Florida personal injury lawyers face the difficult task of convincing insurance adjusters, opposing lawyers, judges and juries that occupants in vehicles suffering only minor property damage from crashes have sustained significant injuries. Common sense and logic seem to be working against Plaintiffs’ lawyers – ‘how can there be serious personal injuries without significant property damage?’ The answer is that there is more to the dynamics of a crash than meets the eye.

Vehicle damage is just one factor of many in determining impact speed. Many parameters such as vehicle masses, impact angles, the pre-impact velocity of both vehicles, crush resistance, metallurgical fatigue, etc., effect how the bumpers behave during an impact. One example of the variability is that older vehicles generally have stronger bumpers and can absorb greater impacts while showing less damage than newer cars where style dominates over function.

This is a complex subject that will touched on in greater detail in later blogs.

Thanks to thoughtful and well-reasoned legislation and court decisions, Floridians can have a reasonable expectation that their own liability insurance companies will act in their best interests. That may soon be changing.

When handling claims, Insurance companies have a duty to act in the best interests of their insureds. This is especially so when insureds are at risk on claims in which the value of the claim (i.e., exposure) exceeds the limits of coverage under the policy of insurance. In those instances, insurance companies are required to do everything within reason to resolve claims within coverage limits. Failing to do so may expose insureds to judgments in excess of policy coverage limits. When this is the result of insurance company indifference or neglect, the carrier may be responsible for paying the excess judgment. This is known as bad faith law and it has been the driving force for more than 30 years in Florida behind insurance companies honoring their duty to handle claims in good faith.
Continue reading

archdiocese.jpgOn February 10, 2010, the 3rd District Court of Appeal in MIami reversed a jury verdict rendered against the Archdiocese of Miami and Archbishop Coleman F. Carroll High School arising out of a catastrophic car crash in 2001. One of the plaintiffs in the case, Gabriel Maynoldi, sustained severe brain damage and is a quadraplegic. Gabriel needs around-the-clock medical care.

The accident happened after Gabriel and his best friend, both 17, left an end-of-the-year school party held in a private home where alcohol was being served. More than 100 fellow students attended the party. Both boys were drunk when they drove off in a motor vehicle and crashed. The other young boy was killed in the crash.

The plaintiffs, including Gabriel’s parents, argued that the Archdiocese and the high school should be held partly responsible for allegedly sanctioning and promoting the party. The jury agreed, and assessed damages against the Archdiocese totaling $12 million. The District Court disagreed, ruling that a school’s obligation to supervise students ends when a student leaves the school’s premises and is no longer involved in school-related activities.

hertz.jpgUntil recently, every owner of a motor vehicle in Florida was responsible for damages caused by crashes involving the negligent operation of their/its vehicles by permissive users. The concept behind the legal principle is that motor vehicles are dangerous instrumentalities to be used with great care and caution, and that by holding the owner accountable careless vehicle lending/leasing practices will be minimized.

With one glaring exception, this law remains in effect in Florida today. The major exception applies to car rental companies.

In 2005, the United States Congress, at the urging of the Bush Administration, passed a legislative measure known as the Graves Amendment. The law preempts the laws of the individual states, including Florida, over the responsibility of car rental companies for accidents involving vehicles owned by them. Unlike Florida law, the federal law appears to have limited, if not altogether eliminated, the legal responsibility of rental companies for damages caused by their vehicles.

car-insurance-policy.jpgAlmost daily people tell us that they or the at-fault driver in an accident have “Full Coverage” vehicle insurance. The subject comes up while trying to determine if insurance is available to provide compensation for non-economic damages such as pain & suffering arising from personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle crash. Most people believe that such coverage is available as part of the basic insurance coverage required by the state of florida to lawfully operate a vehicle in Florida. It isn’t.

Florida law requires every owner of a vehicle registered in Florida to maintain nothing more than Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) and Property Damage Liability insurance. Many people are suprised to learn that neither of these coverages compensates anyone for pain & suffering damages. PIP covers 80% of medical expenses and/or 60% of wage losses up to a total of $10,000 subject to deductibles, while Property Damage Liability pays for damage to other vehicle caused by the at-fault pary. (The minimum level for this type of coverage is $10,000.)

When someone is injured in a Florida motor vehicle accident, only Bodily Injury Liability (“BI”) and Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (“UM/UIM”) insurance will compensate the victim for his non-economic (pain & suffering) damages. Neither of these coverages is mandatory and to have either requires a premium payment over that required for the minimum mandatory PIP and PD Liability insurance.
Continue reading

Hardworking individuals today are finding it increasingly difficult to meet their expenses. Mortgage foreclosures, credit card defaults, and vehicle repossessions are reaching record proportions. With the rise in defaults come the inevitable collection efforts by creditors and debt collection agencies. In some cases, the collection efforts cause more pain than the default itself. Fortunately for Florida residents, there is a body of law designed to combat overzealous creditors and bill collectors. Unfortunately, the law, located in Chapter 559 of the Florida Statutes and referred to as the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, is little-known and greatly underutilized.

Collection efforts are allowed and take many forms, from lawsuits, dunning notices, phone calls, to reporting the debt to credit reporting agencies. Thankfully, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act prohibits some activities and provides a remedy for breaches. Examples of proscribed activities include using or threatening violence; communicating or threatening to communicate with a debtor’s employer prior to obtaining final judgment; communicating with such frequency as to constitute harassment; using profane or vulgar language in a communication; simulating in any manner a law enforcement officer or a representative of any governmental agency; and communicating with the debtor between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. It is also unlawful to claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when the collector knows that the debt is not legitimate or assert the existence of some other legal right when such collector knows that the right does not exist. This particular violation is quite common and typically arises in the context of a debt that once existed but was resolved.
Continue reading

wheelchair.jpgA 71 year old Florida man and his wife of nearly 50 years were recently awarded a total of 11.8 million dollars in a unanimous ruling by a three-person arbitration panel in a civil case involving allegations of medical malpractice against Dr. Alfred O. Bonati and his Gulf Coast Orthopedic Center. The panel determined that William Clark was harmed by back surgery performed below the prevailing professional standard. Mr. Clark’s permanent injuries have left him wheelchair bound.

The award allocated damages for past and future medical and related expenses; past and future pain and suffering; and past and future loss of consortium. In addition, the arbitration panel, consisting of one person selected by the plaintiff, one picked by the defendants, and third a neutral former judge, also left open the chance of an award of punitive damages.
Continue reading

Contact Information