South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Defense Verdict Reversed in Road Rage Case Based on Withheld Information

Published on: March 15, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a West Virginia appellate court issued an opinion in a case that arose after a hated exchange between two motorists caused a truck driver to crash. In the case, Phillips v. Stear, the lower court entered a verdict in favor of the defense. However, on appeal that verdict was reversed based on the defendant’s failure to disclose information about his driving history.

A Road Rage Situation Culminates in a Crash

The plaintiff was driving on a West Virginia highway when another motorist pulled in front of him, gave him the “finger,” and then slammed on his brakes. In an attempt to avoid what he thought would be a certain collision, the truck driver also slammed on his brakes. However, this caused him to lose control of the truck and an accident ensued.

The other motorist sped off. However, a witness to the accident followed the motorist and called police, giving authorities the car’s license plate information. Eventually police were able to locate the driver, who was cited for improper lane change. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the other driver.

Florida Accident Victim’s Bad-Faith Claim Against Insurance Company Results in $1 Million Verdict

Published on: March 11, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Insurance companies can be difficult to deal with. Whether it is an aggressive representative trying to get an accident victim to settle a case for a low-ball amount or a claims adjuster denying a seemingly valid request for compensation, insurance companies are not known for their customer service. In fact, in many cases people have to turn to the courts to enforce their own insurance policy against the insurance company. That is exactly what happened in a recent case in front of the Florida Supreme Court.In the case, Fridman v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, the plaintiff was hit by an underinsured motorist and turned to his own insurance company, Safeco, for help. However, Safeco denied the plaintiff’s claim. After continuing to try and get a response for several years, the plaintiff finally filed a lawsuit against Safeco, compelling them to deal with the claim. The lawsuit was filed pursuant to a statute that allowed for recovery in excess of the policy limit.

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Safeco sent the plaintiff a check for $50,000 in an attempt to pay out the claim. However, at this point the plaintiff rejected the check, and opted to have a jury determine how much he was entitled to. The case proceeded to trial, where a jury awarded the plaintiff $1 million. Safeco appealed to the intermediate appellate court, which reversed the lower court’s opinion, and held that the $50,000 check given to the plaintiff was, in effect, a settlement that prevented the case from proceeding toward trial. The plaintiff then appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.

Johnson & Johnson to Pay $72 Million after Product Liability Lawsuit

Published on: March 8, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier last month, a jury awarded the family of a woman who died from ovarian cancer roughly $72 million against the defendant, health-care manufacturing giant, Johnson & Johnson. According to one article following the case, $10 million of the verdict was for compensatory damages and $62 million were for punitive damages.

The Allegations

The plaintiffs in the case alleged that Johnson & Johnson not only sold a dangerous product, but also that the company continued to do so even after it learned the of dangers associated with the product. The lawsuit focused on the deceased’s use of Johnson & Johnson’s “Shower to Shower” powder, which contained talcum powder. The product was marketed for decades as a feminine hygiene product, until the Food and Drug Administration advised against the use of talc-based products around the genitals.

Evidence at trial suggested that the woman had used the product for decades, and was never warned of the possibility that continued use of the product increased the likelihood she would develop cancer. There was also evidence presented suggesting that Johnson & Johnson officials knew that there were dangers associated with the use of their product, but ignored them and continued to market the product as a safe feminine-hygiene product.

Tampa Court Declines to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Car Accident Victim PIP Payments

Published on: March 4, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In AA Suncoast Chiropractic Clinic, PA v. Progressive America Ins. Co., a group of Florida chiropractic clinics filed a class action lawsuit against an insurance company, claiming the insurer breached its contract when it failed to reimburse the medical providers for the care each provided following various motor vehicle collisions.

Under Florida law, motorists are required to carry no-fault personal injury protection (PIP) coverage of $10,000 in order to pay for emergency medical treatment. According to the group of chiropractic clinics, the insurer reclassified the treatment each insured person at issue received as non-emergency care after the insureds were treated. As a result, the insurance company allegedly opted to reduce the PIP policy limits to $2,500, pursuant to Section 627.736 of the Florida Statutes. After doing so, the insurer denied full payment to the clinics. In their complaint, the group of clinics sought both declaratory and injunctive relief.

Florida Appellate Court Holds Injured Employee’s Motion for Sanctions Was Not Premature

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

In Soca v. Advanced Auto Parts, an auto parts store employee was apparently injured during a robbery at work. Following the incident, the man filed three petitions for workers’ compensation benefits. Soon afterward, the man’s employer provided him with the benefits he requested, and the worker withdrew his petitions.

Next, the employer sought to tax the worker for costs under Section 440.34(3) of the Florida Statutes. Under the law, the nonprevailing party in a proceeding before a Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”) is required to pay the “reasonable costs” associated with the proceedings. According to the employer, the company was clearly the prevailing party in the workers’ compensation proceedings. The employee responded by filing a motion for sanctions against his employer pursuant to Section 440.32. In his motion, the worker argued the costs sought by his employer could not have been incurred in the company’s defense against his petition for workers’ compensation benefits.

Florida Appeals Court Holds Section 57.105 Does Not Entitle Defendant to Privileged Information

Published on: February 25, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Plaintiff Jessica Tedrow filed suit in April 2013 against Jimmy Cannon under Florida’s dog-bite statute. Tedrow alleged that her daughter was injured by Cannon’s dog during a party at Cannon’s home in April 2012. The statute provides that “[t]he owner of any dog that bites any person…is liable for damages suffered by persons bitten.” But it also provides that if the owner “had displayed in a prominent place” a sign including the words “Bad Dog,” the owner is only liable if “the damages are proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of the owner.”Cannon responded with a motion for attorneys’ fees, alleging that Tedrow’s complaint had no basis in law and that Cannon “had displayed in a prominent place an easily readable sign including the words, ‘Bad Dog.'” After 21 days, Cannon filed the motion for attorneys’ fees with the circuit court, asserting that he could not be held strictly liable under the statute because he had displayed a “Bad Dog” sign.

Florida Hearing Indicates Takata Concealed Evidence of Airbag Defect

Published on: February 22, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In May 2015, Takata Corp., a Japanese company that makes airbags, announced that roughly 33.8 million vehicles might contain defective airbags that could explode with excessive force. Specifically, they can shoot metal shrapnel at passengers and cause serious injury or even death, sometimes when no airbag-deploying event has occurred. Takata also agreed to a consent order with the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding its obligations in the recall process, which happens to be the largest auto recall in history. It additionally released four defect information reports regarding the details of the affected devices. On Sept. 1, 2015, the NHTSA estimate changed to 23.4 million.

Dozens of lawsuits against Takata have been filed in Florida federal courts. On February 12, 2016, a hearing in the case of injured Florida resident Patricia Mincey indicated that Takata’s own engineers discarded evidence that may have shown the defective airbag propellant as long as 16 years ago. The propellant includes a compound called ammonium nitrate, which was introduced into Takata models as early as 2000 and triggered failures during internal testing. Mincey was paralyzed when her Takata-manufactured airbag deployed defectively during a 2014 accident.

Florida Mother Fights to Change Wrongful Death Rules

Published on: February 18, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Linda Porter’s son, Pete Thomas, died 12 years ago in a New Port Richey hospital. Now Porter goes to rock concerts and imagines her long-haired guitarist son with her in the audience. This April, Pete would have been 50 years old.

In October 2014, the 38-year-old was admitted to the Morton Plant North Bay Hospital with abdominal pain. Less than 24 hours had passed before he went into respiratory arrest and was put on a ventilator. He died roughly six weeks later. Porter believes the hospital caused Pete’s death by over-medicating him.

Florida Appeals Court Holds Post-Trial Interest Accrues from Date of Judgment, Not Verdict

Published on: February 15, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A Florida appellate court recently reversed a lower court’s ruling that when the amount of the judgment in a tort case is modified on appeal, post-trial interest must accrue from the date of the verdict rather than from the date of the original judgment. The court reasoned that the earlier accrual date in such circumstances unjustly punishes the losing party.In the fall of 2011, a jury rendered a verdict of roughly $7.5 million in a wrongful death lawsuit, finding appellate Shoemaker 40 percent at fault for decedent Stephen Sliger’s death. Following the verdict, Shoemaker and his co-defendants filed a motion to cap non-economic damages according to section 766.118(2) of Florida Statutes. They argued that under 766.118, the non-economic damages should be capped at $500,000. Sonia Sliger, the representative of Stephen Sliger’s estate, responded that section 766.118’s damages limitation violated the Florida and U.S. constitutions.

Florida Appeals Court Reverses Verdict for Woman Injured By Dead Horse in Road

Published on: February 11, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Florida Court of Appeals for the Fifth District reversed a trial court’s ruling for a woman injured by a horse corpse in the road, holding that the defendant Sheriff did not owe the injured woman a duty of care.Kathleen Shinkle was driving on a dark road just before sunrise in a rural part of Flagler County when she struck a dead horse lying on the roadway. The collision caused her car to flip over, resulting in serious injuries to Shinkle. She filed suit against the Flagler County Sheriff. The jury returned a verdict for Shinkle. Moreover, the trial court granted her motion for additur (additional damages) and rendered judgment in her favor.