsured or underinsured vehicle.

Middle District of Florida Refuses to Order Summary Judgment in First-Party Bad Faith Case

Published on: October 8, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Cadle v. GEICO General Insurance Co., a woman was apparently hurt in a 2007 Florida rear-end automobile collision. Immediately following the accident, the woman received medical care at a local hospital. Over the course of the next 28 months, the injured woman was treated for her alleged neck and back harm by a number of doctors. In late 2009, she also underwent surgery related to the vehicle crash.

The injured woman’s automobile insurer was reportedly notified of the accident on the date it occurred. About one year later, the company offered to settle the woman’s underinsured motorist (“UM”) claim for $500, although it was authorized to pay her almost $20,000. Instead of accepting the settlement offer, the woman ,sent a demand letter to her insurance company, seeking the full UM policy limits of $75,000. The insured also provided the company with a copy of her medical records and stated she was considering surgery to treat her accident injuries. The following month, the company offered to settle the woman’s UM claim for $1,000.

Fort Myers Federal Court Refuses to Remand Car Accident Case Back to Lee County

Published on: October 1, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Jackson v. St. Jude Medical Neuromodulation Division, a man was injured in a rear-end collision while riding as a passenger in an automobile. About one year later, the man filed a lawsuit in Lee County, Florida seeking damages from both the driver and the owner of the vehicle that rear-ended him. The injured man later amended his complaint to release the named defendants and include the company that insured the allegedly at-fault driver at the time of the crash. In his lawsuit, the man accused the insurer of breach of contract over the company’s purported failure to make timely disability and medical payments related to his traffic wreck injuries.

Several months later, the man again amended his complaint to add a medical device manufacturer to the lawsuit. According to the man, the company manufactured two separate devices that malfunctioned before and after the automobile wreck. About six months later, the medical device manufacturer was served with notice of the case. In response, the company sought removal to federal court. Although both the medical device manufacturer and the automobile insurer consented to removal, the plaintiff claimed the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. After the case was removed to the Middle District of Florida in Fort Myers, the injured man filed a motion for remand.

Florida Appellate Court Overturns Dismissal in Uninsured Motorist Coverage Dispute: Gallon v. GEICO General Insurance Co.

Published on: September 16, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Gallon v. GEICO General Insurance Co., a man was injured in a one-car motor vehicle collision while riding as a passenger in a woman’s automobile. The man was thrown from the car and reportedly sustained serious harm as a result of the traffic wreck. At the time of the incident, the driver carried uninsured motorist (UM) coverage on her vehicle. Following the accident, the man made a claim with the driver’s insurer for UM benefits. The insurance company claimed that the woman’s UM policy limits were $50,000 per individual. The man argued that he was entitled to receive up to $100,000 because the woman maintained UM coverage on two separate vehicles. Since the parties failed to come to an agreement regarding the automobile insurance policy limits, the man filed a lawsuit against the insurer.

As part of his lawsuit, the man accused the automobile insurance company of negligent misrepresentation. In Florida, a party alleging such a cause of action must be able to demonstrate that a material fact was misrepresented, the party making the misrepresentation knew or should have known the statement was false, the statement was made to induce another to act on the misrepresentation, and injury resulted to the party who reasonably relied on the untrue statement.

According to the injured man, the driver’s insurance policy lapsed and was reinstated for a higher premium prior to the single-vehicle wreck. He claimed that a representative for the insurer told the woman her policy would pay double UM benefits in the event of a collision because she carried coverage on two autos. The injured man argued the insurer’s agent said this in order to convince the driver to pay higher premiums. The man also stated the driver relied on the worker’s statement, only to have the company limit the man’s damages award to $50,000. The insurance company countered that the driver could not have reasonably relied on the employee’s statement because it directly conflicted with the unambiguous language of the automobile insurance policy. A trial court sided with the insurer and granted the company’s motion to dismiss the man’s lawsuit.

Florida Appeals Court Certifies Bad Faith Insurance Claim Question to Supreme Court: Boozer v. Stalley

Published on: September 12, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeals has certified a question of law to the Supreme Court of Florida in a bad faith insurance dispute. In Boozer v. Stalley, a boy was hurt in a motor vehicle collision that was apparently caused by a woman who was covered by two automobile insurance policies issued by related insurers. Following the collision, the guardian of the boy filed a negligence lawsuit against the woman, and her insurer secured an attorney to represent her. Following trial, jurors awarded the boy more than $11 million in damages. The insurance company paid the policy limits of $1.1 million, and the boy was unable to collect the remaining $10 million. Later, the boy’s guardian filed a third-party bad faith insurance claim against the woman’s liability insurance company. The same attorney continued to appear on behalf of the woman at the request of the insurer during post-judgment proceedings.

As part of the bad faith insurance lawsuit, the boy’s guardian sought to depose the at-fault motorist’s lawyer. The attorney refused to be questioned and asserted the attorney-client privilege. The attorney-client privilege requires a licensed attorney to protect most confidential statements made by a client in connection with his or her legal representation from disclosure. Despite this, a client may waive the privilege in a number of ways. After a trial court ordered the attorney to submit to deposition, he appeared as instructed. Although the legal advocate answered general questions posed by the boy’s guardian, the lawyer refused to disclose information he felt was privileged. The deposition was adjourned, and the woman and her attorney filed a petition for review with the Fifth District Appeals Court.

According to the boy’s guardian, his evidentiary requests were appropriate because Florida precedent states he may obtain discovery materials that would have been available to the at-fault driver. The Fifth District disagreed, however, and held that the lower court’s order compelling the woman’s attorney to disclose legally privileged materials was inappropriate and should be quashed. After analyzing the relevant case law, the Fifth District stated precedent shields attorney-client communications from discovery in a first-party bad faith claim. Since Florida case law is currently silent regarding whether attorney-client communications are shielded from discovery in a third-party bad faith insurance case, Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeals certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court.

Florida Appeals Court Refuses to Limit Discovery Regarding Doctor’s Relationship With Law Firm in Car Accident Negligence Case: Brown v. Mittelman

Published on: September 5, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Brown v. Mittelman, a plaintiff who was injured in a car accident sought medical treatment from a physician following the collision. The plaintiff’s attorney apparently referred the plaintiff to the medical provider. In addition, the doctor reportedly treated the plaintiff under a letter of protection agreement. Such an agreement is generally used to help an injured person pay for medical care they would not be able to afford otherwise. In many cases, a letter of protection is sent to a medical provider by a plaintiff’s attorney who agrees to remit payment for services following an accident settlement.

After the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, the defendant sought to discover certain billing documents from the non-party physician. The doctor objected to the defendant’s request, and a trial court overruled the medical provider’s objections. After that, the lower court compelled discovery of the evidence that was sought by the defendants. In response, the non-party physician filed a writ of certiorari seeking to quash discovery with Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals.

According to the physician, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5) prohibited discovery of the information sought by the defendant because there was no evidence to support the notion that the plaintiff’s law firm directly referred the plaintiff to him for treatment. The appellate court disagreed and stated a lawyer’s financial relationship with a medical provider is discoverable because the relationship may result in bias. The Fourth District added that jurors should be allowed to review evidence related to such a relationship because the doctor may have a financial interest in the outcome of the plaintiff’s negligence lawsuit.