South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

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.

Order Denying Florida Workers’ Compensation Benefits Advance Request is a Final Order for Purposes of Appeal

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

In Shannon v. Cheney Bros., Inc., a man suffered a workplace back injury in October 2010. The man’s employer accepted liability for the injury and authorized the employee to seek medical treatment. Later, the employee was involved in a traffic collision that was not related to work. As a result of the accident, the worker suffered additional back harm. Not long after the crash occurred, the man’s doctor stated it was his medical opinion that the employee’s workplace injury was no longer the major cause of his need for medical care. As a result, the man’s employer denied his request for follow-up medical treatment.

Next, the injured worker filed two requests for medical benefits related to his back harm. While his requests were pending, the worker sought an advance workers’ compensation payment. Following an evidentiary hearing before a Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”), the man’s request was denied and the worker did not appeal the decision. Several months later, the JCC also denied the employee’s two petitions for medical benefits. The worker then appealed each of the JCC’s decisions to Florida’s First District Court of Appeal.

Northern District of Florida Rules Bad Faith Insurance Case Was Filed Prematurely

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

In Mann v. Taylor, a woman was hurt in a traffic collision that was allegedly caused by another driver. As a result of her accident, she filed a negligence lawsuit against the at-fault motorist in a Florida court. The injured woman also sought uninsured motorist benefits from her own automobile insurance company. In addition, the hurt motorist accused the company of refusing to settle her claim in good faith and asked the court to issue a declaratory judgment against the insurer. After the insurer successfully removed the woman’s case to the Northern District of Florida based on diversity of citizenship, the business filed a motion to dismiss or strike portions of the hurt driver’s claims against the company.

First, the federal court stated an injured person may bring an uninsured motorist case against his or her auto insurance company before resolving the individual’s claim against the negligent party. After examining the woman’s complaint, however, the Northern District of Florida found that the injured driver’s request for relief was unclear and ambiguous. Since the claim was not sufficiently pleaded, the court dismissed the hurt woman’s uninsured motorist benefits claim with leave to amend it in the future.

Florida Court Reminds Plaintiffs General Maritime Law Does Not Recognize a Loss of Consortium Cause of Action

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

The Southern District of Florida has dismissed a breach of contract and loss of consortium claim that was filed against a cruise ship company. In Friedhofer v. NCL Ltd., two women apparently suffered damage to their hair while traveling aboard a cruise ship. As a result, the women and their spouses filed a lawsuit against the owner of the cruise ship in the Southern District of Florida. According to their complaint, the cruise ship owner breached its contract and acted negligently when the water on board the ship caused damage to the passengers’ hair. In addition, the plaintiffs sought loss of consortium benefits.

In response to the lawsuit, the cruise line filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ breach of contract and loss of consortium claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Typically, such a motion is appropriate when a plaintiff does not plead sufficient facts to demonstrate he or she is entitled to legal relief. When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must accept all of the facts included in the pleading as true and construe any inferences in favor of the non-moving party.