South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Appellate Court Finds Florida Couple’s Products Liability Case is Time Barred

Published on: September 29, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Dominguez v. Hayward Industries, Inc., a Florida man was apparently seriously injured when a swimming pool filter unexpectedly exploded in 2012. Following the incident, the man and his wife filed a products liability lawsuit against the filter manufacturer, the distributor of the product, and the company that installed it 13 years earlier. According to the couple’s complaint, the defendants committed negligence and other torts against the man when they manufactured, sold, and installed the allegedly defective swimming pool filter. Because of this, the couple sought damages for the man’s resulting head injury.

In response to the couple’s lawsuit, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming the 12-year statute of repose enumerated in Section 95.031 of the Florida Statutes barred the couple’s products liability case. Much like a statute of limitations, Florida’s statute of repose limits the time frame during which specific causes of action may be filed. If a lawsuit is not brought before the statute of repose expires, a plaintiff’s claim is typically barred forever. The trial court agreed with the defendants and entered judgment in their favor. The couple then filed an appeal with Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal.

Federal Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Clearwater Slip and Fall Case

Published on: September 25, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Chase v. Hess Retail Operations LLC, a woman was apparently injured when she slipped and fell at a Clearwater gas station. As a result of her harm, the woman filed a negligence lawsuit against the owner of the gas station in a Florida state court. The gas station then removed the case to the Middle District of Florida based on diversity of citizenship because the woman denied that her damages did not exceed $75,000 in her response to certain requests for admissions.

Under federal law, the defendant in a lawsuit may remove a case to federal court for a number of reasons, including diversity jurisdiction. In order to establish diversity, the parties to a lawsuit must hail from different states, and the amount in controversy must be more than $75,000. Since a plaintiff normally selects his or her preferred venue when a lawsuit is filed, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that diversity jurisdiction exists. In general, a federal court must construe the facts of a case in which diversity jurisdiction is disputed in favor of remand back to state court.

Florida Appeals Court Holds Settlement Offer Was Not Vague or Ambiguous in Fatal Car Accident Lawsuit

Published on: September 18, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Wallen v. Tyson, a Florida man was tragically killed in a September 2010 car accident. Following the unfortunate event, the other driver involved in the collision filed a lawsuit in a Florida court against the deceased man’s estate. After that, the estate served a $12,000 settlement proposal on the driver, which contained a release of liability for all claims arising out of the motor vehicle wreck. The release specifically stated the driver maintained his right to pursue damages from any individual other than the personal representative of the decedent’s estate. The offer also stated the terms were subject to negotiation. The allegedly injured driver apparently ignored the settlement proposal, and the case proceeded to trial.

Following a jury trial, the driver received an award of $13,000. The court then reduced the award by about $3,800 for payments that were previously made by the man’s insurer. Since the final judgment was more than 25 percent less that the estate’s settlement offer, the driver was rendered liable for the estate’s legal costs under Section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes.

Appeals Court Overturns Remittitur for Pain and Suffering in Florida Automobile Accident Case

Published on: September 15, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Arnold v. Security National Insurance Co., a Florida man was hurt in an automobile crash that was apparently caused by an uninsured driver. Following the accident, the man filed a lawsuit against the company that provided him with uninsured motorist insurance. In his complaint, the man sought damages for his medical expenses as well as his past and future pain and suffering.

During trial, the hurt man offered expert testimony in support of his request for reimbursement of his health care costs as well as his current and future pain and suffering. According to the expert testimony, the man suffered a herniated disc in his back that would likely require surgery and ongoing medical treatment as a result of the traffic wreck.

Florida Appeals Court Overturns Summary Judgment in Air Show Negligence Case

Published on: September 11, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Slora v. Sun ‘N Fun Fly-In, Inc., a woman was injured when a tornado hit a security guard booth at Lakeland Linder Regional Airport. At the time of the incident, the woman was employed by a security staffing agency that provided security services to an air show company whose operations were subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). Because of this, the company was required to file certain certificates of waiver with the FAA and agree to provide security and policing services in order to perform the show.

After the woman was injured, she collected workers’ compensation benefits from her employer. The worker then filed a negligence action against the air show operator in a Florida circuit court. According to her complaint, the severe weather that caused her injuries was foreseeable, the air show company failed to maintain the guard booth in a reasonably safe manner, and the business failed to warn her of the personal injury risks she faced in the event of severe weather. As a result, the security guard asked the court to award her damages. In response, the air show company filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the guard’s claims were barred by Section 440.10(1)(b) of the Florida Workers’ Compensation Law.

Florida Appeals Court Rules Insurance Company May Not be Joined in Pending Fatal Car Accident Lawsuit

Published on: September 8, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Geico General Ins. Co. v. Lepine, a Florida man was unfortunately killed in a motor vehicle collision. Following the accident, the man’s wife filed a lawsuit on behalf of herself and her husband’s estate against the driver who was allegedly responsible for the fatal traffic wreck and his automobile insurer. According to the woman’s complaint, the insurance company reneged on its verbal agreement to pay her the full policy limits of $100,000.

In response to the lawsuit, the insurer filed a motion to dismiss the breach of contract claims brought against the company. In its motion, the business argued Section 627.4136 of the Florida Statutes barred the decedent’s wife from filing a direct cause of action against the insurance company. Under the so-called nonjoinder statute, a noninsured may not file a direct action against an insurance company in Florida without first obtaining a settlement or verdict against the insured party.

Negligence Lawsuit Over Florida Psychiatric Patient’s Death Must Comply With Pre-Suit Notice Requirements Enumerated in Medical Malpractice Reform Act

Published on: September 4, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. v. Estate of Lawson, a woman with a history of mental illness was admitted to a hospital’s locked psychiatric unit in 2013. Unfortunately, the woman somehow got access to a facility worker’s keys and escaped the building. After that, the woman ran onto a nearby highway and was struck by a vehicle. Sadly, the woman died as a result of her injuries.

Following the woman’s death, her estate filed an ordinary negligence lawsuit against the hospital in a Florida court. The hospital filed a motion to dismiss the case and asserted that the estate’s lawsuit was actually a medical negligence complaint. According to the medical facility, the estate’s case was subject to dismissal because it failed to comply with the pre-suit notice requirements enumerated in Chapter 766 of the Florida Statutes. The trial court denied the hospital’s motion, and the facility sought a writ of certiorari to quash the lower court’s order from Florida’s First District Court of Appeal.

Tragic Infant Death Apparently Caused by Florida Daycare Worker Was Excluded from Personal Auto Insurance Policy

Published on: September 1, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Bryant v. Windhaven Ins. Co., a Florida man purchased a personal automobile liability policy from an insurance company. After securing the policy, the man operated a van in the course of his employment with a daycare center. As part of his job duties, the man picked up children and drove them to the daycare center each day. Tragically, the driver apparently picked up an infant and forgot the child in the van in July 2011. The infant unfortunately passed away before he was discovered, strapped into his car seat seven hours later.

Following the child’s untimely death, his estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the driver, the daycare center, and the owner of the property where the daycare operated. In response to the case, the driver requested that his personal automobile insurer defend and indemnify him. The insurer responded by stating the policy did not apply to the daycare center’s van. According to the insurer, the man’s insurance policy explicitly excluded liability arising from any vehicle that was being used in the course of a driver’s employment and any vehicle other than that covered by the policy that was “furnished or available” for a driver’s regular use.

Tampa Court Refuses to Dismiss Insurer From Lawsuit Alleging Employer Committed an Intentional Tort Against Leased Worker

Published on: August 27, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Companion Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. All Roof Systems, LLC, a Florida man was apparently severely injured when he fell through a hole that was concealed while working on a roof. At the time, the man was a contract employee who was leased to the roofing company by a staffing agency. As a result of his injury, the hurt man and his wife filed a lawsuit against the roofing company in state court. In the couple’s state court complaint, they argued the roofer was not entitled to enjoy workers’ compensation immunity under Section 440.11(1)(b)(2) of the Florida Statutes.

Next, the roofing company’s insurer filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings with the Middle District of Florida in Tampa. According to the insurance company, it had no duty to defend or indemnify the roofer because the plaintiff’s injury resulting from the concealed hole constituted an intentional tort. Under Florida’s no-fault workers’ compensation law, employers are not provided with immunity for intentional torts. In addition, the insurer claimed such a claim was not covered under the roofer’s insurance policy.

Court Finds Employee is Not Entitled to Ongoing Workers’ Compensation Disability Benefits Despite Receiving Medical Referral for a Minor Preexisting Condition

Published on: August 24, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Cruz v. State of Florida Dept. of Legal Affairs, a Florida man suffered a compensable workplace injury. While collecting temporary disability for a heart and mental health condition, the worker sought additional temporary total disability or temporary partial disability payments. According to the employee, his work-related harm not only rendered him disabled but also exacerbated his preexisting gastrointestinal condition.

At a hearing before a Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”), medical evidence was provided by two cardiologists who treated the worker. Both specialists apparently stated the man would reach his overall maximum medical improvement (“MMI”) for his heart condition before January 1, 2014. Similarly, the worker’s psychiatrists offered testimony that he would reach his overall mental health MMI about six months before that date. As a result, the JCC ruled that the employee was no longer entitled to receive temporary disability benefits as of December 31, 2013.