South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Florida Premises Liability and Unmarked Hazards in Parking Garages

Published on: March 15, 2025 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Florida, property owners have a legal duty to maintain safe premises for visitors. When hazards exist in areas where people walk, owners must take reasonable steps to prevent injuries. Parking garages, designed primarily for vehicles, often double as pedestrian walkways. If an unmarked obstacle causes someone to trip and fall, questions arise about whether the property owner failed to uphold its responsibilities. A recent Florida appellate court decision reversed a trial court ruling after an injury victim presented evidence that an unmarked hazard in a parking garage created an unreasonable danger.

Raised Concrete Slab in a Florida Parking Garage Leads to Injury

A resort guest fell in a Miami parking garage after tripping over a raised concrete slab used to anchor a vehicle gate-arm. The hazard was unmarked and the same color as the surrounding pavement, making it difficult to detect. The injured individual filed a lawsuit against the property owner, alleging that the unmarked obstruction posed an unreasonably dangerous condition and that the owner failed to ensure a safe walking surface.

Florida Bad Faith Insurance Claims and Civil Remedy Notice Requirements

Published on: March 7, 2025 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida law allows policyholders to pursue bad faith claims against the insurer when an insurance company refuses to honor its policy obligations. However, before filing such a lawsuit, the policyholder must submit a Civil Remedy Notice (CRN) outlining the alleged violations and allowing the insurer to correct its conduct. A recent appellate decision overturned a lower court’s ruling that dismissed a bad faith lawsuit against Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company, finding that the insurer had waived any objections to the adequacy of the CRN.

Florida Court Reverses Dismissal of Bad Faith Claim

A Florida driver sustained injuries in a 2011 rear-end collision caused by another motorist with a $10,000 insurance policy through GEICO. The driver had underinsured motorist (UM) coverage with Travelers and sought additional compensation under that policy. Travelers refused to provide benefits, prompting the insured to file a CRN in 2012, a necessary step in pursuing a bad faith claim under Florida Statutes § 624.155.

Under Florida law, a policyholder must submit a detailed CRN to both the insurance company and the Department of Insurance before filing a bad faith lawsuit. The insurer then has 60 days to correct the issue or pay the claim, thereby avoiding litigation. After Travelers did not resolve the dispute, the insured filed suit in 2013, leading to years of litigation over the insurer’s handling of the claim.

Miami-Dade Schools Police Officer and Deputy Injured in Miami Crash

Published on: February 28, 2025 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A Miami-Dade Schools Police officer and a Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office deputy were hospitalized after their vehicles collided outside Northwestern Senior High School. The crash occurred at the intersection of Northwest 67th Street and 10th Avenue around 4:50 p.m. Emergency responders transported both individuals to Jackson Memorial Hospital’s Ryder Trauma Center. Authorities expect both to recover, but investigating the circumstances remains ongoing.

What Happens When a Government Vehicle Causes a Crash?

Collisions involving government vehicles raise unique legal questions. When a law enforcement car, fire truck, or other public service vehicle crashes into a civilian car, pursuing compensation requires different steps than a standard auto accident claim. The government has legal protections that do not apply to private citizens, and these protections can limit liability or set strict requirements for filing claims.

Holding a government agency accountable differs from filing a claim against a private driver. Florida’s sovereign immunity laws restrict lawsuits against state and local agencies but allow claims under certain conditions. Victims of government-related crashes must follow specific procedures, including filing a formal notice of claim within a set deadline. Failure to meet these requirements may prevent recovery for medical expenses, lost wages, and other damages.

Florida Appeals Court Orders New Trial in Personal Injury Case Involving GEICO

Published on: February 18, 2025 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A recent Florida appellate court decision highlights the importance of accurate legal terminology in personal injury litigation and the potential consequences of trial court rulings on jury perception. The case centers around an October 2019 car accident in which the victim was rear-ended by a motorist whose insurance coverage was insufficient to compensate for the injuries sustained fully. The following lawsuit ultimately led to a dispute over whether the trial court’s classification of the tortfeasor as “uninsured” rather than “underinsured” unfairly impacted the proceedings, prompting an appellate court to order a new trial.

The Facts Behind the Lawsuit

Following the rear-end collision, the victim suffered injuries that she alleged were permanent. At the time of the accident, she carried an automobile insurance policy with GEICO, which included uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage with policy limits of $250,000 per person and $500,000 per accident. The driver who struck her vehicle had bodily injury liability limits of $100,000, less than the total damages the plaintiff sought.

The victim and her husband initially filed suit against the at-fault driver, alleging negligence. As the litigation progressed, they amended their complaint to include GEICO, asserting that the tortfeasor was underinsured and the victim was entitled to recover damages through her uninsured/underinsured motorist policy.

Disputes Over Jury Instructions and Evidentiary Rulings

One of the central issues in the case revolved around how the at-fault driver was characterized in court. Before trial, the victim moved to prevent any mention of the tortfeasor’s insurance status, arguing that references to underinsured motorist coverage could lead the jury to speculate about settlements. The trial court granted this request, instructing that the tortfeasor should only be considered “uninsured.”

Who Is Responsible When a Delivery Worker Dies in a Traffic Accident?

Published on: February 11, 2025 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A devastating crash in Pembroke Pines has left a family searching for answers. A scooter rider lost his life after colliding with a car while completing a food delivery. Video from the scene showed the scooter trapped beneath the front of the vehicle, illustrating the severity of the impact. Family members now hope for justice as law enforcement investigates.

When a traffic accident results in death, Florida law allows surviving relatives to pursue compensation if another party’s negligence played a role. Fatal crashes involving delivery workers raise unique legal questions. Determining liability is essential, especially when corporate insurance policies, driver negligence, or hazardous road conditions contribute to a collision. Families left behind may be eligible to file a wrongful death claim to seek financial recovery for funeral costs, lost income, and emotional suffering.

Delivery Drivers Face Greater Risks on the Road

Scooter riders and cyclists delivering food or packages must navigate congested streets while competing for space with larger vehicles. Unlike those in cars, they have no physical protection when a crash occurs. Many work long hours in unpredictable traffic conditions, increasing their exposure to reckless drivers. Some accidents happen when motorists fail to check for scooters while making turns or changing lanes. Others occur when distracted driving, speeding, or failing to yield leads to a preventable collision.

While food delivery companies provide app-based platforms for workers, they typically classify drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. This distinction limits their legal responsibility when accidents happen, often shifting the burden onto individual drivers and their insurance coverage. However, certain circumstances may allow families to hold additional parties responsible for a fatal crash.

Who Can Be Held Responsible for a Fatal Workplace Accident?

Published on: February 5, 2025 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A tree trimmer lost his life in a horrific accident in Ocean Ridge while working on his first day at a new job. Witnesses saw him get caught in a wood chipper, and by the time coworkers reached the machine, it was too late to stop the equipment. His family, living in Mexico, now faces the devastating loss of a loved one while authorities continue their investigation.

Accidents like this raise critical questions about responsibility. Employers must provide safe working conditions, but safety regulations are not consistently enforced in industries like landscaping, where seasonal workers are often hired. If the employer fails to follow proper safety protocols, the equipment malfunctions, or someone fails to act quickly, liability may extend beyond workers’ compensation benefits. Homeowners hiring landscaping services may also wonder whether they bear any responsibility when a worker is injured or killed on their property.

Safety Requirements for Seasonal and Temporary Workers

Florida Workers’ Compensation and the Statute of Limitations

Published on: January 30, 2025 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Workers’ compensation benefits provide essential support for employees recovering from work-related injuries. These benefits often include ongoing medical care, especially for permanent conditions requiring long-term supervision. However, disputes can arise when employers or insurance carriers claim that the statute of limitations bars further benefits, cutting off an injured worker’s access to care. A recent Florida appellate court decision highlights this issue, emphasizing the importance of understanding how the statute of limitations operates in workers’ compensation cases and the role of tolling periods in preserving an injured worker’s rights.

The Role of the Statute of Limitations in Workers’ Compensation

Under Florida’s workers’ compensation laws, an employee generally has two years from the date of their injury—or the date they knew or should have known the injury was work-related—to file a petition for benefits (PFB). However, this timeframe can be extended when an employer or insurance carrier provides authorized medical care related to the injury. Each instance of authorized treatment restarts the tolling period, effectively giving the injured worker additional time to file a claim.

In the recent case, the employer and its servicing agent argued that the statute of limitations had expired, barring the injured worker from filing a PFB for further care. The worker, who had suffered a compensable injury requiring the removal of a kidney, had been receiving ongoing follow-up care from an authorized urologist for years. When the urologist stopped billing the servicing agent, the employer claimed the tolling period had ended, making the worker’s PFB time-barred. However, the appellate court disagreed, finding that the worker’s visits to the authorized urologist constituted furnished care, which extended the statute of limitations.

Understanding Sovereign Immunity and Pre-Suit Notice in Florida Personal Injury Cases

Published on: January 22, 2025 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s sovereign immunity laws protect government agencies and employees from lawsuits except under specific conditions. When a government employee causes harm, sovereign immunity can only be waived if the injured party strictly complies with the pre-suit notice requirements outlined in section 768.28(6) of the Florida Statutes. These requirements ensure the responsible agency receives proper notice of the claim, allowing it to investigate and address the issue before litigation begins. In a recent case from Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal, the court reversed a trial court’s decision denying summary judgment to a sheriff’s office. The injured party failed to meet the pre-suit notice conditions required under section 768.28(6), leading the court to determine that sovereign immunity had not been waived. This decision underscores the importance of following statutory requirements precisely when filing a claim against a government entity.

What Is Sovereign Immunity?

Sovereign immunity shields government agencies and employees from being sued without their consent. Florida Statutes allow limited waivers of this protection under specific circumstances, but strict compliance with the outlined procedures is necessary. When suing a government entity for negligence, you must adhere to pre-suit notice requirements to proceed with the claim. Pre-suit notice under section 768.28(6) requires claimants to notify the appropriate agency of their claim in writing. This notice must include the specific details of the alleged negligence and demand compensation. Failing to meet these conditions bars the claimant from pursuing the lawsuit, as sovereign immunity remains intact. Florida courts have repeatedly emphasized the importance of following these statutory requirements without deviation.

The Importance of Proper Pre-Suit Notice

Pre-suit notice serves an essential purpose in claims involving government agencies. It provides the state or its subdivisions sufficient time to investigate the allegations and potentially resolve the claim before litigation. Florida law requires claimants to provide written notice to the appropriate agency and the Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS) within three years of the incident. The recent appellate court decision involved a claimant who sent notices to several entities but failed to send proper notice to the sheriff’s office responsible for the alleged negligence. Emails sent by the claimant’s attorney’s office to the sheriff’s office included basic information about the accident but did not meet the statutory requirement of presenting a formal claim for compensation. The court found that these communications were insufficient to waive sovereign immunity.

Determining Liability When a Rideshare Driver Causes a Fatal Accident

Published on: January 14, 2025 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Accidents involving rideshare drivers often leave victims and their families facing uncertainty about who is responsible. A recent fatal collision in Florida involving a rideshare contractor highlights the challenges of determining liability in such cases. The decision to clear the rideshare company of responsibility sheds light on the factors that influence accountability under Florida law.

Rideshare Contractor’s Status at the Time of the Accident

According to the judicial opinion, the tragic accident involved a rideshare contractor who had been disengaged from the platform for several months. Driving a personal vehicle after completing a private errand, the individual entered a roadway where the fatal collision occurred. Evidence showed the driver was not logged into the rideshare app and was not performing any tasks for the company at the time.

In court, the rideshare company successfully argued that it could not be held liable under these circumstances. Florida law requires a clear connection between drivers’ activities and rideshare duties to establish corporate responsibility. Since the contractor was on personal business, the court ruled in favor of the company.

Limitations of Expert Testimony in Florida Personal Injury Cases

Published on: January 7, 2025 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Expert testimony is crucial in personal injury trials, helping juries understand an incident’s technical or scientific aspects. However, when experts testify outside the boundaries of their expertise, their opinions risk prejudicing the jury and affecting the case outcome. A recent decision from Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal highlights these issues, focusing on the scope of biomechanical expert testimony in personal injury cases. In this case, the appellate court ruled that the trial court improperly allowed a biomechanical engineer to offer medical causation opinions, exceeding the expert’s qualifications and warranting a new trial.

Biomechanical engineers are frequently called upon in personal injury cases to explain the forces involved in an accident and how a hypothetical person might respond to those forces. While their expertise is valuable in understanding mechanics and dynamics, it does not extend to diagnosing or determining the specific cause of an individual’s injuries. The Fifth District’s opinion underscores the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between engineering analysis and medical conclusions in personal injury litigation.

What Biomechanical Experts Can Address

Biomechanical engineers provide insight into how physical forces from an accident interact with the human body. Their analyses often focus on whether the forces involved could generate specific injury mechanisms in a general sense. For example, a biomechanical expert might testify about the likelihood of a particular type of injury occurring given the speed of a collision, the position of a vehicle occupant, or the physical properties of the human body. This type of testimony helps jurors understand the mechanics of the accident without delving into individualized medical conclusions.