by

Florida insurance adjusters often argue that vehicles sustaining damage costing in excess of 80% of fair market value (or replacement cost) to repair, must be declared a total loss. The argument is made with such conviction that most people, including many attorneys, believe it is true. It is not true. It is an urban myth.

The truth is that insurance companies must pay for repairs costing up to 100% of fair market value. (Florida Statute 319.30(3)(a)2.)

For many owners, repairing makes more sense than replacing. This is especially true for owners who owe little or no money on their vehicle.

Replacement usually requires owners to lay out more money than they receive as fair market value from the insurance companies. The main reason why is because insurance companies use databases that understate fair market value. Thus, the carriers try to pay less than the actual replacement cost.
Continue reading

by

Surprisingly, most of the clothing sold and manufactured in the United States today is regulated by a law enacted in 1953, the Flammable Fabrics Act. The law was enacted to remove only the most flammable garments, leaving unregulated countless other dangerous fabrics. As a result, every year thousands of people are injured and nearly two hundred die due to clothing-related burns. The Act provides minimal protection and is sorely outdated. More can and should be done.

An example of what can be done is the Children’s Sleepwear Standards Act, enacted by Congress in the 1970s. The goal of this Act was to protect children up to the age of 12 years from the unreasonable risk of burns caused by burning sleapwear. It has worked. The standards have resulted in a drastic reduction in clothing-related burn injuries and death to children.

Adults should not be mislead by labeling announcing the burn resistance or safety characteristics of their clothing. Language such as “Class one normal flammability” or “does not ignite,” terms commonly used in the industry, do not necessarily mean that a fabric will not ignite under real world conditions. Consider this: ordinary newsprint passes the standard of “Normal flammability.”
Continue reading

by

“Umbrella” insurance is a relatively inexpensive way to obtain significant increases in important insurance policy coverage limits.

Consumers are familiar with motor vehicle and homeowners insurance policies. They are separate policies covering separate and distinct risks. Each has its own policy limits and premium charge.

Umbrella insurance is a distinct coverage that is purchased as a stand alone package to supplement other, separate policies, such as the the motor vehicle and homeowners examples mentioned above.

Example: A motor vehicle policy may provide bodily injury coverage of $10,000 or even $100,000. Separately, the homeowners policy (similar renters insurance is also available) may provide the same coverage limit.

Bodily injury coverage pays for personal injuries and death caused by the insured’s negligence. Although $100,000 in coverage is enough in most cases, in some cases it is not nearly enough. Some serious injuries command $1,000,000 and more in damages, while wrongful death damages can reach into the multiple millions. In these cases, the protection afforded by the primary policy is insufficient. This is where umbrella coverage comes into play.
Continue reading

by

The remedies available under Florida’s workers’ compensation system and its personal injury laws are significantly different in many ways. The most important difference may be that workers’ compensation does not compensate for pain and suffering (non-economic damages). For this reason, many people wish to pursue their remedy under the personal injury system.

Easier said than done….

The workers’ compensation system is essentially a no-fault system. Once eligibility is established, the benefits are supposed to begin. Establishing eligibility is usually as simple as showing that the accident occurred in the course and scope of employment. Fault is rarely an issue.

It is because of this important element that injured workers have lost the right to be compensated for pain and suffering. This element also accounts for the employer having almost absolute immunity from lawsuits seeking damages under the personal injury system.

The language granting the immunity is contained in Florida Statute 440.11(1). The exceptions [to the immunity] are contained in Sections 440.11(1)(a) & (b).

Exception (1)(a) applies to employers who have failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance or its statutory equivalent. This employer can be sued for workers’ compensation benefits or personal injury damages under traditional theories of negligence. The successful negligence litigant may be awarded compensation for pain and suffering. (Most employers are properly covered. Unfortunately, the ones who are not, commonly do not have enough money to provide workers’ compensation benefits or pay personal injury damages.)
Continue reading

by

Personal Injury Protection (PIP) (also known as No-Fault Insurance) is one of the few coverages in Florida that is mandatory in most motor vehicle insurance policies. (See this blog about “Full Coverage.”) Its primary function is to pay the medical expenses and lost wages of those individuals injured in motor vehicle accidents. (Which individuals are covered is another subject and beyond the scope of this blog.) However, unbeknownst to many lawyers and lay people alike, the PIP statute also provides for the payment of “Death Benefits.” (See Florida Statute Section 627.736(1)(c) (2008).)

The maximum dollar amount of coverage available under PIP is $10,000. Of this $10,000, only $5,000 is available for death benefits under Section 627.736(1)(c).
Continue reading

by

The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is one of the most frequently injured ligaments in the human body. The typical mechanism of the injury is a non-contact twisting movement, usually due to abrupt deceleration and change of direction. Side-stepping (cutting), pivoting and landing from a jump are examples of events that may cause an ACL tear.

ACL tears can be partial or complete. A complete tear of the ACL has minimal ability to heal and often requires surgical reconstruction, as most patients suffer from functional problems, like giving way and instability, and significant pain. To a lesser extent, partial tears also produce pain and instability. There is serious debate within the medical and workers’ compensation communities about the need for surgical intervention for partial tears.

ACL reconstruction involves replacing the torn ligament, usually with the middle third patellar tendon or hamstring tendon graft. Although most people benefit from ACL reconstruction in functional terms, approximately 10% of patients require a second operation, mainly because of the loss of motion, further meniscal injury and graft failure. ACL reconstructions are not very successful in the long-run in people with chronic meniscal and chondral deficiency.

As ACL injuries typically occur in the context of physical activity, it is a common injury among manual laborers, individuals whose job duties include signficant amounts of climbing, lifting, squatting, and carrying.

Due to instability and pain associated with complete tears, manual laborers with any hope of returning to the work force will almost always require surgery and comprehensive post-surgical rehabilitation. Even then, a successful return to long-term gainful employment is not assured. Repetitive trauma associated with hours of manual labor on a daily basis can lead to pain and hasten the need for additional surgery.
Continue reading

by

Disabled commercial vehicles are hazardous to motorists.

Rightfully, much blame for traffic accidents is placed on trailing/approaching vehicle drivers. However, commercials vehicles disabled in lanes of traffic often contribute to serious and fatal accidents through little to no fault of approaching drivers. Surprisingly, many of these accidents occur in broad daylight on straight roadways. (More obvious contributing factors include nightime and foggy conditions, and curves in the road.)

The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has created rules and regulations designed to reduce the danger. For commercial vehicles (buses and trucks that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds. U.S. DOT Rule 571.125 S3) stopped upon the traveled portion of the highway for any cause other than a necessary traffic stop, Rule 392.22 requires the following:

  • The driver shall immediately activate the vehicular hazard warning signal flashers and contiune the flashing until the driver places the warning devices required by other parts of 392.22. (Hazard warning signals are [L]amps that flash simultaneously to the front and rear, on both the right and left sides of a commercial motor vehicle, to indicate to an approaching driver the presence of a vehicular hazard.” Rule 393.5. The hazard warning signals “shall operate independently of the ignition or equivalent switch….” Rule 393.19.)
  • The driver shall, as soon as possible, but in any event within 10 minutes, place the following warning devices beside and behind the vehicle in the manner outlined in Rule 392.22(b)(1)(i-iii), (b((2), (b)(2)(iv), and (b)(2)(v): Three bidirectional emergency reflective triangles or at least 6 fusees or 3 liquid-burning flares. See Rule 393.95. (In Section 571.125 S2, the U.S. Department of Transportation advises that the purpose of these standardized warning devices “is to reduce deaths and injuries due to rear end collisions between moving traffic and disabled vehicles.)

Continue reading

by

Anyone who lives in South Florida knows that the population of road bikers has exploded in recent years. With Lance Armstrong’s exploits and the availability of relatively inexpensive high performance bicycles, it is not uncommon, especially on weekend mornings, to see a countless number of road bikers of all shapes and sizes challenging themselves in their spandex shorts and colorful helmets on the streets and highways.

Even without having to contend with cars and trucks, road biking is a dangerous activity. Potholes, debris, and other bicycles can send a rider to the unforgiving cement in the blink of an eye. Eyes on the road and hands on the handlebars is Rule #1.

South Florida has experienced a rash of highly publicized serious and sometimes fatal motor vehicle vs. bicycle accidents in recent years. With the volume of traffic, motor vehicles and bicycles, on the roadways, one can safely assume that the frequency of such accidents far exceeds the publicized accounts.

This blog will address the points of Florida law dealing with the rights and obligations of road bikers on our roads.

The primary Florida Statute dealing with these issues is 316.2065. Section 316.2065 addresses everything from helmet requirements to carrying children, much of which is beyond the scope of this blog, making it important reading for all bike enthusiasts.

Section (1) of 316.2065 contains the sweeping pronouncement that bicyclists and motor vehicle operators have the same rights and duties. One might conclude this means that bicycle riders can take up entire lanes of traffic without regard to the conditions. This conclusion would be far from correct.

Further in Section (1) is language that qualifies the broad pronouncement, while Section (5)(a) provides the simple details of the limitations. (5)(a) instructs that bicycle riders who are unable to to travel at the normal speed under the conditions at the time “shall” ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. As the typical lone rider travels at an average of 14-18 mph, and a pack (or pelaton) of strong riders around 5 mph faster than that, most road bikers will always be traveling slower than the speed limit. This means that most of the time, most riders should be riding at the edge of the roadway.

There are exceptions to this rule, also contained within Section (5)(a). Under the following circumstances, riders may leave the right-hand curb of the roadway:

  • When overtaking another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction
  • when preparing to make a left turn (see, also, 316.151(c))
  • To avoid any condition, such as parked cars, debris in the roadway, and a pedestrian.

Also included as an exception within section (5)(a) is one relating to roads of “substandard-width,” meaning roads not wide enough to safely accomodate a bicycle and a vehicle traveling side by side. For bikers, motorists, law enforcement officers, and the courts, this provision may be the most controversial within Florida Statute 316.2065.

What is a road of “substandard-width?” Arguably, the answer is any road that is less than 14 feet wide.

The Florida Department of Transportation’s Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards recommends an outside lane width of 14 feet as the “minimum width that will allow passenger cars to safely pass bicyclists within a single lane,” i.e., without the need for passing motorists to use part of the next lane. A typical passenger vehicle is from 5.5 feet (car) to 7 feet (SUV) wide. This means that you need at least 8 feet of lane width for a car. (That’s the narrowest parking lane width allowed).

Florida Statute 316.083 states that motorists must pass bicycles at least 3 feet away. Add another 3 feet for the width of a bicycle and its rider, and 14 feet (8 + 3 + 3) is the narrowist width a road should be for bicyclists and automobiles to safely travel side by side. (This minimum does not account for commercial vehicles and utility trailers which are 8.5 ft wide and can have mirrors extending to 10 feet. Those vehicles MUST use part of another lane to pass safely.)
Continue reading

by

Drowning is the leading cause of death of young children and a significant cause of death of medically frail elderly persons in this state. Constant supervision is the best way to prevent drownings. Cognizant, however, that supervision is not always available, the Florida Legislature has devised a statutory scheme designed to deny, delay, or detect unsupervised entry to swimming pools, spas, and hot tubs. The scheme is set forth in Chapter 515 of the Florida Statutes.

In order to pass final inspection and receive a certificate of completion, a residential swimming pool must meet at least one of the following requirements relating to pool safety features:

  • The pool must be surrounded by a perimeter barrier that (1) is at least 4 feet high; (2) does not not contain any features which would allow children to crawl under, squeeze through, or climb over it; and (3) is set far enough away from the pool’s edge so that a child or elderly person who has penetrated the barrier does not immediately fall into the pool. (The perimeter barrier is required even if the residential yard is surrounded by a fence, wall, or other enclosure unless the fence, wall, or other enclosure or portion thereof is situated on the perimeter of the pool, is being used as part of the barrier, and meets the barrier requirements of the statute.)
  • The pool must be equipped with an approved safety pool cover. An “approved safety pool cover” can be manually- or power-operated and must meet certain delineated standards established by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
  • All doors and windows providing direct access from the home to the pool must be equipped with an exit alarm that has a minimum sound pressure rating of 85 dB A at 10 feet. “Exit alarm” means a device that makes audible, continuous alarm sounds when any door or window which permits access from the residence to any pool area that is without an intervening enclosure – a perimeter barrier (see the first bullet point, above) – is opened or left ajar.
  • All doors providing direct access from the home to the pool must be equipped with a self-closing, self-latching device with a release mechanism placed no lower than 54 inches above the floor.

A person who fails to equip a new residential swimming pool with at least one of the pool safety features outlined above, commits a misdemeanor of the second degree. This has significance in the context of civil cases arising out of pool accident cases, in that violations of statutes can be considered evidence of negligence (see Florida Standard Jury Instruction 401.9). Conversely, being in full compliance with the Residential Swimming Pool Safety Act (Chapter 515), provides some insulation to the property owner against being found at fault.
Continue reading

by

On July 7, 2010, I blogged that the initial tortfeasor (a wrong-doer, one who does wrong) in a negligence case is liable under Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 351 So.2d 703 (Fla. 1977), for all foreseeable damages arising from an accident, including enhanced injuries caused by medical malpractice suffered during treatment for the initial injuries. (Blog.) Today’s blog addresses the responsibility of those whose negligence has caused injuries apart from those resulting from the initial negligence.

The seminal case in Florida on this issue is the Florida Supreme Court case D’Amario v. Ford Motor Company, 806 So.2d 424 (Fla. 2001). In D’Amario a minor was the passenger in a vehicle that struck a tree. A fire began that ended in an explosion, causing the minor to lose three limbs and suffering burns to much of his body.

The minor and his mother sued Ford alleging that a defective relay switch in the automobile caused the fire. It was their theory that but for the defect, the fire would not have started and the minor’s injuries would have been much less serious. In line with this theory, they only sought damages for the injuries caused by the defective switch rather than for the injuries caused by the initial impact with the tree.

At trial, Ford sought to introduce evidence as to the cause of the initial accident, which was that another minor was intoxicated and negligently drove the vehicle into the tree. The plaintiffs (mother and son) sought to keep this evidence out by arguing that it was irrelevant. In their view, since they were not seeking compensation from Ford for the injuries sustained from the initial impact, how and why it happened was irrelevant. The trial court disagreed, allowing the evidence to be presented to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for Ford.
Continue reading

Contact Information
Main Office
9999 NE 2nd Ave, #304
Miami Shores, FL 33138
Phone: 305-758-4900
Fax: 305-758-4949
Email: jgale@jeffgalelaw.com
Palm Beach Gardens
2401 PGA Blvd #140
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Phone: 305-758-4900
Fax: 305-758-4949
Email: jgale@jeffgalelaw.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2025, Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design