South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Constructive Knowledge in Florida Slip and Fall Cases

Published on: March 5, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

When a guest is injured while on another’s property, they may pursue a claim against the property owner. To succeed in a Florida slip and fall lawsuit, a plaintiff must be able to show, among other things, that the property owner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition.

A property owner’s knowledge of a hazard can be proven through actual knowledge or constructive knowledge. Of course, proving actual knowledge can be difficult. Thus, many cases rely on proving a landowner’s constructive knowledge of a hazard. Last month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a Florida premises liability case discussing constructive knowledge.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was shopping at the defendant grocery store when she slipped and fell. The plaintiff testified that she did not see anything on the floor before she fell. However, when she stood up, she saw a “clear, dirty liquid” that was later identified as a smashed grape. Two witnesses were nearby, and neither saw the fall, but both saw the substance on the floor. Neither saw footprints or cart track marks through the substance.

Importance of Florida Uninsured Underinsured Motorist Coverage

Published on: February 27, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida motorists must purchase automobile insurance that provides at least $10,000 in personal injury protection (PIP) and $10,000 in property damage. PIP coverage is a no-fault coverage that provides compensation to motorists and qualified family members for certain accident-related medical expenses. Florida is a no-fault state, and insurance companies cover their policyholders in an accident. However, the law does not require motorists to purchase insurance to protect themselves when they are negligent. When someone is involved in an accident with a driver that does not have adequate protection, the victim may face significant challenges recovering for their losses.

To avoid potential significant financial burdens, motorists should purchase uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) protection. Unlike several other states, Florida automobile insurance laws do not require motorists to purchase uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) protection; however, this coverage provides drivers, their passengers, and household family members, with additional financial security.

UIM protection is useful in cases where motorists are involved in an accident with an at-fault driver with inadequate insurance coverage. Further, this coverage protects policyholders in hit-and-run accidents, unknown vehicle collisions, or if the policyholder or their family members suffer injuries as a pedestrian or cyclist.

Florida Product Liability Lawsuits Against the Manufacturers of Infant Sleepers

Published on: February 25, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

According to a recent new report, after several tragic deaths, numerous baby product manufacturers recalled their incline infant sleepers. The recalls arose after pediatricians and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) alerted companies to concerns that the sleeper posed serious dangers to infants. Individuals whose loved ones suffered injury or death while using an incline infant sleeper or other baby product may be able to hold various parties liable under Florida’s product liability laws.

Historically, these products have been widely popular among parents who were experiencing issues with their infants sleeping. Manufacturers touted their products alleging that the recline and rocking mechanism helped babies that were suffering from reflux and colic. However, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the safest way for a baby to sleep is on their back on a firm, flat sleep surface. Safety experts and doctors began alerting consumers and patients to the dangers of these products after several babies died after rolling over and suffocating. After avoiding warnings and remarketing their products, Fisher-Price finally recalled their products. Following in line were several other companies that sell similar products.

There is likely no sum of money that can compensate a family who has lost a child. However, that fact does not absolve companies from liability, even if they recalled their products. Under Florida law, families may be able to file a product liability lawsuit against the company based on personal injuries or wrongful death.

Jury Awards Plaintiff $1 Million Verdict Against Insurance Company

Published on: February 20, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Car accidents can leave injured motorists, passengers, and pedestrians with substantial property damage, physical injuries, and psychological trauma. After seeking medical attention, one of the first steps a Florida car accident victim should take is to file a claim with the at-fault driver’s insurance company. Many Floridians assume that insurance companies operate swiftly and fairly; however, this is often far from the truth.

In most instances, car accident victims will attempt to recover damages from the at-fault party or their insurance company. This requires filling out lengthy forms, providing detailed information, and explicitly requesting appropriate compensation. Insurance companies rarely agree to the amount the victim claims and will either counteroffer, deny, or even delay deciding the clam. If an insurance company is engaging in unlawful practices or countering an inadequate amount, injury victims should contact an attorney to file a complaint

To initiate a lawsuit against an insurance company, potential plaintiffs should file a complaint in court. Attorneys can assist the plaintiff in including all relevant and pertinent details, including a demand for damages. During pre-trial pleadings, both parties will have the opportunity to file motions to support their claims. If the case survives pre-trial proceedings, the parties will then engage in discovery and then trial.

Sudden Emergency Doctrine and Other Affirmative Defenses in Florida Car Accident Lawsuits

Published on: February 18, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Under Florida’s personal injury laws, individuals who suffer injury because of a negligent driver may be able to recover for their losses through a Florida car accident lawsuit. However, these cases are rarely straight forward, and plaintiffs must ensure that they understand the evidentiary and procedural requirements they must follow. In addition to fact and evidence disputes, plaintiffs must anticipate and refute any defenses that the defendant may present.

There are three main types of defenses in Florida car accident claims that, if successful, can defeat liability. These defenses are, assumption of the risk, contributory negligence, and force of nature or unexpected loss of capacities. To overcome these defenses, plaintiffs must be able to pierce the evidence that the defendant presents.

The assumption of risk defense reduces a plaintiff’s right to recover when the defendant establishes that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks of the dangerous activity that led to their injuries. Plaintiffs must present evidence that they did not know there was a risk of the same type that they suffered, or that they did not voluntarily take on the danger. Defendants may also argue that the plaintiff somehow contributed to their injuries and subsequent damages, and therefore their recovery should be reduced by their level of fault. To avoid a significant reduction of compensation, plaintiffs must be able to show that their behavior did not contribute to their damages. Finally, some defendants argue that an unexpected loss of capacity or other force of nature led to the plaintiff’s injuries. This defense typically requires a defendant to prove that the behavior giving rise to the incident was unanticipated, exceptional, unavoidable, or related to a grave natural disaster or phenomena.

Florida Requires Insurance Companies Provide Minimum Uninsured Motorist Coverage

Published on: February 13, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, Florida’s Supreme Court ruled that insurance companies must comply with Florida Statutes section 627.727, which covers uninsured motorist (UM) coverage minimums. The ruling comes after an insurance company appealed a lower court’s ruling in favor of the plaintiff in a dispute over coverage after a Florida motorcycle accident.

Before his death, a man purchased home insurance coverage that included a collector vehicle. The policy included a UM provision that limited benefits to accidents involving the collector vehicle. After the man’s death, his family tried to recover for damages through the UM provision in his home insurance policy. The defendant insurance company denied coverage, citing the UM limitation. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Florida insurance company, arguing that Florida Statutes section 627.727 prohibits the insurance company from placing restrictions on UM coverage. On appeal, the defendant argued that section 627.727 does not apply to specialty insurance policies, such as the collector vehicle at issue.

Florida Statutes section 627.727 governs “motor vehicle insurance, uninsured and underinsured vehicle coverage, and insolvent insurer protection.” Typically, the statute provides coverage to the policyholder, their spouse, and resident relatives. This coverage applies when a person suffers bodily injury by a negligent motorist, whether they are driving or a passenger in their vehicle, driving or riding in someone else’s car, or suffer injuries as a pedestrian. There are several exceptions to this statute, but there are no exclusions related to a collector or antique vehicle.

End of Pilot Program Sheds Light on Miami Scooter Safety

Published on: February 12, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

During the past several years many major cities, including Miami, have seen a rise in e-scooter use. Although, manual scooters, Segways, and other similar modes of transportation have been around for years, e-scooters revolutionized the way people traveled through Miami. In many situations, the e-scooters can be rented at one kiosk and then returned to a different location. Miami e-scooter rental companies often boast that these characteristics make the e-scooters, economical, fun, easy to use and safe. However, emergency room data suggests that these e-scooters are not as safe as they may seem at first glance. Despite safety concerns with these scooters, businesses continue to pop-up, creating a surge in use and subsequent accidents. Individuals who suffer injuries involving e-scooters should contact a Miami personal injury attorney to discuss your rights and remedies.

In response to the rising rate of Miami e-scooter injuries and consequent personal injury lawsuits against rental companies, the city outlawed e-scooters. However, the backlash from the rental companies resulted in a pilot program. This pilot program was designed to allow city commissioners to evaluate the safety of each company and their e-scooters before deciding which companies would receive a formal long-term license.

The primary concern with e-scooters is that companies fail to ensure that their renters know and abide by Miami motor vehicle rules. Under the law, individuals must be at least 18 years-old to ride an e-scooter, and they must stop at red lights, stop signs, yield to pedestrians, and they cannot weave through traffic. Despite these rules, e-scooter riders are often involved in serious accidents. Accidents are more common with these vehicles because they are hard to spot, riders are often inexperienced, and other motorists are not on the look-out for them.

Florida Insurance Bad Faith Claims and an Insurance Company’s Duty to Policyholders

Published on: February 7, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Insurance companies play a vital role in most Florida car accident cases and are expected to abide by the terms of their policies faithfully. However, in many instances, insurance companies wrongfully deny claims, and Florida personal injury victims end up in lengthy and costly disputes. These disputes can take longstanding financial, physical, and emotional tolls on Florida car accident victims. Florida has several statutes and remedies in place to hold insurance companies liable for delaying or wrongfully denying claims. Floridians who are at a standstill with an insurance company should retain an experienced attorney to help them get their rightfully due damages.

Florida motorists typically purchase automobile coverage with the expectation that the company will provide them with financial protection if they are involved in an accident. Insurance companies must deal with their policyholders in “good faith” and with “fair dealing.” These terms mean that the insurance company must treat their policyholders fairly and carefully when determining the validity of a claim, and settle claims against the insured within the agreed-upon coverage limit. Insurance companies act in bad faith when they refuse to pay or settle a claim without a reasonable basis, fail to promptly and adequately investigate or defend a claim without justification, implement deceptive practices to avoid paying a claim, or refuse to offer the full value of a claim.

There are generally two types of Florida bad faith insurance claims, first-party and third-party claims. First-party insurance claims occur when a Florida motorist’s insurance company fails to address and pay a claim adequately. This typically occurs when a Florida driver evokes their policy’s underinsured or uninsured coverage.

Court Clarifies Availability of Damages in Florida Toxic Tort Case

Published on: February 5, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent opinion, Florida’s Supreme Court addressed whether an individual who suffers injuries because of a company’s discharge of toxic pollutants can hold the company liable for their damages. This case required the Supreme Court to dissect and analyze Florida’s 1970 Pollutant Discharge and Control Act (1970 Act) and the Water Quality Assurance Act of 1983 (1983 Act), ultimately finding in favor of a plaintiff who suffered serious personal injuries after contacting spilled battery acid.

Florida’s Statute of the 1983 Act imposes strict liability for the discharge of specific toxic pollutants. Some common pollutants are nerve agents, asbestos, sulfuric acid, benzene, pesticides, and silica. Exposure to these toxins can result in serious medical conditions, including, asbestosis, Hodgkin’s disease, lung disease, Leukemia, Lymphoma, and Mesothelioma. Most often, individuals suffer exposure through the workplace, use of medications and pharmaceuticals, and a person’s residence. In some instances, individuals may experience exposure through the air or drinking water. The most common defendants in these toxic torts cases are the company who polluted the groundwater, an employer who does not abide by workplace safety standards, or a home manufacturer or landlord who does not appropriately test for mold or lead.

The plaintiff was a tow truck driver responding to the scene of an accident involving a disabled semi-truck accident. The semi-truck was transporting batteries at the time of the accident, and the collision resulted in a massive battery acid spill. While preparing the semi-truck for towing, the plaintiff came into contact with battery acid and suffered chemical burns. The tow truck driver filed a lawsuit against the trucking company, arguing that the company was liable for this damages under strict liability theory according to the Acts. The defendant appealed the plaintiff’s $5 million jury award, arguing that the 1970 Act expressly bars personal injury actions arising from an environmental action, and the 1983 Act does not address damages.

Evoking Uninsured and Underinsured Coverage After a Florida Car Accident

Published on: January 31, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida motorists should engage in a comprehensive and thorough review of their available insurance policies to ensure that they have adequate protection in the event they are involved in an accident. One area of coverage that deserves close scrutiny is the terms of the insurance company’s uninsured and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. UIM coverage protects Florida drivers that suffer injuries because of a negligent driver who does not have adequate vehicle insurance. A shocking 25 percent of Florida drivers do not have insurance, and this can have disastrous consequences for injury victims.

Florida’s no-fault insurance rules require that insurance companies protect their own policyholders in minor accidents, so long as the drivers purchase personal injury protection. However, issues arise when a driver sustains serious injuries in a Florida collision. In these instances, Florida drivers must file a claim with the at-fault driver’s insurance company. Filing a complaint with the negligent driver’s insurance company often raises challenges because Florida law does not require drivers to purchase insurance coverage that protects them from liability if they injure someone else.

Appropriate UIM coverage can provide a motorist with extra protection in case the other party is under or uninsured. However, policyholders often face difficulty evoking this policy because insurance companies are reluctant to pay out substantial amounts. Insurance companies will sometimes wrongfully delay claims, or assert specific provisions to avoid paying out claims.