Car Accident

$1 Million Florida Jury Verdict Overturned After Irrelevant and Prejudicial Evidence Admitted in Car Accident Case

Published on: April 22, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Hurtado v. DeSouza, a man filed a personal injury claim against another driver after the motorist allegedly struck his stopped vehicle from behind at a traffic light. Following the apparently minor crash, the man filed a personal injury action in a Florida court against the driver who hit his car. Although he initially denied liability, the motorist eventually admitted liability immediately prior to trial. As a result, only the issues of causation and damages were submitted to a jury.

At trial, the court allowed certain irrelevant and prejudicial evidence suggesting the defendant attempted to flee the scene of the crash to be admitted. Over the defendant’s objections, the court also allowed the plaintiff to offer evidence that the defendant’s delay in admitting liability for the accident caused him mental anguish, even though Florida law did not support a claim based on that theory. The court also allowed the plaintiff to testify that the motorist never apologized to him and that he suffered significant financial hardship, including home foreclosure, as a result of his injuries. Next, the trial court refused to declare a mistrial or issue a curative instruction. The following day, however, the court issued a directed verdict on the issue of mental anguish and read a curative instruction to the jury without objection from the plaintiff. Ultimately, the jury issued an award of more than $1 million in favor of the plaintiff.

Florida Appeals Court Refuses to Overturn Jury Verdict in Wrongful Death Lawsuit Where Decedent Was Not Wearing a Seat Belt

Published on: April 16, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Jones v. Alayon, a Florida driver was hit from behind by an off-duty police officer in a rear-end automobile collision. As a result of the impact, the man’s automobile struck a guard rail and rolled. The motorist was ejected from his car, and he landed on the roadway. Tragically, the driver was also hit by other vehicles after he landed on the pavement. As a result of the collision, the driver suffered an untimely death.

Following the fatal accident, the allegedly at-fault driver apparently fled the scene of the traffic wreck. He also reported that his vehicle was stolen before later admitting he was driving at the time of the deadly crash. The man was later incarcerated over the incident.

Florida Court Refuses to Dismiss First-Party Bad-Faith Claim Filed Against Auto Insurer

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

In Baham v. Property & Casualty Insurance Co. of Hartford, a motorist was involved in a traffic wreck that was apparently caused by another driver. At the time of the crash, the at-fault driver carried $25,000 in bodily injury liability insurance. Since this amount was allegedly insufficient to cover the motorist’s injuries and lost wages, the man filed a request for the full amount of his uninsured motorist (“UM”) policy limits of $200,000 from his own automobile insurer. The man’s insurer denied coverage and claimed his accident injuries did not exceed the limits of the at-fault driver’s bodily injury policy.

Next, the hurt motorist filed a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”) with his insurance company and the Florida Department of Financial Services. According to the man, the insurer refused to settle his valid claims. In response, the insurance company stated the evidence it received did not support the hurt man’s claim and requested any additional information that was available in order to continue to evaluate the insured’s claim. About two years later, the insurer agreed to pay the man $100,000 in UM benefits and stated the amount constituted the insured’s full UM policy limits. After that, the injured motorist filed a second CRN as well as a lawsuit against his insurance company seeking the remaining $100,000 in UM benefits he believed he was entitled to.

Tampa Federal Court Holds Insurer Did Not Commit Bad Faith Following Motorcycle Accident

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

In Rodriguez v. Integon Indemnity Corp., a motorcycle rider was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision. At the time of the crash, the at-fault driver carried bodily injury insurance with a liability limit of up to $100,000 per person and $300,000 per incident. The day after the traffic wreck, the insurer was notified about the accident. A few days later, the claims representative who was assigned to the case sent a letter to the hurt biker stating he would be handling the injured man’s claim. In addition, the insurer sent two letters to the hurt motorcyclist’s attorney stating the company would settle the man’s claim for the full policy limits of $100,000. In both letters, the insurance company misstated the injured man’s first name but provided the appropriate claim number and date of loss.

Less than two weeks after the traffic wreck, the at-fault driver’s insurer sent a proposed release form and a check for $100,000 to the motorcyclist’s lawyer. An accompanying letter asked the man to hold the check in trust until an agreed-upon release could be executed. After the insurer unsuccessfully attempted to contact the law firm on multiple occasions, the motorcyclist’s attorney filed a lawsuit against the at-fault driver and the owner of the vehicle that struck the biker.

Florida’s Second District Overturns Punitive Damages Award Where Evidence Did Not Demonstrate a Reckless Disregard for Human Life

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

In L.E. Myers Co. v. Young, a business contracted with a Florida utility company to install several new power poles in Manatee County, Florida. As part of the contract, the business was tasked with installing four 85-foot-long concrete poles that weighed about 21,000 pounds each along a Bradenton street in compliance with the utility company’s specifications. In addition, the company was required to provide traffic control while working along the street.

Each pole was installed using a crane that was provided and operated by a third party. While one of the poles was being installed, one of the tractor-trailers used to transport the poles was parked in the emergency lane of the roadway. Although the pole was completely off the street, a truck tire was hanging over the white line that was painted on the road. Because of this, a safety supervisor who was employed by the contractor placed traffic cones and warning signs on the street near the work site.

Not All Evidence is Admissible in a South Florida Car Accident Case

Published on: March 5, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Frost v. McNeilus, two defendants admitted to liability for a Florida motor vehicle collision that resulted in injuries to a plaintiff. Although the parties came to an agreement regarding the amount of past medical bills the plaintiff was entitled to receive, they disagreed about her future medical expenses as well as her pain and suffering. Prior to trial, the defendants filed a motion in limine with the Middle District of Florida. In general, such a motion is used to ask a judge to exclude certain evidence at trial.

In their motion, the defendants argued the plaintiff should not be allowed to introduce evidence they felt was irrelevant and offered solely to “curry favor with the jury.” The defendants stated that information related to the plaintiff’s Christian missionary upbringing and education as well as her son’s military service would be unfairly prejudicial to them. The plaintiff countered that information regarding her background would help jurors more accurately apportion damages, particularly with regard to the types of activities she claimed she could no longer enjoy as a result of the crash. The plaintiff also claimed that her religious beliefs were relevant because she believes divorce is not an option even though she felt the accident put unnecessary strain on her marriage.

Florida Supreme Court Says Auto Insurer Issued New Policy When it Changed the Sole Named Insured in UM Benefits Dispute

Published on: March 2, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Florida has resolved a conflict between two District Courts of Appeal in an uninsured motorist insurance dispute. In Chase v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., a man purchased motor vehicle insurance with bodily injury liability limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident from an insurance company. At the time, the man also elected uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per incident. The man’s daughter was listed as a driver on the policy, but she was not a named insured.

Three years later, the insurer made the man’s daughter the sole named insured on the automobile policy and listed the father as a driver. The insured vehicle which was titled in the daughter’s name was also updated. When the change was made, the daughter was not presented with a UM rejection form. Around the same time, the insurer issued an entirely new policy to the father. Although the daughter eventually moved out of her father’s home and removed him from her auto policy, she later moved back in and once again added him as a driver on her policy. At no point was she provided with the opportunity to select lower UM limits or reject coverage in writing.

First District Court of Appeal in Florida Overturns Summary Judgment in Favor of Auto Insurer Despite That Applicant Made Material Misrepresentations

Published on: February 25, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Echo v. MGA Insurance Co., Inc., a Florida woman purchased an automobile using another individual’s name. Despite doing so, she obtained a motor vehicle insurance policy on the vehicle in her own name. In her application, the woman stated she was the owner of the insured vehicle and the only licensed driver in the household. About one year after purchasing the insurance policy, the woman was involved in a traffic wreck while driving the car. Following the crash, the woman apparently sought medical care from a number of physicians. After that, she submitted a personal injury protection (“PIP”) claim related to her medical expenses to her auto insurer.

In response to the woman’s medical benefits claim, the auto insurer denied coverage as a result of the purportedly material misrepresentation she made on her vehicle insurance application. According to the insurance company, it would have chosen not to issue the automobile policy or it would have charged a higher premium if the woman had been truthful on her application. In addition to denying the woman’s accident claim, the insurer stated the policy was void ab initio, or from the beginning, and refunded all premiums that were paid to it by the woman. The woman apparently did not cash the refund check.

Florida Appeals Court Holds Employer May Select Different UIM Policy Limits for its Insureds

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

In Germany v. Darby, a Florida man was hurt in a work-related motor vehicle collision that was caused by an uninsured driver. At the time of the traffic wreck, the man was driving a car that was owned by his employer. The employer carried an underinsured and uninsured motorist (“UIM”) policy on the vehicle with limits of up to $500,000 for company “executives, owners, and their family members” and $30,000 for all other individuals. When the employer purchased the policy, the company elected UIM policy limits that were lower than its $1 million bodily injury liability insurance limits on an approved Florida Office of Insurance Regulation form.

Following the crash, the man challenged the limits of his employer’s UIM insurance coverage in a Florida court. According to the man, different UIM policy limits are not allowed under Section 627.727(1) of the Florida Statutes. After analyzing the statute at issue, the trial court disagreed with the man and held that differing UIM coverage limits were permitted under the law. Next, the man filed an appeal with Florida’s First District Court of Appeal.

Middle District of Florida Denies Motion for Summary Judgment in Bad Faith Insurance Case

Published on: February 16, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Taylor v. Geico Indemnity Co., a driver was involved in an at-fault motor vehicle collision with a motorcyclist. Following the traffic wreck, the biker was treated for numerous broken bones. The motorcyclist elected to receive compensation from his own motor vehicle insurer, which would then seek subrogation from the at-fault driver’s liability insurance company. At the time of the collision, the automobile driver carried $10,000 in bodily injury and property damage liability accident coverage.

Eventually, 90 percent of the fault for the collision was attributed to the insured car driver. As a result, the man’s liability insurer notified him that he may be liable for any damages to the motorcyclist that exceeded the limits of the liability insurance policy he carried.