South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Federal Appeals Court Rules that Insurance Company May Have Acted in Bad Faith

Published on: December 5, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently published an opinion that reversed a lower court’s ruling in favor of the defendant, concerning the plaintiff’s claim that the insurer wrongfully delayed the payment of benefits for her personal injury claim. The appeals court’s reversal of the lower court’s granting of summary judgment to the defendant on this claim will result in the case going back down and proceeding toward a trial if the parties are unable to settle before that time.The plaintiff in the case of Peden v. State Farm had been seriously injured while riding in a car that was involved in a DUI accident, and she allegedly suffered damages in excess of the policy limits of the insurance held by the driver of the vehicle involved in the crash. Before filing suit, the plaintiff made a claim with the defendant, seeking compensation for her injuries, and she was paid the maximum amount under the driver’s bodily injury liability policy limit. She sought the balance of her damages through her own policy’s uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, but her claim was denied.

The Plaintiff Files a Lawsuit to Enforce Underinsured Motorist Claim and Alleges Bad Faith by the Defendant

After her claim for underinsured motorist protection coverage was denied, the woman filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant in federal court to enforce the full benefits of the coverage. In addition to her claim for compensation related to the damages she suffered, she sought additional damages, as permitted under Colorado law, since the defendant denied her initial claim without good reason or even a proper investigation, forcing her to bring a claim that should not have been necessary. After the lawsuit was filed, the defendant paid out the full amount of coverage.

Dismissal of Rollerblading Injury Case Affirmed by Appellate Court

Published on: December 1, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of North Dakota recently published an opinion affirming a trial court’s ruling dismissing a personal injury and premises liability claim filed by a plaintiff who was injured when she fell while rollerblading in a city park. The district court had ruled that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations for negligence lawsuits against government actors in North Dakota.Initially, the plaintiffs served the defendant with the lawsuit within the statute of limitations, but the service did not meet the procedural requirements set out by state law and was found to be invalid by the courts. The plaintiff’s other arguments on appeal were also rejected by the state supreme court, and they will be unable to recover compensation for the injuries suffered in the fall.

The Plaintiff Suffers a Fall While Rollerblading in the Park

The plaintiffs in the case of Frith v. City of Fargo were a husband and wife who were exercising in a park operated by the defendant on a day in the summer of 2012. The wife was rollerblading on a multi-use pathway when she tripped and lost control after running into a raised bit of soft patching material that had been used to fill a crack in the pathway. According to the facts in the appellate opinion, the woman claimed that she could not see the hazard, and no warning was posted. Nearly three years after the accident, the plaintiffs attempted to serve the defendant with a personal injury and premises liability lawsuit that alleged the defendant was in control of the park’s maintenance and allowed a dangerous hazard to be created on the pathway without cordoning off the area or otherwise giving an appropriate warning.

Court Upholds Judgment for Defendants in Chain-Reaction Truck Accident Case

Published on: December 1, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Mississippi recently published an opinion affirming a state district court’s ruling that granted summary judgment to two defendants in a lawsuit based on a semi-truck accident. The high court rejected the plaintiff’s claim for damages against the driver of the truck, who caused a separate accident that occurred before the accident that injured the plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed suit against this particular defendant in an attempt to hold him responsible for an accident that was caused in part by the slowdown and traffic jam that resulted from the initial accident.By affirming the district court’s granting of summary judgment to the defendant in this case, the court showed how a defendant may not be legally responsible for the result of his or her negligence if there is an intervening or superseding cause between the initial act of negligence and the alleged injury.

Two Accidents on a Busy Highway

The accident that injured the plaintiff in the case of Ready v. RWI Transportation, Inc. was the second of two closely linked crashes that were the subject of this litigation. According to the facts as discussed by the appellate court, the defendant was driving a semi-truck and negligently caused an accident with a pickup truck that was driven by a man who was not a party to this lawsuit.

State Supreme Court Rejects Governmental Immunity Previously Granted to School Administrators in Auto-Pedestrian Collision Lawsuit

Published on: November 23, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Connecticut recently published an opinion reversing a lower court’s ruling to grant the defendants in a personal injury lawsuit immunity from the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff had been struck by a car while crossing the street onto the grounds of a public school, and he filed a negligence lawsuit against the driver of the vehicle that hit him, as well as against several school employees, the town, and members of the school board. The plaintiff’s claim alleged that the defendants breached their duty to the plaintiff to provide a safe school environment by failing to properly monitor and control the vehicular and foot traffic of students coming to and from the school.

The Plaintiff Is Struck by a Car as He Crossed the Street

In September 2007, the plaintiff in the case of Strycharz v. Cady was a freshman at the Bacon Academy, a public high school in Colchester, Connecticut. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff left the school grounds to smoke a cigarette after he was dropped off by the school bus but before classes began.

As the plaintiff attempted to cross the street at a crosswalk and visit a popular spot for students to smoke, he was struck and injured by a driver who failed to yield at the crosswalk. As a result of his injuries, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against several parties, including many school and town officials who allegedly knew of the dangers to students presented by traffic before and after school but failed to address the issue.

After Two Appeals and a Six-Year Wait, Accident Victim Will Receive the Full Amount of Jury Award

Published on: November 21, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Colorado recently published an opinion reversing a lower court’s decision permitting the trial judge hearing an auto accident case to reduce the plaintiff’s award after the jury returned a verdict in his favor. The plaintiff was initially forced to sue his own insurance company after he was injured in an accident with an uninsured driver, and his claim for damages under his uninsured motorist coverage was denied.After a jury found that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief he requested, his insurance company successfully asked the trial court to reduce the judgment by an amount he had received from the company through a different type of coverage. In reversing the lower court’s decisions, the court held that coverage for uninsured or underinsured motorists in that state cannot be reduced by a setoff from any other coverage. As a result of the recent ruling, the plaintiff will receive the entire amount that was awarded to him by the jury.

The Plaintiff Is Injured in an Accident with an Uninsured Motorist

The plaintiff in the case of Calderon v. American Family Insurance was involved in an auto accident with a negligent and uninsured motorist in August 2010. The plaintiff carried an auto insurance policy though the defendant insurance company, which included $5,000 in no-fault coverage for medical expenses as well as $300,000 in coverage for damages incurred in the event of an accident with an uninsured or underinsured driver. After receiving medical treatment, the plaintiff had incurred over $40,000 in medical expenses. He then made a claim for those damages and others to his insurance company. The insurance company had previously paid out $5,000 directly to the medical providers pursuant to the no fault medical coverage, but it disputed the remaining amount of damages that the plaintiff requested.

Court Sides with Plaintiff, Reversing Judgment for Defendant in Slip-and-Fall Case

Published on: November 17, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Kentucky recently published an opinion reversing two lower courts’ decisions that had granted judgment to the defendant in a lawsuit filed by a man who was injured when he slipped and fell outside the shower while staying at the defendant’s hotel. The trial court and state court of appeals had ruled that the plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care to avoid injuring himself, and hotels are not the insurers of their guests’ safety. The Supreme Court found the lower courts’ analysis insufficient and reversed the rulings, remanding the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

The Plaintiff Slips in a Hotel Bathroom

The plaintiff in the case of Goodwin v. Al J. Snider was a guest at the defendant’s hotel. After he took a shower in his room, he got out and slipped on the bathroom floor, injuring his knee. There was not a bathmat in the hotel bathroom at the time of the fall, although other rooms had bathmats, and the hotel later supplied him with one upon request.

The plaintiff later filed a slip and fall lawsuit, alleging that the defendant violated the duty it owed to guests to exercise reasonable care to warn guests of the dangerous condition presented by a slippery floor or to take measures to lessen the dangers presented.

Plaintiff in Personal Injury Lawsuit Successfully Uses Work Product Doctrine to Suppress Presumably Unfavorable Expert Report

Published on: November 14, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Missouri recently released an opinion reversing a trial court’s preliminary ruling to grant a personal injury defendant’s request to further question an expert witness. The expert had been formerly proposed by the plaintiff as an expert witness, but the plaintiff later “de-endorsed” the expert witness weeks into the proceedings without disclosing a report.The defendant requested a copy of the report and to depose the expert, while the plaintiff claimed that the expert report was protected by the “work product doctrine,” which protects materials prepared by or for an attorney from pretrial discovery by the opposing side. Although the opinion does not explicitly reference the expected opinion of the expert or what his conclusions may be, the plaintiff’s attempts to remove the expert from the case suggested that his conclusions were not favorable to the plaintiff.

With the most recent ruling, the defendant will be prohibited from deposing the witness or accessing any report he may have prepared, and the case will proceed toward trial.

$7 Million Verdict Awarded to Cancer Victim in Baby Powder Lawsuit

Published on: November 10, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A Missouri jury recently found that the manufacturer of a baby powder product containing talc and marketed for personal hygiene was liable for negligence and product liability after the plaintiff developed a case of ovarian cancer as a result of using the product as it was marketed. According to a news report discussing the verdict, the woman was awarded over $7 million from the defendant Johnson & Johnson, a major manufacturer and marketer of baby powder products containing talc. Similar claims have shown that manufacturers have allegedly known about the increase in cancer risk for women who use talc products on their genital area, but they have continued to market the product despite the evidence that such use may be dangerous.

About 2,000 Cases Alleging a Link Between Talc and Ovarian Cancer Have Been Filed

According to the report, over 2,000 cases have been filed in courts nationwide against the manufacturers of baby powders and other hygiene products containing talc. Research cited in the report notes that there is a significant link between using talc products for feminine hygiene and the increased risk of developing cancer. Courts across the country have addressed the cases differently, with some judges throwing the claims out and others allowing the cases to go to the jury. Similar cases alleging ovarian cancer development as a result of talc use have resulted in verdicts of up to $127 million.

Court Determines Negligence Lawsuit Against Ambulance Company Was Time-Barred

Published on: November 7, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The California Court of Appeals recently released an opinion affirming a lower court’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed against an ambulance company and hospital by a man who was injured while under the care of the defendants. The appellate court agreed with the district court’s finding that the claim was subject to the one-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims and was time-barred by the statute of limitations.

The Plaintiff’s Injuries Resulted in a Personal Injury Lawsuit

The plaintiff in Nava v. Saddleback was dropped from a gurney while being transported into the hospital from an ambulance and suffered from broken bones and severe pain as a result of his fall. He contacted an attorney and filed a personal injury and negligence lawsuit against the defendants 23 months after the fall occurred. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim was for medical malpractice and needed to be filed less than one year after the plaintiff was injured under the state’s statute of limitations for medical malpractice cases. The district court agreed with the defendants and entered judgment in their favor, and the plaintiff appealed.

The Court of Appeals Defines the Claim as One of Medical Malpractice

On appeal, the high court accepted the ruling of the district court, noting that any personal injury claim “related to” medical care that alleges the professional negligence of a health care provider is subject to the shorter, one-year statute of limitations. Since the plaintiff was receiving professional medical care from the defendants when his injuries occurred, the court ruled that his case was time-barred because the one-year statute of limitations applied. As a result of the recent appellate ruling, the plaintiff will not receive compensation for his injuries.

State Supreme Court Refuses to Enforce Arbitration Clause Against Young Injury Victim

Published on: November 3, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

An appellate court recently published an opinion affirming a lower district court’s ruling refusing to compel arbitration to address a personal injury claim alleging that actionable negligence caused a child to be injured at a trampoline park operated by the defendant. Both courts agreed that the clause within the liability release and waiver form that compelled any claims to be addressed through arbitration was a legally invalid contract of adhesion. Although the specifics of the plaintiffs’ claim have yet to be addressed by the court, the most recent ruling will prevent the plaintiffs from being forced to pursue compensation in arbitration, which is generally a more favorable forum for defendants.

The Plaintiffs’ Son Suffers a Serious Leg Injury, and the Defendant Seeks to Compel Arbitration

The plaintiffs in the case of Alicea v. Activelaf, LLC are the parents of a young boy who was injured in February 2015 while playing at a trampoline park that was operated by the defendant. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s negligence was the cause of the boy’s injuries, and they filed a personal injury claim in state court, seeking damages as compensation.

Before the boy was injured, his mother digitally signed a liability release and waiver with the defendant. As part of this waiver, the plaintiffs agreed that any legal claims against the defendant would not be brought in state or federal court and would be subject to mandatory arbitration. Arbitration is a private court-like proceeding that can be used to address several types of legal disputes. Technically, the parties in an arbitration accept the ruling of the arbiter as a binding settlement of their legal dispute.