South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Accident Victim’s Failure to Provide Immediate Notice of Case May Preclude Recovery

Published on: June 19, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In most Florida car accident cases, one or more of the parties involved will file a claim with an insurance company, seeking compensation for the injuries they sustained in the accident. In many cases, after an accident, it is an at-fault driver’s insurance company – rather than the driver themselves – that ends up compensating the accident victim for their injuries.An insurance policy is essentially just a contract between the insurance company and the insured, whereby the insurance company agrees to cover certain costs that are incurred in the event of an accident. As with all contracts, both parties have certain obligations and rights. For example, the insured’s main obligation is to pay the monthly premium, and in exchange, the insurance company agrees to provide the insurance contained in the policy.

There are often, however, terms that give rise to additional obligations on the insured’s part. For example, most insurance policies require that notice be given to the company in the event of an accident that may result in a claim being filed against the policy. In a recent case, a court had to determine whether a plaintiff’s failure to provide immediate notice violated a term of the contract and, if so, whether her claim should be dismissed as a result.

In Florida, Statutes of Limitations Cannot Be Shortened by Agreement

Published on: June 15, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

When someone is injured due to the negligent actions of another party, the injured party may pursue compensation for their injuries through a Florida personal injury lawsuit. As a general matter, all lawsuits based on some type of injury must be filed by a certain time afterward, usually based on the time at which the injury occurred. These time requirements are outlined in the statutes of limitations.In Florida, the statutes of limitations for each cause of action are listed in Florida Statutes section 95.11. As a general matter, the statute of limitations for Florida personal injury lawsuits is four years. The statute of limitations for Florida medical malpractice lawsuits is two years. Of course, there are exceptions to these general rules.

The determination of when a statute of limitations expires is an important one in many Florida personal injury lawsuits. Thus, establishing when the statute begins is very important. As noted above, most of the time, the statute of limitations begins to run at the time the injury occurs. However, in instances in which an injury is not discovered until later, in which the plaintiff is a minor, or in which fraud or deception is involved, the statute of limitations may begin at a later date.

Court Determines Motorcycle Accident Victim Was Not “Occupying” the Vehicle that Struck Him for Purposes of UIM Coverage

Published on: June 12, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a motorcycle accident case that raised an interesting issue that confronts many Florida motorcycle accident plaintiffs. The case involved a plaintiff’s claim that he was entitled to coverage under the defendant’s uninsured motorist (UIM) insurance coverage. Ultimately, the court rejected the plaintiff’s claim.

UIM Coverage

There are several types of insurance included in most insurance policies. Liability insurance covers personal injuries that are results of an accident caused by the insured. However, most insurance policies also include UIM coverage. Uninsured motorist protection covers the insured, and usually anyone occupying the insured vehicle, in the event that the at-fault motorist does not have adequate insurance coverage.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff motorcyclist was stopped at a red light when the defendant failed to stop in time and rear-ended him. As a result of the collision, the plaintiff was thrown backwards and landed on the hood of the defendant’s car.

Court Dismisses Premises Liability Case Against Landlord Involving Drug Overdose

Published on: June 8, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case illustrating the outer bounds of how far courts will currently go to impose liability on a defendant landlord. However, the case is important to Florida personal injury plaintiffs because, given the societal scourge that addiction represents and the recent efforts to combat the disease, the law in this area may be ripe for a change.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were the surviving parents of a young man who died of a ketamine overdose while at a home that was owned by the defendant. The defendant, however, did not live in the home and allowed his ex-girlfriend and her family to reside at the home rent-free. The exact details of the agreement were not clear, but there was evidence suggesting that the tenant worked for the defendant.

The young man had obtained the drugs through the son of the tenant. The defendant knew that the son had a troubled legal past, but he knew nothing of the fact that they were using ketamine at his home. In fact, the defendant had not lived in the home in three years. Once the tenant told the defendant of the young man’s death, he ended the agreement and required everyone living in the home to move out.

Used-Car Dealer May Be on the Hook for Injuries Related to Missing Muffler

Published on: June 5, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case that raises interesting issues for Florida product liability plaintiffs who have been injured as a result of an improperly designed or maintained vehicle. The case required the court to determine if a used-car dealer could be held liable for injuries caused by carbon monoxide poisoning that was a result of the car being sold without a muffler. Interestingly, although the plaintiffs purchased the car “as-is,” the court concluded that the dealership may still be liable.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs purchased a used car from the defendant dealership “as-is.” Given that there were 180,000 miles on the vehicle and that the asking price was $1,500, the plaintiffs were aware that some mechanical work was needed. However, they were not told that the vehicle’s muffler was missing.

The plaintiffs noticed a gasoline smell in the vehicle and had the oil changed, but the smell persisted. The mechanic who changed the oil noted several issues with the vehicle, but again, the lack of muffler was not noted. The plaintiffs took their minor son to see an apartment to which they were considering moving. However, the landlord was late, and the plaintiffs were forced to wait in their car for 45 minutes.

Plaintiff’s Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Dismissed for Failing to Meet Pre-Suit Requirements

Published on: June 1, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a Florida medical malpractice lawsuit discussing the potential consequences that may arise when a plaintiff fails to properly follow all of the procedural requirements. Ultimately, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s lawsuit against the defendant because the pre-suit notice provided by the plaintiff contained the affidavit of an infectious disease doctor, rather than that of an ophthalmologist, which was the specialty of the defendant doctors.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff underwent a surgery to repair droopy skin around her eye. The surgery was performed by one of the defendant doctors. The surgery went as planned, and another defendant doctor conducted the post-surgical examinations. Both defendant doctors were ophthalmologists.

After the surgery, the plaintiff developed an infection in her eye. The infection left her with serious visual impairments, dizziness, and a heightened risk of future infections. She filed a personal injury lawsuit, first naming the doctor who performed the surgery as the only defendant. Attached to this claim, the plaintiff included an affidavit from an ophthalmologist stating that the plaintiff’s case had merit.

Federal Appellate Court Finds that the Feres Doctrine Bars Medical Malpractice Liability

Published on: May 29, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, a federal appellate court issued an opinion stemming from a lawsuit filed by the husband of a Navy lieutenant who died following complications from childbirth. The husband filed a lawsuit alleging that his wife’s death was caused by the negligence of the medical staff at a naval hospital. Ultimately, the court reluctantly affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit, based on the oft-criticized Feres doctrine.

The Facts of the Case

In 2013, a Navy lieutenant resigned from her position after she and her husband learned that they were expecting a child. Sadly, even though the woman’s pregnancy was normal, she died from severe hemorrhaging about four hours after her daughter’s delivery.

The Procedural Posture

Following the woman’s tragic death, her husband filed a lawsuit alleging that the hospital was negligent in their treatment of his wife and that their negligence resulted in her wrongful death. The district court dismissed the lawsuit based on the Feres doctrine.

Court Orders New Trial in Medical Malpractice Case After Jury Returns Zero-Dollar Damages Award for Plaintiff’s Pain and Suffering

Published on: May 22, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this year, a state appellate court issued a written opinion that raised an interesting issue that comes up in Florida personal injury cases from time to time. The case presented the court with the opportunity to discuss under which circumstances a jury’s zero-dollar damages award is insufficient as a matter of law and must be rejected.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff woke up one evening with an excruciating headache, the worst she had ever experienced. She began to vomit and was also nauseous. Her symptoms did not subside after two days, and at that point, she went to the defendant hospital, thinking she had a bad case of food poisoning.

Despite telling the nurses that she had a terrible headache, that fact was not documented in the plaintiff’s chart. Instead, the plaintiff’s chart contained notes of gastrointestinal symptoms. The plaintiff was eventually released from the hospital without a diagnosis and was instructed to follow up with a primary care doctor in the near future.

Court Rejects Underinsured Motorist Claim Following Horse-Drawn Carriage Accident

Published on: May 19, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case involving an interesting insurance issue that can come up in many Florida car accident cases. The case required the court to determine if the defendant insurance company was proper to deny the plaintiffs’ claims arising from a rear-end accident involving a horse-drawn carriage.Ultimately, the court concluded that one plaintiff’s claims could proceed to trial for a determination of whether coverage existed, while the other plaintiff’s claims were insufficient as a matter of law.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were the driver and passenger of a horse-drawn carriage that was rear-ended after participating in a Christmas parade. The passenger-plaintiff was injured in the collision and filed a claim against the driver-plaintiff. That claim is not the subject of this case.

Florida’s Recreational-Use Statute May Prevent Some Victims from Recovering Compensation for Their Injuries

Published on: May 15, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

As a general rule, landowners have a duty to make sure that their property is safe for those whom they invite onto their land. If someone is injured due to a landowner’s negligence, the injured party can pursue a Florida premises liability lawsuit against the landowner.However, Florida lawmakers have established certain exceptions to this general rule. One such exception is contained in Florida Statutes section 375.251, also known as Florida’s recreational-use statute. The recreational-use statute grants immunity to certain landowners who open up their land for the free recreational use of the public. Specifically, the statute explains that qualifying landowners do not make any assurances that the land is safe, do not incur a duty of care to those who use the land, and will not be liable to anyone for injuries caused by their own negligence while on the land.

That being said, even a qualifying landowner is not immune from liability for deliberate, willful, or malicious actions that result in injuries.