South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Florida Court Overturns Judgment in Car Accident Case Due to Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel

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

In Government Employees Insurance Company v. Kisha, a couple purchased a motor vehicle insurance policy that included uninsured motorist coverage (“UIM”). Both members of the couple were named insureds on the automobile policy. After the couple was involved in a traffic wreck, each claimed UIM benefits under the policy. The insurer denied both of their claims due to non-payment of policy premiums. According to the insurance company, the couple’s policy was not in effect when the collision occurred.

Next, the wife filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment in a Florida court. The woman argued the auto insurer waived its right to cancel the couple’s policy and was estopped from denying coverage as a result. Although he offered testimony in his wife’s case, the husband did not join the lawsuit. Following trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the wife. The husband then filed his own declaratory judgment action. Additionally, he asked the court to enter a Motion for Entry of Judgment based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. As a result, the trial court issued a judgment in the man’s favor.

Court Overturns Summary Judgment in Florida Premises Liability Case

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

In Cook v. Bay Area Renaissance Festival of Largo, Inc., a visitor to a festival apparently parked in an overflow lot after being directed to do so by an event volunteer. While leaving the festival, the woman reportedly tripped on an exposed pipe while walking on a patch of unpaved sidewalk that connected the overflow lot to the festival. At the time, the walkway was owned by the city. As a result of her fall, the woman injured her foot. After her fall, the woman reported the incident to a festival employee, who immediately removed the pipe without seeking prior authorization from the landowner.

Later, the injured woman filed a negligent maintenance lawsuit against the festival operator in a Florida court. During discovery, the woman admitted the pipe was readily visible to pedestrians and that her fellow festival attendees warned her about the pipe immediately prior to her fall. In addition, the woman and her spouse offered conflicting testimony regarding whether they were told by festival workers to use the unpaved walkway.

Florida Court of Appeals Overturns Denial of Workers’ Compensation Benefits Related to Employee’s PTSD

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

In CVS Caremark Corp. v. McIntosh, a Florida pharmacy worker sought workers’ compensation benefits for her purported post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) following a work-related incident. Although the worker’s employer initially authorized the employee to seek psychiatric treatment, it later challenged the worker’s request for temporary total disability and inpatient psychiatric care benefits.

At a hearing before a Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”), the woman’s psychiatrist testified that she was temporarily and totally disabled because her workplace accident caused her to suffer from PTSD. Despite this, the JCC rejected the doctor’s opinion because the woman was able to work for other specific periods of time following her job-related incident. The JCC also stated the worker’s testimony concerning her inability to work was not credible and found that she was not working for reasons that were unrelated to her compensable accident. As a result, the JCC denied the worker’s temporary disability claim.

Florida Court of Appeal Orders Juror Interview Following Car Accident Verdict

Published on: May 26, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Barrios v. Locastro, two women were involved in a motor vehicle collision in Florida. As a result, one of the drivers apparently suffered a neck injury. Following two surgeries designed to correct her neck harm, the hurt woman filed a personal injury action against the other driver in a Florida court.

During jury selection, prospective members of the panel were asked to raise their hand if they or any of their close family members was ever a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit or settlement. In addition, they were also asked to indicate whether they had ever suffered from certain back injuries or sought disability payments in the past. After the defendant used each of her peremptory juror challenges, two jurors who indicated their family members were previously involved in an auto collision were placed on the jury.

Florida Appeals Court States Causation Standard Fixed at Time of Workplace Accident

Published on: May 22, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Broadspire v. Jones, a paper mill employee suffered orthopedic and psychological injuries after he was hurt in a 1981 workplace explosion. After receiving medical care for many years, the man eventually asked to collect attendant care payments for his recently retired wife. The man’s employer denied his request, based on its assertion that the man’s continuing need for treatment was not work-related. Additionally, the employer claimed the services provided by the man’s wife were gratuitous and not compensable.

Following a hearing on the matter, a Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”) awarded the injured man 12 hours of attendant care paid to his wife each day under Section 440.13(2)(b) of the Florida Statutes. In response, the employer filed an appeal with Florida’s First District Court of Appeal. In its appeal, the employer argued the JCC’s order was based on the wrong causation standard and was not supported by the record.

Florida Supreme Court Rules a Timely Objection to a Jury’s Inconsistent Verdict Must be Made in a Products Liability Case or the Issue is Waived

Published on: May 19, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Florida Supreme Court has held that a party to a products liability action must make a timely objection to an inconsistent jury verdict before jurors are discharged or the issue is waived. In Coba v. Tricam Industries, Inc., a Florida man was killed after he fell 13 feet from an apparently faulty ladder. After the fatal accident, the personal representative of the man’s estate sued the ladder manufacturer and distributor for both negligence and strict liability in a Florida court.

During trial, the plaintiff offered testimony from two of the deceased man’s relatives who witnessed his unfortunate fall. In addition, the plaintiff provided contested evidence regarding an alleged design defect included in the ladder. After the evidence was presented, jurors were given instructions regarding the standard for finding a design defect under both strict liability and negligence theories. In addition, the jury received instructions about the standard for finding negligence based on the distribution and sale of an allegedly defective ladder. Without objection from either party, the court also provided jurors with special interrogatories about the ladder’s purported design defect.

Florida Court Holds Insurer Has No Duty to Defend Rental Car Lessee’s Permitee Following Car Accident

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

In Allstate Fire and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Paolino, an automobile insurance company issued a liability policy to a couple beginning in July 2011 and terminating on December 25, 2011. The policy listed four motor vehicles and provided bodily injury coverage up to $250,000 for each person and $500,000 per occurrence. The accident policy also stated the insurer would defend the named insureds in the event of a collision in a covered motor vehicle. The accident policy specifically excluded coverage for any bodily injury or property damage that arose out of the use of a substitute vehicle that was being driven by an individual who was not a named insured or a resident of the insured’s household.

At some point, the husband apparently rented a car from an agency and allowed the couple’s housekeeper to operate the vehicle solely for his benefit. At all other times, the vehicle was parked in a garage at the couple’s home. While the housekeeper was returning from a shopping trip that was requested by the couple, she was apparently involved in a traffic wreck. After that, the driver of the vehicle the housekeeper allegedly struck filed a personal injury case against the couple, their housekeeper, and the couple’s auto insurer in a Florida Court.

Southern District of Florida Grants Summary Judgment in Lawsuit Based on Cruise Ship Excursion Injury

Published on: May 12, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Wolf v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., a man apparently suffered an injury while participating in a shore excursion during a cruise to Costa Rica. The man’s wife purchased the cruise ticket from a travel agent before the couple’s departure. Prior to boarding the cruise ship, the man signed a contract acknowledging that any companies offering shore excursions to him while aboard the vessel were independent contractors. The contract also stated the passenger agreed to participate in any on-shore activities at his own risk.

After departing from the cruise terminal, the man purchased a zip-line shore excursion from the Shore Excursion Desk that was located aboard the ship. The ticket stated the excursion would be operated by a third party that was an independent contractor. It also said the owner of the cruise ship would not be held liable for any injuries sustained by a passenger who elected to participate in the activity. In addition, the man signed a waiver that released the cruise company of all liability associated with the shore excursion.

Appeals Court Overturns Erroneous Decision in Florida Workers’ Compensation Back Injury Case

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

In Babahmetovic v. Scan Design Florida Inc., a Florida man apparently hurt his back when he lifted a heavy box at work in October 2013. Following his injury, the man’s employer authorized an urgent care facility to provide him with treatment. The facility determined the employee’s back harm was work-related and referred him to another physician for follow-up care.

In November 2013, the worker’s treating physician determined the employee suffered from both a workplace injury and a pre-existing degenerative disk condition. Although he indicated the worker’s harm was work-related on a treatment form, the physician sent a letter to the man’s employer stating only 40 percent of his back pain was caused by lifting the heavy box at work. About two weeks later, the man’s employer denied all benefits and stated the workplace incident was not a major contributing cause (“MCC”) of the worker’s need for medical care. According to the employer, the company was permitted to deny all compensability even though it previously authorized medical treatment within 120 days under Section 440.20(4) of the Florida Statutes.

Appeals Court Overturns Comparative Negligence Ruling in Florida Premises Liability Case Where Plaintiff Was Wearing High Heels

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

In Bongiorno v. Americorp, Inc., a Florida woman filed a premises liability claim against a property owner over the injuries she allegedly sustained when she fell on a slippery bathroom floor in the office building where she was employed. In response to the lawsuit, the property owner denied liability for the woman’s harm and asserted the defense of comparative negligence. Following a bench trial, a judge ruled in favor of the woman but found both parties equally negligent for her injuries. According to the judge, the woman was 50 percent responsible for her slip-and-fall harm because she wore four-inch high heels to work. As a result, the hurt woman’s damages award was significantly reduced.

On appeal to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, the woman argued the lower court judge committed error when he found her negligent for wearing high heels to work because there was no evidence offered to support such a conclusion. The building owner countered that women often fall as a result of wearing four-inch high heels, and the plaintiff assumed the risk when she chose to do so. In addition, the property owner claimed the fact that the woman told her doctor she was wearing such shoes at the time of her injury indicated an individual who was wearing so-called “safer footwear” could avoid falling on the supposedly slippery floor.