South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Florida’s Fifth District Refuses to Consider Unpreserved Liability Issue in Car Accident Case

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

In Witherell v. Larimer, a young woman apparently struck a male pedestrian while driving her mother’s automobile. As a result, the man filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver and her mother in a Florida court. At trial, both parties claimed the other was responsible for the injury accident. According to the man, the driver struck him because she failed to pay sufficient attention to the roadway. The motorist countered that the pedestrian contributed to the incident because he was under the influence of alcohol when he crossed the roadway.

After both the pedestrian and the driver presented expert evidence, jurors returned a verdict stating each party was 50 percent responsible for the injury accident. In addition, the jury awarded the man no noneconomic damages and almost $90,000 in past medical bills. The presiding judge and both parties agreed that the noneconomic damages award was inconsistent with the medical expenses awarded to the pedestrian and asked jurors to reconsider their decision. The jury then increased the man’s noneconomic damages award to $1, and the judge entered final judgment in the lawsuit.

Florida Appellate Court Reverses Directed Verdict in Favor of Tobacco Company in Negligence and Strict Liability Case

Published on: December 15, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Whitney v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., a woman filed a strict liability and negligence lawsuit against a tobacco company in a Florida state court over the company’s allegedly defectively designed cigarettes. According to the woman, the design defects made her more apt to become addicted to cigarette smoking. As a result, the woman purportedly suffered lung cancer.

At trial, the woman presented a great deal of evidence to support her claims. As part of her case, the woman obtained testimony from an expert physician. The doctor testified under oath that the purported design defects included in the tobacco company’s product made it more likely for smokers to become addicted. The physician also claimed that the cigarettes at issue made it possible for carcinogen-containing smoke to enter deeper lung cavities than other types of tobacco products. According to the expert, this made it more likely that a smoker who used the product at issue would develop cancer. In addition, the doctor stated the cigarettes did not deliver on their promise to reduce health risks by lowering the amount of tar in the product.

Supreme Court of Florida Holds Deceased Worker’s Estate Cannot Recover Tort Judgment from Employer’s Insurance Company

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

In Morales v. Zenith Ins. Co., a Florida man was tragically killed in a workplace accident. Following the fatal incident, the decedent’s wife agreed to a workers’ compensation settlement with the man’s employer and the employer’s insurance company. The wife also signed a release stating the settlement was the sole remedy for which the insurer would provide coverage to the employer.

Prior to the workers’ compensation settlement, the man’s estate filed a wrongful death action against the man’s employer. As a result, a default judgment of nearly $10 million was entered in favor of the estate. After the employer’s insurer refused to pay the judgment, the estate filed a breach of contract lawsuit against the insurance company in a Florida court. The insurer removed the case to the Middle District of Florida and filed a motion for summary judgment. In its motion, the insurer argued that a workers’ compensation exclusion included in the employer’s policy barred the estate from suing the company. The federal court then granted the insurance company’s motion and entered judgment in its favor.

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.