FLORIDA INJURY ATTORNEY BLAWG

The primary responsibility of a plaintiff’s personal injury attorney is to maximize the client’s recovery. Typical recoverable damages include lost wages (past & future), medical expenses, and compensation for pain and suffering (a/k/a non-economic damages).

A damage element often overlooked is the diminished value of a repaired vehicle. No matter how well a repair was done, the vehicle’s value is diminished. Period. The attorney should try to recover the loss for his client. The recovery is supported by Airtech Service, Inc. v. MacDonald Construction Co., 150 So.2d 465 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1963).
Continue reading

The essential parts of Florida House Bill 119, addressing Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits, were crafted in the closing days of the 2012 legislative session, sometimes behind closed doors, mostly without any public or committee vetting, and, of course, with undue influence from the insurance industry and not enough input from consumers. As has been widely reported, just as Governor Scott, the leading proponent of revising PIP, was lobbying legislators, United Group Underwriters, an affiliate of United Automobile Insurance Company, a leading Florida PIP carrier, gave $100,000 to his Let’s Get to Work political committee. Not surprisingly, the end result of the bill is that consumers will receive less while PIP carriers profit more.

The beat goes on….

That said, consumers and lawyers must know the changes. Here’s a brief summary of some of the important changes:

MEDICAL (unless otherwise indicated, these provisions become effective January 1, 2013):

• 14 Day Rule (Florida Statute 627.736(1)(a)1): Unless the insured receives medical care within 14 days after the motor vehicle accident from a hospital facility, emergency transport, an M.D., D.O., D.C., or D.D.S., there is no PIP coverage for any medical benefits.
• Followup medical care and services must be “consistent” with the underlying medical diagnosis provided pursuant to the services furnished within the first 14 days (F.S. 627.736(1)(a)2). Put another way, medical coverage is limited to the initial injury diagnosis.
• Medical Coverage Limited to $2500 unless “Emergency Medical Condition”: The definition of “Emergency Medical Condition” is located at F.S. 672.732(16). Only the types of medical providers listed in F.S. 627.736(1)(a)3 are allowed to determine if the injured person has sustained an “Emergency Medical Condition.” Chiropractors are not included in this list. Interestingly, if any medical provider listed in subparagraph 1 or subparagraph 2 determines that the injured person did not have an emergency medical condition, PIP benefits are limited to $2500. Chiropractors are listed in this group of medical providers.
• Massage and acupuncture no longer covered by PIP

OBTAINING PIP LEDGER (627.736(4)(j). The new statute only requires insurers to provide their insureds with PIP payment logs once litigation is commenced. This is silly; PIP carriers should be required to produce logs at all reasonable times including presuit. Some litigation is commenced because the insured, through no fault of his own, does not know what benefits have been paid. A ledger avoids this situation. Also, logs are needed to help resolve personal injury claims. It lets both sides know how much the amount of outstanding medical expenses. Even though current law, Southern Group Indemnity, Inc. v. Humanitary Health Care, Inc., 975 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2008), does not require carriers to provide ledgers presuit, they typically do as a courtesy. Let’s hope the revised PIP statute does not put an end to this courtesy.
Continue reading

Florida adheres to the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The doctrine stands for the proposition that since motor vehicles are dangerous instrumentalities, their owners should be held liable for the negligent operation of the vehicles by persons to whom they have been entrusted. The doctrine has been a part of Florida law since 1920. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629 (1920).

While Florida is one of only a handful of states to apply the doctrine, its impact has been watered down by arbitrary damage caps created by the Florida Legislature. The caps, contained in Florida Statute 324.021(9)(b)3, read as follows:

The owner who is a natural person and loans a motor vehicle to any permissive user shall be liable for the operation of the vehicle or the acts of the operator in connection therewith only up to $100,000 per person and up to $300,000 per incident for bodily injury and up to $50,000 for property damage. If the permissive user of the motor vehicle is uninsured or has any insurance with limits less than $500,000 combined property damage and bodily injury liability, the owner shall be liable for up to an additional $500,000 in economic damages only arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. The additional specified liability of the owner for economic damages shall be reduced by amounts actually recovered from the permissive user and from any insurance or self-insurance covering the permissive user. Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to affect the liability of the owner for his or her own negligence.

The imposition of owner liability is difficult to overcome. Consider these case examples:

• Susco Car Rental Sys. v. Leonard, 112 So.2d at 835, negligence of a person not allowed to drive bound the owner.
• Bowman v. Atlanta Baggage & Cab Co., 173 F. Supp. 282 (N.D. Fla. 1969), liability imposed even where driver exceeded stated area limitations.
• Tillman Chevrolet co. v. Moore, 175 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965), cert. discharged, 184 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1986), owner liable even though accident caused by a hitchiker allowed to drive by a customer convicted of stealing the car.
• Ivey v. National Fisheries, Inc. 215 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), employer who permitted a truck driver to use vehicle for delivery only between home and work liable for driving by drinking buddy given truck after worker stopped at bar and became intoxicated.

Rarer is the situation where owner liability is not imposed. Consider:

• The vehicle has been stolen. Read the Susco case;
• The vehicle has been used without authority by the employee of a facility where the vehicle has been left for repairs. Castillo v. Bickley, 363 So.2d 792 (Fla. 1978);
• The title is held for security purposes, as in a conditional sale; or,
• Where the title is only intended to be held temporarily, as where a transfer of title is in the process but not completed.

Continue reading