South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Tampa Federal Court Holds Insurer Did Not Commit Bad Faith Following Motorcycle Accident

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

In Rodriguez v. Integon Indemnity Corp., a motorcycle rider was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision. At the time of the crash, the at-fault driver carried bodily injury insurance with a liability limit of up to $100,000 per person and $300,000 per incident. The day after the traffic wreck, the insurer was notified about the accident. A few days later, the claims representative who was assigned to the case sent a letter to the hurt biker stating he would be handling the injured man’s claim. In addition, the insurer sent two letters to the hurt motorcyclist’s attorney stating the company would settle the man’s claim for the full policy limits of $100,000. In both letters, the insurance company misstated the injured man’s first name but provided the appropriate claim number and date of loss.

Less than two weeks after the traffic wreck, the at-fault driver’s insurer sent a proposed release form and a check for $100,000 to the motorcyclist’s lawyer. An accompanying letter asked the man to hold the check in trust until an agreed-upon release could be executed. After the insurer unsuccessfully attempted to contact the law firm on multiple occasions, the motorcyclist’s attorney filed a lawsuit against the at-fault driver and the owner of the vehicle that struck the biker.

Florida’s First District Remands Workers’ Compensation Case for Reconsideration of Injured Woman’s Statutory Employee Status

Published on: March 16, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Mitchell v. Osceola County School Board, a Florida woman was working at a veterinary clinic that was being hosted by a non-profit organization and held at an Osceola County high school. While assisting at the clinic, the woman allegedly suffered an injury when she was bitten by a dog. After the incident, the woman filed multiple workers’ compensation benefits claims against both the non-profit organization that employed her and the school board. Eventually, the woman dismissed her claims against the non-profit organization because the group did not carry workers’ compensation insurance coverage.

At a hearing before a Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”) the woman argued there was an employer-employee relationship between herself and the school board. In support of her claim, the woman stated the board was her statutory employer under the plain language of Section 440.10(1)(b) of the Florida Statutes. After the JCC rejected the woman’s assertion that she was a school board employee under the law, she filed an appeal with Florida’s First District.

Appeals Court Rules on Attendant Care Payments in Florida Workers’ Compensation Case

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

In American Airlines v. Hennessey, an employee injured his right leg in a workplace accident. As a result, he was required to undergo several hospitalizations and a lengthy course of antibiotics. Due to the extent of the man’s injuries, his employer authorized him to receive attendant care in his home until he was healed.

About two months after the on-the-job accident, the man sought authorization for attendant care beginning on the date of his harm. In support of his request, the man submitted an undated handwritten note from his doctor stating that the hurt man’s wife took non-professional care of him 24 hours per day since he was injured. Later, the physician clarified that the man’s injuries merited attendant care for at least 12 hours per day for a period of about four months beginning on the date of the workplace accident. This included “bathing, cooking, cleaning, and dressing type functions as well as transportation.”

Florida’s Second District Overturns Punitive Damages Award Where Evidence Did Not Demonstrate a Reckless Disregard for Human Life

Published on: March 9, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In L.E. Myers Co. v. Young, a business contracted with a Florida utility company to install several new power poles in Manatee County, Florida. As part of the contract, the business was tasked with installing four 85-foot-long concrete poles that weighed about 21,000 pounds each along a Bradenton street in compliance with the utility company’s specifications. In addition, the company was required to provide traffic control while working along the street.

Each pole was installed using a crane that was provided and operated by a third party. While one of the poles was being installed, one of the tractor-trailers used to transport the poles was parked in the emergency lane of the roadway. Although the pole was completely off the street, a truck tire was hanging over the white line that was painted on the road. Because of this, a safety supervisor who was employed by the contractor placed traffic cones and warning signs on the street near the work site.

Not All Evidence is Admissible in a South Florida Car Accident Case

Published on: March 5, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Frost v. McNeilus, two defendants admitted to liability for a Florida motor vehicle collision that resulted in injuries to a plaintiff. Although the parties came to an agreement regarding the amount of past medical bills the plaintiff was entitled to receive, they disagreed about her future medical expenses as well as her pain and suffering. Prior to trial, the defendants filed a motion in limine with the Middle District of Florida. In general, such a motion is used to ask a judge to exclude certain evidence at trial.

In their motion, the defendants argued the plaintiff should not be allowed to introduce evidence they felt was irrelevant and offered solely to “curry favor with the jury.” The defendants stated that information related to the plaintiff’s Christian missionary upbringing and education as well as her son’s military service would be unfairly prejudicial to them. The plaintiff countered that information regarding her background would help jurors more accurately apportion damages, particularly with regard to the types of activities she claimed she could no longer enjoy as a result of the crash. The plaintiff also claimed that her religious beliefs were relevant because she believes divorce is not an option even though she felt the accident put unnecessary strain on her marriage.

Florida Supreme Court Says Auto Insurer Issued New Policy When it Changed the Sole Named Insured in UM Benefits Dispute

Published on: March 2, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Florida has resolved a conflict between two District Courts of Appeal in an uninsured motorist insurance dispute. In Chase v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., a man purchased motor vehicle insurance with bodily injury liability limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident from an insurance company. At the time, the man also elected uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per incident. The man’s daughter was listed as a driver on the policy, but she was not a named insured.

Three years later, the insurer made the man’s daughter the sole named insured on the automobile policy and listed the father as a driver. The insured vehicle which was titled in the daughter’s name was also updated. When the change was made, the daughter was not presented with a UM rejection form. Around the same time, the insurer issued an entirely new policy to the father. Although the daughter eventually moved out of her father’s home and removed him from her auto policy, she later moved back in and once again added him as a driver on her policy. At no point was she provided with the opportunity to select lower UM limits or reject coverage in writing.

First District Court of Appeal in Florida Overturns Summary Judgment in Favor of Auto Insurer Despite That Applicant Made Material Misrepresentations

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

In Echo v. MGA Insurance Co., Inc., a Florida woman purchased an automobile using another individual’s name. Despite doing so, she obtained a motor vehicle insurance policy on the vehicle in her own name. In her application, the woman stated she was the owner of the insured vehicle and the only licensed driver in the household. About one year after purchasing the insurance policy, the woman was involved in a traffic wreck while driving the car. Following the crash, the woman apparently sought medical care from a number of physicians. After that, she submitted a personal injury protection (“PIP”) claim related to her medical expenses to her auto insurer.

In response to the woman’s medical benefits claim, the auto insurer denied coverage as a result of the purportedly material misrepresentation she made on her vehicle insurance application. According to the insurance company, it would have chosen not to issue the automobile policy or it would have charged a higher premium if the woman had been truthful on her application. In addition to denying the woman’s accident claim, the insurer stated the policy was void ab initio, or from the beginning, and refunded all premiums that were paid to it by the woman. The woman apparently did not cash the refund check.

Florida Appeals Court Holds Employer May Select Different UIM Policy Limits for its Insureds

Published on: February 23, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Germany v. Darby, a Florida man was hurt in a work-related motor vehicle collision that was caused by an uninsured driver. At the time of the traffic wreck, the man was driving a car that was owned by his employer. The employer carried an underinsured and uninsured motorist (“UIM”) policy on the vehicle with limits of up to $500,000 for company “executives, owners, and their family members” and $30,000 for all other individuals. When the employer purchased the policy, the company elected UIM policy limits that were lower than its $1 million bodily injury liability insurance limits on an approved Florida Office of Insurance Regulation form.

Following the crash, the man challenged the limits of his employer’s UIM insurance coverage in a Florida court. According to the man, different UIM policy limits are not allowed under Section 627.727(1) of the Florida Statutes. After analyzing the statute at issue, the trial court disagreed with the man and held that differing UIM coverage limits were permitted under the law. Next, the man filed an appeal with Florida’s First District Court of Appeal.

Florida’s Fourth District Holds Information Prepared in Anticipation of Litigation is Not Discoverable in Slip and Fall Case

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

In Millard Mall Service, Inc. v. Bolda, a woman filed a lawsuit against the owner of a shopping mall after she sustained an injury in a March 2011 slip and fall accident. In support of her case, the woman requested certain documents from the mall owner. As part of a subpoena, the woman asked the owner for any records related to substantially similar accidents within the preceding three-year-period, mall cleaning and maintenance records from March 2011, and any information related to cleaning or maintenance that was performed by a third party during the same month.

In response to the woman’s discovery requests, the owner of the mall argued the documents were not discoverable because they were prepared in anticipation of litigation. According to the mall owner, the information requested included photos, discussions, and mental impressions regarding incidents that took place on the premises. After reviewing the documents at issue in his chambers, the presiding trial court judge ordered the mall owner to produce the requested information except for the incident report related to the woman’s fall. In response to the trial court’s order, the owner of the mall sought certiorari review before Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal.

Middle District of Florida Denies Motion for Summary Judgment in Bad Faith Insurance Case

Published on: February 16, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Taylor v. Geico Indemnity Co., a driver was involved in an at-fault motor vehicle collision with a motorcyclist. Following the traffic wreck, the biker was treated for numerous broken bones. The motorcyclist elected to receive compensation from his own motor vehicle insurer, which would then seek subrogation from the at-fault driver’s liability insurance company. At the time of the collision, the automobile driver carried $10,000 in bodily injury and property damage liability accident coverage.

Eventually, 90 percent of the fault for the collision was attributed to the insured car driver. As a result, the man’s liability insurer notified him that he may be liable for any damages to the motorcyclist that exceeded the limits of the liability insurance policy he carried.