South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

The Difficulties Presented by Florida Chain Reaction Car Accidents

Published on: March 25, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Whether it’s just a small fender bender or a serious crash that stops traffic for hours, car accidents are usually an extremely stressful event for everyone involved. When car accidents involve multiple vehicles and a series of collisions, however, the stress and danger of the situation are amplified. These types of collisions, otherwise known as Florida chain-reaction car accidents, occur when they involve three or more vehicles and can often have devastating consequences.

In a recent news article, a deadly multi-vehicle truck accident shut down a major Florida highway. The collision involved a rolled-over cement truck and several other trucks along a significant stretch of the road. According to local authorities, there is at least one confirmed death following the accident.

In Florida, chain reaction accidents are all too common. Following these collisions, figuring out how the accident actually took place is rarely simple or straightforward. If there were multiple drivers involved, it immediately becomes complicated as parties try to determine who hit who and what was the actual cause of the accident. These determinations are often messy and may require a professional accident reconstruction expert or team to assess the issue or conduct an investigation before moving forward.

The Civil Remedy Notice Requirement in a Florida Insurance Bad Faith Lawsuit

Published on: March 22, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

After a Florida insurance claim, policyholders may file a first-party claim with their insurance company seeking benefits under the terms of the policy. First-party bad-faith claims occur when a policyholder sues their own insurance provider for unlawful and improper denial or settlement of a claim. Third-party bad faith actions have long been recognized; however, the Legislature enacted Florida Statute §624.155, to address first-party causes of action. Courts will evaluate the totality of the circumstances to determine whether an insurance provider has acted in good faith. Some of the common factors they evaluate are whether the insurance company investigated the facts, gave fair consideration to the circumstances, and settled the claim where possible. In cases where the insurance company did not engage in these steps, they may be held liable for their statutory breach.

A claimant may only recover against an insurance company if they meet the statute’s condition precedent. One of the condition precedents is filing a Civil Remedy Notice (CRN) with the Department of Financial Services (DFS). The failure to do meet this requirement may lead to a dismissal of a claimant’s case. For example, recently, an appellate court issued an opinion in a Florida homeowner’s claim against his insurance company. In that case, the insurance company disputed a property owner’s claim regarding water damage to his home. After filing a CRN, the property owner moved forward with a bad faith claim against the insurer. The court dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the plaintiff did not meet the requirements of the CRN.

The CRN statute outlines the specific information that a claimant must include in their notice. In sum, the notice must essentially specifically state the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, and the specific relevant policy language that the insurer is alleged to have breached. In this case, the court found that the plaintiff cited every provision in the insurance claim to meet the specificity requirement. The court found that citing every provision does not meet the specificity standard. The plaintiff argued that the insurance company’s failure to allow him to correct the defect meant that the CRN was sufficient. However, the court ruled that the insurer’s option to return a defective notice is discretionary. Therefore, because he did not meet the specificity standard, the court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice.

Understanding Florida’s Following-Too-Closely Law

Published on: March 18, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Sometimes, when you are in a rush, you may find yourself impatiently following the car ahead of you closer than what you know is safe. In some states, such as Florida, this could get you a traffic citation if an accident takes place or you disrupt traffic. In Florida, it is recommended that drivers keep at least a two-vehicle length between their car and the vehicles ahead of them. This is to ensure that should the vehicles ahead of you stop suddenly or if debris falls onto the roadway and obscures your path, that you have ample time to avoid an auto accident.

For a somewhat harsh application of this rule, consider a recent article in which a couple who barely survived a terrifying accident on the freeway was issued a traffic ticket following the incident. While driving down the freeway, the couple was behind a truck when a couch fell off the truck and tumbled into their lane. When the couple swerved to avoid hitting the couch, they crashed into the median and their car flipped over. The vehicle was totaled and both individuals were transported to a local hospital. A Florida Highway Patrol trooper showed up to present them with a $166 traffic ticket for “failing to drive in a single lane.” Although it was a tough break for the couple, the Florida Highway Patrol claimed that troopers have discretion when issuing traffic citations. Fortunately, the couple walked away with only minor injuries, and a ticket—which some would argue is a small price to pay for surviving what could have been a tragic accident.

In Florida, the “Following Too Closely” statute states that drivers cannot follow vehicles ahead of them more closely than is “reasonable and prudent” and must keep the speed of other vehicles and the traffic and conditions of the highway in mind while operating their vehicles.

What Can You Do if a Florida Insurance Company Denies Your Claim?

Published on: March 15, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

To many people, even the thought of dealing with your insurance company is a headache. Unfortunately, insurance coverage is an important part of our lives, especially in areas such as home ownership, renter’s coverage, and auto insurance. When an insurance company in Florida acts in bad faith or causes damage to a policyholder because of their conduct, holding them accountable can be challenging without proper representation.

In a recent Florida District Court of Appeal case, the court considered whether a homeowner’s insurance claim was filed properly. According to the court’s opinion, the homeowner initially filed a claim with his homeowner’s insurance company for damages to his home that was caused by a fire.

The insurance company’s investigation revealed that the homeowner previously filed two plumbing claims and another claim for fire damage with a different insurance company. In addition, the insurance company discovered that after the homeowner received the insurance payout from one of the previous claims, he did not repair the damage. The company believed that earlier damage overlapped with damage from the current claim.

Florida on Track to Repeal No-Fault Insurance System

Published on: March 11, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Currently, Florida follows the no-fault insurance system, requiring motorists to maintain personal injury protection (PIP) insurance coverage. However, Florida lawmakers proposed Senate Bill 54, which would eliminate the state’s no-fault insurance requirement. The current system allows a claimant’s insurance company to pay the insured’s bills, regardless of their fault. Critics of the no-fault system argue that the current framework evokes many fraudulent claims and the coverage limit is insufficient. On the other hand, critics of the change contend that the new system may leave injury victims in a precarious financial position, as insurance companies will not automatically pay out claims.

The new law would require motorists to carry bodily injury liability coverage, which would allow insurance companies to pay up to $25,000 for collision-related injuries or death or up to $50,000 for crashes involving two or more individuals. The new system would retain the current $10,000 financial responsibility requirement for property damage. However, it modifies the coverage limits for commercial motor vehicle coverage and garage liability. A critical change that may impact injury victims is that the repeal will eliminate the pain and suffering damage limitations.

In many cases, Florida accident victims need to seek compensation outside of the no-fault insurance system because their damages exceed policy limits. The change will have a more considerable impact on bad faith claims against Florida insurance companies. The new framework will include best practices standards for insurance companies to settle disputes. However, the bill also includes the condition precedents an insured must meet before asserting a claim.

Florida Insurance Companies Have an Obligation to Act in Good Faith

Published on: March 8, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Many people purchase insurance to protect against economic losses stemming from personal injury or property damage. In exchange for premiums, the insurance company must uphold its duties to the policyholder. The duties include providing coverage, paying valid claims, and adhering to the policy’s terms. Policyholders who believe their insurance company is violating their agreement may file a Florida bad faith claim against their insurer.

Insurance bad faith claims fall under first-party and third-party claims. Third-party bad faith insurance claims typically involve liability insurance. Bad faith claims occur when an insurer breached their duty to defend their policyholder and pay costs. Common examples of third-party insurance include, liability insurance, malpractice insurance, and commercial liability insurance. First-party insurance is a claim against a policyholder’s insurance company. Bad faith claims arise when a policyholder’s insurance company fails to pay a claim without an appropriate investigation or basis for a denial. This often includes claims against a health or homeowner’s insurance provider, but also in claims involving an accident with an uninsured or underinsured driver.

Under Florida law, a policyholder may file a first-party bad faith claim against their insurance provider. A lawsuit is appropriate if the insurer failed to engage in good faith by acting fairly and honestly towards its policyholder. For example, an appellate court recently issued an opinion in a homeowner’s appeal of a judgment in favor of their insurance company. In that case, a water supply line burst in the homeowners’ home. Following the burst, the homeowners’ filed a claim under their insurance policy. Their insurance company investigated the claim and tendered a payment the homeowners thought was insufficient. In response, the owners filed a civil remedy notice (CRN) alleging bad faith violations. They also asserted an amount that could cure the violations. The insurance company acknowledged the CRN, and the matter proceeded to appraisal. Following the appraisal, the company paid an amount less than the homeowners’ requested.

What Is a Florida Underride Truck Accident?

Published on: March 4, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Federal and state laws mandate that car and SUV manufacturers equip their vehicles with safety features to prevent serious injuries. However, despite the heightened dangers of large commercial trucks, many of these vehicles do not have the same safety features. Further, the safety standards do not always address the scope of the vehicle’s dangers. As such, Florida accidents involving large trucks often result in serious and fatal injuries.

For example, a recent Florida news report described a disturbing underride accident involving a minivan and tractor-trailer. The accident occurred when the semi-truck was turning onto a roadway near State Road 520. The minivan was turning at the same time and went underneath the truck. Emergency personnel immediately removed two of the minivan occupants and transported them to a hospital. The minivan driver required assistance from firefighters to extricate her from her vehicle. State Police reported that the accident is still under investigation.

Many Florida trucking collisions involve underride accidents. An underride accident occurs when a smaller vehicle slams into the side or backend of a truck’s trailer and slides underneath. The shape and design of the back of a truck often cause a smaller vehicle to become trapped underneath. The sheer impact of these accidents may result in the top of the car ripping off or becoming crushed. As a result, the car’s occupants often suffer the brunt of the initial impact. Underride accident victims rarely leave the accident unscathed. These accidents typically result in traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, internal organ damage, sprained and broken bones, paralysis, and disfigurement.

Damages from a Florida Personal Injury Lawsuit May Close the Gap in Medical Coverage for Accident Victims

Published on: February 26, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida leads the country in one of the highest rates of serious car accidents. Recent reports by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS) indicated nearly 400,000 Florida motor vehicle accidents occurred in one year. In addition to about 3,000 fatal injuries, over 40% of the accidents resulted in non-deadly severe injuries. These injuries and fatalities often leave the victim and their families with high medical costs. The financial repercussions of these accidents can present lifelong burdens for victims. Car accident victims can recover compensation from different avenues.

Under Florida’s no-fault insurance rules, all insured drivers may recover damages for medical bills regardless of fault. The law requires motorists to obtain at least 10,000 in Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage. PIP is intended to compensate injury victims for their medical expenses after an accident. However, this coverage typically only covers 80% of a victim’s medical costs. Further, injury victims must meet the strictest rules regarding medical treatment. Victims must receive treatment from a qualified medical professional within 14 days of the collision. If a victim’s injuries or medical conditions do not meet a qualifying condition, the insured may not be able to draw the entire amount of coverage.

In situations where a victim does not maintain PIP coverage or exhausts the limits, they must make a claim through their private insurer. However, patients must still pay their co-pays and deductibles. These amounts may be high in many cases, especially if the victim requires significant inpatient or recurring outpatient treatment.

Florida Weather-Related Car and Truck Accidents

Published on: February 24, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Motorists in Florida rarely encounter winter-weather driving conditions; however, the current weather episodes throughout the southern United States highlight the importance of being prepared for all driving conditions. Florida leads the nation with one of the highest rates of car accidents in the country. These accidents can result in serious and fatal injuries to drivers, passengers, and bystanders. Drivers should take steps to understand how weather can affect road and driving conditions.

Ice storms and accumulation presents drivers with some of the worst driving conditions. Icy roads tend to occur after snow accumulation or freezing rain. The snow that is not cleared can melt and refreeze, resulting in patches of black ice. Motorists approaching ice or potential black ice should refrain from slamming on their brakes. Instead, if a driver finds themselves skidding or sliding on ice, they should steer in the same direction as their front tires. After regaining control, the driver can slowly steer the car in the direction they want to go in. Quickly jerking the steering wheel can cause the vehicle to spin and veer off the road.

Snow and slush can also cause drivers to experience dangerous road conditions. The dangers are heightened when city officials have not cleared and treated the road. Many southern states, including Florida, are not equipped with proper snow removal equipment. The lack of prompt removal can cause the snow to become heavy and wet, causing drivers to experience additional hazards.

Court Permits Inquiry into Relationship Between Expert Witness and Attorney in Florida Car Accident Case

Published on: February 19, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A district court of appeal recently issued an opinion in a Florida car accident lawsuit against a driver and his employer. The case stems from injuries the plaintiff suffered when the defendant rear-ended him at a red light. The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against the driver and a vicarious liability claim against the driver’s employer. The trial court bifurcated the defendant’s trials and declined to exclude evidence of the employee’s intoxication during the compensatory damages phase. As such, the plaintiff’s attorney addressed the employee’s intoxication during his opening and closing statements. Further, during the trial, the plaintiff presented several medical experts.

At issue is the plaintiff’s attorney’s friendship with one of the medical experts he presented. On appeal, the defendants allege that the trial court erred in allowing the employee’s intoxication and the court’s limitation on their cross-examination of the relationship between the medical expert and attorney. The court ordered a new trial based on the trial court’s error in allowing evidence of the defendant’s intoxication. They found that the inquiry was substantially prejudicial and lacked relevancy. As such, they addressed the trial court’s decision to limit the defense’s examination of the plaintiff’s experts.

The trial court did not permit the presentation of some of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses because of an untimely designation issue. However, the issue occurred because the plaintiff waited until the day before the trial to make the expert’s initial designations. The appeals court reasoned that this action placed the defendant at a disadvantage because they could not present certain parts of the deposition. Further, the court found that in situations where attorneys elect to use their personal friends as experts, they should expect inquiries into their relationship. Therefore, the court should permit the defense to question the relationship and address any issues of bias.