South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Florida Appeals Court Orders New Trial in Motorcycle Crash Case

Published on: December 8, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial in a motorcycle collision case. In Shaver v. Carpenter, a motorcycle carrying a husband and wife was struck by an automobile in an intersection. Following the traffic wreck, the couple filed a negligence lawsuit against the driver who allegedly caused their crash injuries. As expected, the issue of fault was a main source of contention at trial. In the end, a jury found that the defendant motorist was 95 percent at fault for the couple’s accident harm. The jury also determined that the couple was five percent liable for the collision. In response to the jury’s award, the allegedly negligent motorist appealed the damages award.

On appeal, Florida’s Second District stated the damages award issued by the jury was tainted by inadmissible evidence. According to the court, a state trooper was erroneously permitted to offer testimony regarding which driver failed to yield the right of way. Although the allegedly at-fault driver admitted some level of culpability for the collision, the appellate court found that evidence related to which driver had the right of way was inconclusive. Despite the automobile driver’s objections, the lower court allowed the law enforcement officer to state the defendant driver violated the couple’s right of way. The Second District held that this ruling was in error based on the relevant case law.

Jacksonville Court Rules That Jury Verdict Must be Offset in Underinsured Motorist Coverage Case

Published on: December 3, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Primo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., a man was allegedly injured when his car was struck from behind by an underinsured motorist. As a result of the collision, the man received a $10,000 settlement from the negligent driver. After that, the injured man filed a lawsuit in the Middle District of Florida seeking underinsured motorist benefits from his automobile insurer. In Florida, underinsured motorist coverage is a supplemental automobile insurance policy option that provides a driver with bodily injury and property damage coverage in the event that he or she is involved in a collision with a motorist who lacks sufficient liability insurance coverage.

Prior to trial, the man and his insurer agreed that the underinsured driver acted negligently. Because of this, the only issue for the jury was whether and to what degree the negligent motorist caused the man’s harm. Following trial, the jurors returned a verdict stating the negligent driver caused the man more than $57,000 in past damages. In addition, the jury found that the injured man did not sustain any permanent injuries and declined to award damages based on his future impairment or medical expenses. Ultimately, the jurors failed to award the man any non-economic damages. In general, non-economic damages include pain, suffering, loss of consortium, and other subjective types of harm.

Tampa Court Holds Diversity Jurisdiction is Proper in Medical Malpractice Case Where Parties Were Fraudulently Joined

Published on: November 26, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Byrnes v. Small, a Florida woman was allegedly injured in 2006 by a medical product that was implanted into her spine in a manner that was not approved by the nation’s Food and Drug Administration. In 2014, the allegedly injured woman filed a personal injury lawsuit against the company that designed, manufactured, and distributed the product that allegedly harmed her, her doctor, and his employer in a Florida state court. Soon afterward, the product manufacturer removed the woman’s case to the Middle District of Florida in Tampa based on diversity jurisdiction.

Federal diversity jurisdiction is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) when the parties to a lawsuit are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. In general, the party seeking removal to federal court must demonstrate that federal jurisdiction was justified at the time the case was filed. According to the medical product manufacturer, the physician and his employer were fraudulently joined in the lawsuit in an effort to defeat federal jurisdiction. The manufacturer argued that such joinder was not permitted because the statute of limitations for filing a case against each of the other two defendants had passed. The manufacturer argued before the court that this meant the citizenship of the non-diverse defendants should be ignored. In response, the allegedly injured woman claimed the case should be remanded because the medical product manufacturer failed to meet its burden of demonstrating diversity.

Florida Federal Court Refuses to Dismiss Statutory Bad Faith Claim Arising Out of Broward County Car Accident

Published on: November 24, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Eads v. Allstate Indemnity Co., a Florida woman was permanently injured when the motor vehicle she was traveling in was struck while stopped at a red light in Broward County. The unfortunate car accident apparently hurt at least seven people. Following the collision, the seriously harmed woman and six other individuals filed a personal injury claim against the automobile insurance company that provided liability coverage for the driver who negligently caused the traffic wreck. In response, the insurance company agreed to pay the injured parties a combined total of $20,000. As a result, six of the people who were hurt in the crash received $2,857.

Instead of accepting the settlement offer, the permanently hurt woman filed a lawsuit against the driver who caused the collision and the owner of the automobile in the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. According to the woman’s complaint, the vehicle owner’s insurance company did not investigate or fully evaluate the various personal injury claims filed in connection with the traffic accident. Instead, the woman alleged the insurer offered her a capricious amount of damages and refused to allow its insured to negotiate a settlement with her. Following trial, a Broward County jury awarded the woman more than $300,000 in damages.

Florida’s Fourth District Discusses Essential Elements of a Settlement Agreement in Tragic Auto Accident Case

Published on: November 20, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Thompson v. Estate of Maurice, a young man was unfortunately killed while riding as a passenger in an automobile. Following the collision, the decedent’s parents demanded payment from the liability insurance company that provided coverage for the vehicle. The letter included a settlement offer that expired in one month. The insurer responded with a counteroffer that was nearly identical but requested that the young man’s parents sign a release of all claims against the vehicle’s owner and the liability insurer as a condition of settlement. The release was never signed, and no money exchanged hands.

About two years later, the decedent’s parents filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the estate of the individual who was driving the vehicle at the time of the deadly accident and the owner of the car. In their complaint, the decedent’s parents claimed that the driver caused their son’s death by negligently operating the automobile. They also asserted vicarious liability claims against the owner of the car.

Appellate Court Holds Videotaped Depositions May be a Reimbursable Litigation Expense Under Florida Workers’ Compensation Statute

Published on: November 17, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Lane v. Workforce Business Services, Inc., a man sought benefits from his employer under Chapter 440 of the Florida Statutes after he suffered an injury at work. The hurt worker filed a petition seeking a determination regarding his entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits after his employer refused to compensate him for the harm he sustained in the workplace accident. Following extensive litigation, the man and his employer entered into an agreement that the employer would accept compensability for the man’s injuries. As part of the settlement agreement, the employer agreed to pay litigation costs and the worker’s statutory attorney’s fees.

The man next sought additional attorney’s fees before a Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”) pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 57.105. The JCC denied the man’s request for additional legal fees and stated that such an award is not allowed in a workers’ compensation proceeding before a JCC. In addition, the JCC refused to award the injured man the costs associated with two videotaped depositions that were important to the case. The hurt worker then appealed the JCC’s decision to Florida’s First District Court of Appeal.

Florida Appeals Court Says Summary Judgment Was Not Proper in Car Accident Dispute

Published on: November 13, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal has reversed and remanded a trial court’s order granting summary judgment in an insurance dispute. In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Manzo-Pianelli, a woman who was operating an insured motor vehicle with permission was involved in a car accident with another automobile. At the time of the collision, the owner of the vehicle carried a liability policy of $100,000 as well as a $1 million umbrella policy with another company. After the traffic wreck, the owner’s auto insurance company provided the policy limits to a woman who was seriously hurt in the collision. In exchange for the payment, the woman agreed to issue a partial release against the owner of the automobile that apparently struck her. The injured woman next sought coverage under the vehicle owner’s umbrella policy. In response, the insurer refused her claim.

About two years later, the woman filed a lawsuit seeking uninsured motorist coverage from her own motor vehicle insurer. After that, the woman’s liability insurer filed a third-party case seeking to clarify “priority of coverage” against the woman, the company that issued the owner of the vehicle’s umbrella policy, and the driver who allegedly caused the accident. Nearly three years later, the injured woman amended her complaint to include the purportedly negligent driver who caused her injuries. Throughout the court proceedings, the owner of the vehicle was never named as a defendant by any party.

Southern District of Florida Refuses to Dismiss Negligence Lawsuit Filed Against Cruise Ship Company

Published on: November 10, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Southern District of Florida has refused to dismiss a slip-and-fall case that was filed against a cruise ship company. In Young v. Carnival Corp., a woman filed a negligence lawsuit against the cruise line she traveled with in a Florida federal court. According to her complaint, the woman was injured when she slipped and fell on an unspecified substance while aboard a cruise ship. She also claimed that the cruise line breached its duty to protect her from being injured, and the company’s breach proximately caused her actual harm. In response to the woman’s lawsuit, the cruise company filed a motion to dismiss the woman’s case.

According to the cruise ship operator, the woman failed to plead the elements necessary to establish the company was negligent. In a federal lawsuit, a party’s case may be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In considering such a motion, a court is normally required to accept all of the facts alleged in the pleadings as true. After considering the company’s motion, the federal court said the woman successfully pleaded her negligence case.

Florida Supreme Court Answers Two Certified Questions Over Uninsured Motorist Benefits

Published on: November 6, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Travelers Commercial Insurance Co. v. Harrington, a woman was seriously hurt in a one-car accident while riding as a passenger in her father’s car. The man driving the automobile was not related to the woman, but he was driving the vehicle with her father’s permission. At the time of the single-car crash, the woman and both of her parents carried liability and non-stacked uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage on three vehicles, including the one involved in the accident. The driver also carried liability insurance with a different automobile insurance company.

Following the single-vehicle collision, the driver’s liability insurer paid the woman the policy limits of $50,000 for her harm. In addition, the woman’s own insurance company paid her the $100,000 liability limit under the terms of the policy. Since the woman incurred medical expenses that exceeded this amount, she also sought to recover UM benefits from her insurer. The company stated the vehicle was not uninsured under the terms of the auto insurance policy and denied her claim. According to the company, the policy excluded a family car or truck from the definition of an uninsured or underinsured vehicle.

Tampa Federal Court Allows Untimely Expert Testimony in Bad Faith Insurance Case

Published on: November 3, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Hayas v. GEICO General Insurance Co., a man negligently caused a motor vehicle collision that tragically killed another individual. When the traffic wreck occurred, the man carried liability insurance that was limited to $100,000 per person and $300,000 per incident. Following the fatal crash, the decedent’s estate filed a complaint against the negligent driver and his automobile insurance company. Although a settlement opportunity apparently arose, the insurer allegedly declined to settle the case. Following a jury trial, the decedent’s estate secured a $1.6 million judgment against the driver.

After the judgment was rendered, the driver instituted a bad faith insurance case against his liability insurance company in the Middle District of Florida in Tampa. In support of his case, the negligent driver filed a supplemental expert disclosure with the federal court. The insurance company responded by filing a motion to strike and asked the court to exclude the man’s proposed expert witness and prohibit the witness from offering any testimony in the case.