Car Accident

Florida Appeals Court Holds Settlement Offer Was Not Vague or Ambiguous in Fatal Car Accident Lawsuit

Published on: September 18, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Wallen v. Tyson, a Florida man was tragically killed in a September 2010 car accident. Following the unfortunate event, the other driver involved in the collision filed a lawsuit in a Florida court against the deceased man’s estate. After that, the estate served a $12,000 settlement proposal on the driver, which contained a release of liability for all claims arising out of the motor vehicle wreck. The release specifically stated the driver maintained his right to pursue damages from any individual other than the personal representative of the decedent’s estate. The offer also stated the terms were subject to negotiation. The allegedly injured driver apparently ignored the settlement proposal, and the case proceeded to trial.

Following a jury trial, the driver received an award of $13,000. The court then reduced the award by about $3,800 for payments that were previously made by the man’s insurer. Since the final judgment was more than 25 percent less that the estate’s settlement offer, the driver was rendered liable for the estate’s legal costs under Section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes.

Appeals Court Overturns Remittitur for Pain and Suffering in Florida Automobile Accident Case

Published on: September 15, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Arnold v. Security National Insurance Co., a Florida man was hurt in an automobile crash that was apparently caused by an uninsured driver. Following the accident, the man filed a lawsuit against the company that provided him with uninsured motorist insurance. In his complaint, the man sought damages for his medical expenses as well as his past and future pain and suffering.

During trial, the hurt man offered expert testimony in support of his request for reimbursement of his health care costs as well as his current and future pain and suffering. According to the expert testimony, the man suffered a herniated disc in his back that would likely require surgery and ongoing medical treatment as a result of the traffic wreck.

Florida Appeals Court Rules Insurance Company May Not be Joined in Pending Fatal Car Accident Lawsuit

Published on: September 8, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Geico General Ins. Co. v. Lepine, a Florida man was unfortunately killed in a motor vehicle collision. Following the accident, the man’s wife filed a lawsuit on behalf of herself and her husband’s estate against the driver who was allegedly responsible for the fatal traffic wreck and his automobile insurer. According to the woman’s complaint, the insurance company reneged on its verbal agreement to pay her the full policy limits of $100,000.

In response to the lawsuit, the insurer filed a motion to dismiss the breach of contract claims brought against the company. In its motion, the business argued Section 627.4136 of the Florida Statutes barred the decedent’s wife from filing a direct cause of action against the insurance company. Under the so-called nonjoinder statute, a noninsured may not file a direct action against an insurance company in Florida without first obtaining a settlement or verdict against the insured party.

Equitable Subrogation Question Certified to Florida Supreme Court in Personal Injury Case

Published on: August 3, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Allstate Insurance Company v. Theodotou, a young man suffered head trauma and other injuries when he was struck by a motorist while riding his scooter in Florida. Following the collision, the boy was treated at a local hospital. Unfortunately, his injuries were apparently made worse as a result of medical negligence.

Not long after the accident, the young man’s guardian sued the motorist who struck him as well as the owner of the vehicle. At trial, the defendants were precluded from presenting evidence that the young man’s condition was made significantly worse due to negligent medical care in accordance with prior Florida precedent. Ultimately, the defendants were ordered to pay the young man more than $11 million. After that, the driver’s auto insurer paid the boy’s guardian the full accident policy limits of $1.1 million.

Lakeland Appeals Court Rules Car Accident Defendant Entitled to Legal Fees After Plaintiff Rejects Settlement Offer

Published on: July 24, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Miley v. Nash, a woman was injured in a Florida automobile collision. Following the accident, the woman filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver who allegedly caused the crash and the owner of the vehicle in a Florida Court. In addition, her spouse sought damages for his loss of consortium. Prior to trial, the defendants made a settlement offer of more than $58,000 to the woman. The offer required the woman to dismiss all of her claims against both defendants and pay her own legal fees. Although the offer did not address her husband’s loss of consortium cause of action, he later dropped his claim.

The woman rejected the defendants’ settlement proposal, and the case proceeded to trial. Following a jury trial, jurors issued a verdict of nearly $18,000 in favor of the woman. Next, the defendants filed a request for attorney’s fees and costs under Section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes. Under the law, a plaintiff who receives a verdict that is at least 25 percent less than a written settlement offer may be ordered to pay the legal fees of the opposing party.

Pensacola Court Considers Proposed Evidence in Florida Semi-Truck Accident Case

Published on: July 23, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Bryan v. Whitfield, a Florida man apparently suffered a traumatic brain injury in a car accident that occurred on Interstate 10 in Santa Rosa County. More than two years after the collision occurred, the man filed a personal injury lawsuit against a tractor-trailer driver and his employer in the Northern District of Florida. According to the injured man’s complaint, the semi-truck driver committed negligence when he struck another car from behind and caused the multi-vehicle crash in which the man was hurt.

Following the collision, the company that owned the big rig admitted the driver committed negligence. The company also stated it was liable for the driver’s negligent acts under the doctrine of respondeat superior. This legal doctrine states an employer may be held responsible for the negligent acts of a worker when the acts are performed within the course of the worker’s employment. In addition, the company admitted the plaintiff suffered permanent harm in the collision. As a result, the only issue at trial was the injured man’s past and future non-economic damages.

Appeals Court Holds Apportionment Must be Based on Reliable Methods in Florida Workers’ Compensation Case

Published on: July 9, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Giaimo v. Florida Autosport, Inc., an automobile mechanic was apparently injured when he was struck from behind while test driving a customer’s vehicle in Florida. Due to the man’s resulting neck and back harm, the worker underwent surgery that was performed by an authorized neurosurgeon. Prior to his workplace accident, however, the man was deemed to be eight percent permanently impaired due to a prior car accident in which he also hurt his neck and back.

At a workers’ compensation benefits hearing, both the mechanic and his employer agreed that he was permanently and totally disabled. Despite this, the man’s employer argued that the man’s benefits should be apportioned because the workplace accident aggravated the mechanic’s preexisting injuries. During the hearing, the man’s surgeon, an authorized pain manager, and one of the worker’s initial treating surgeons offered medical testimony.

Florida Court Overturns Judgment in Car Accident Case Due to Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel

Published on: June 4, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Government Employees Insurance Company v. Kisha, a couple purchased a motor vehicle insurance policy that included uninsured motorist coverage (“UIM”). Both members of the couple were named insureds on the automobile policy. After the couple was involved in a traffic wreck, each claimed UIM benefits under the policy. The insurer denied both of their claims due to non-payment of policy premiums. According to the insurance company, the couple’s policy was not in effect when the collision occurred.

Next, the wife filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment in a Florida court. The woman argued the auto insurer waived its right to cancel the couple’s policy and was estopped from denying coverage as a result. Although he offered testimony in his wife’s case, the husband did not join the lawsuit. Following trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the wife. The husband then filed his own declaratory judgment action. Additionally, he asked the court to enter a Motion for Entry of Judgment based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. As a result, the trial court issued a judgment in the man’s favor.

Florida Court of Appeal Orders Juror Interview Following Car Accident Verdict

Published on: May 26, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Barrios v. Locastro, two women were involved in a motor vehicle collision in Florida. As a result, one of the drivers apparently suffered a neck injury. Following two surgeries designed to correct her neck harm, the hurt woman filed a personal injury action against the other driver in a Florida court.

During jury selection, prospective members of the panel were asked to raise their hand if they or any of their close family members was ever a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit or settlement. In addition, they were also asked to indicate whether they had ever suffered from certain back injuries or sought disability payments in the past. After the defendant used each of her peremptory juror challenges, two jurors who indicated their family members were previously involved in an auto collision were placed on the jury.

Florida Court Holds Insurer Has No Duty to Defend Rental Car Lessee’s Permitee Following Car Accident

Published on: May 15, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Allstate Fire and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Paolino, an automobile insurance company issued a liability policy to a couple beginning in July 2011 and terminating on December 25, 2011. The policy listed four motor vehicles and provided bodily injury coverage up to $250,000 for each person and $500,000 per occurrence. The accident policy also stated the insurer would defend the named insureds in the event of a collision in a covered motor vehicle. The accident policy specifically excluded coverage for any bodily injury or property damage that arose out of the use of a substitute vehicle that was being driven by an individual who was not a named insured or a resident of the insured’s household.

At some point, the husband apparently rented a car from an agency and allowed the couple’s housekeeper to operate the vehicle solely for his benefit. At all other times, the vehicle was parked in a garage at the couple’s home. While the housekeeper was returning from a shopping trip that was requested by the couple, she was apparently involved in a traffic wreck. After that, the driver of the vehicle the housekeeper allegedly struck filed a personal injury case against the couple, their housekeeper, and the couple’s auto insurer in a Florida Court.