Insurance Issues

Florida Court Considers Notice Requirement in Bad-Faith Claim against Insurance Company

Published on: March 28, 2019 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a Florida car accident case discussing whether the plaintiff’s claim that her insurance company acted in bad faith should be permitted to proceed towards trial. Ultimately, the court held that although the insurance company eventually made payment under the plaintiff’s policy, the payment was too late. Thus, the court permitted the plaintiff’s case to proceed.

Bad-Faith Claims Against Insurance Companies

Under Florida law, insurance companies must provide timely payment to policyholders. If an insurance company does not make payment on an insured’s claim, the insured can pursue a bad-faith claim against the insurer. However, before this type of claim can be pursued, the insured must file a civil remedy notice (CRN), giving the insurance company 60 days to respond and cure the bad faith.

The Facts

In its opinion, the court explained that the plaintiff and another driver was involved in a Florida car accident in the summer of 2013. For the purposes of this opinion, it was agreed that the plaintiff was not at fault. Both the plaintiff and the at-fault driver were insured by the same insurance company. Because the plaintiff’s injuries were serious and exceeded the coverage limits of the at-fault driver’s policy, the plaintiff filed a claim under the at-fault driver’s policy as well as her own underinsured motorist (UIM) policy.

Court Discusses Venue Selection in Recent UIM Case

Published on: August 23, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Florida car accident cases, one of the first issues the parties may argue over is where the case will be heard. Of course, most plaintiffs would prefer to file the case in a venue that is convenient for them. However, as a general rule venue is appropriate where the defendant resides. That being said, a plaintiff can choose where to initially file a case, and may have some say in where a case is heard.

A recent case discusses a somewhat complicated venue issue that arose after an uninsured motorist collision. The case involved a named and an unnamed defendant, and required the court to determine whether the named defendant should be able to transfer the case to his home county. Finding that the case could be heard in either of the defendant’s home venues, the court determined that the named defendant was not entitled to transfer the case.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were involved in a three-car accident after an unnamed driver swerved in front of their vehicle, requiring them to quickly apply the brakes. The named defendant, who was traveling directly behind the plaintiffs, slammed into the back of their car. The plaintiffs claimed the named defendant was following too closely.

Court Holds Employer’s Insurance Company Was Responsible for Employee’s Drunk-Driving Accident

Published on: August 21, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing whether a car accident that was caused by an intoxicated employee was covered under the employer’s insurance policy. Specifically, the case required the court to determine if the employee was considered a “permissive user” under the company’s insurance policy. Ultimately, the court concluded that the employee was a permissive user, and therefore the accident was covered under the employer’s insurance policy.

The case presents a valuable lesson for Florida car accident victims in that it illustrates the importance of discovering all available potential avenues for recovery in a personal injury lawsuit. By naming multiple responsible parties, a plaintiff increases their chance of recovery in the event that one named defendant is insolvent or found not to be liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured in a car accident when the defendant rear-ended him. At the time of the accident, the defendant was traveling for work and operating a company vehicle. It was later determined that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident.

Court Discusses Plaintiff’s UIM Rejection in Recent Car Accident Case

Published on: July 2, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A state appellate court recently issued an opinion in an interesting car accident case. The case presented the court with the opportunity to discuss whether a plaintiff’s signed rejection of uninsured motorist (UIM) protection was valid under state law. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s rejection of UIM coverage was valid and the defendant insurance company was not required to cover the plaintiff’s claim.The case is important for Florida car accident victims because it illustrates the benefits of UIM coverage and the potential problems accident victims can encounter if they do not obtain sufficient UIM coverage.

The Facts of the Case

The opinion was issued as a result of two consolidated cases that presented similar issues. In both cases, the plaintiffs had obtained auto insurance coverage through the defendant insurance company. As is required by state law, the insurance company included UIM coverage as a default coverage. However, the company allowed for customers to opt out of coverage by signing a UIM rejection form.

Accident Victim’s Failure to Provide Immediate Notice of Case May Preclude Recovery

Published on: June 19, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In most Florida car accident cases, one or more of the parties involved will file a claim with an insurance company, seeking compensation for the injuries they sustained in the accident. In many cases, after an accident, it is an at-fault driver’s insurance company – rather than the driver themselves – that ends up compensating the accident victim for their injuries.An insurance policy is essentially just a contract between the insurance company and the insured, whereby the insurance company agrees to cover certain costs that are incurred in the event of an accident. As with all contracts, both parties have certain obligations and rights. For example, the insured’s main obligation is to pay the monthly premium, and in exchange, the insurance company agrees to provide the insurance contained in the policy.

There are often, however, terms that give rise to additional obligations on the insured’s part. For example, most insurance policies require that notice be given to the company in the event of an accident that may result in a claim being filed against the policy. In a recent case, a court had to determine whether a plaintiff’s failure to provide immediate notice violated a term of the contract and, if so, whether her claim should be dismissed as a result.

Court Determines Motorcycle Accident Victim Was Not “Occupying” the Vehicle that Struck Him for Purposes of UIM Coverage

Published on: June 12, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a motorcycle accident case that raised an interesting issue that confronts many Florida motorcycle accident plaintiffs. The case involved a plaintiff’s claim that he was entitled to coverage under the defendant’s uninsured motorist (UIM) insurance coverage. Ultimately, the court rejected the plaintiff’s claim.

UIM Coverage

There are several types of insurance included in most insurance policies. Liability insurance covers personal injuries that are results of an accident caused by the insured. However, most insurance policies also include UIM coverage. Uninsured motorist protection covers the insured, and usually anyone occupying the insured vehicle, in the event that the at-fault motorist does not have adequate insurance coverage.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff motorcyclist was stopped at a red light when the defendant failed to stop in time and rear-ended him. As a result of the collision, the plaintiff was thrown backwards and landed on the hood of the defendant’s car.

Court Rejects Underinsured Motorist Claim Following Horse-Drawn Carriage Accident

Published on: May 19, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case involving an interesting insurance issue that can come up in many Florida car accident cases. The case required the court to determine if the defendant insurance company was proper to deny the plaintiffs’ claims arising from a rear-end accident involving a horse-drawn carriage.Ultimately, the court concluded that one plaintiff’s claims could proceed to trial for a determination of whether coverage existed, while the other plaintiff’s claims were insufficient as a matter of law.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were the driver and passenger of a horse-drawn carriage that was rear-ended after participating in a Christmas parade. The passenger-plaintiff was injured in the collision and filed a claim against the driver-plaintiff. That claim is not the subject of this case.

Accident Victims Should Not Be Pressured to Accept Settlement Offers by Pushy Florida Insurance Adjusters

Published on: April 5, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Under Florida law, all motorists are required to maintain a base level of insurance coverage in order to legally operate a motor vehicle. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that, in the event a motorist causes a Florida car accident resulting in serious injuries or death, the motorist has sufficient assets to cover the costs incurred by the accident victim.Insurance companies, however, are for-profit businesses, and like other businesses, they rely on making a profit to stay in business. This means that insurance companies must take in more money each month in monthly premiums than they pay out in settled claims. As a result, insurance adjusters are trained to settle claims for as little a sum of money as possible. In some cases, insurance adjusters have taken advantage of less-than-savvy accident victims who may not know what their claim is worth. A recent case illustrates one court’s unwillingness to enforce a settlement agreement that it determined was unfair.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a passenger in a friend’s car when she was involved in a car accident. Police cited both the plaintiff’s friend as well as the other driver. After the accident, the plaintiff complained of pain in her neck and side.

Court Hears Case Involving Insurance Company’s Denial of Coverage Based on Victim’s Conflicting Testimony

Published on: February 26, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case that presents a valuable lesson to Florida car accident victims. The case involves an accident victim’s conflicting testimony and how courts resolve such conflicts. Ultimately, the court determined that it would be improper to credit either of the plaintiff’s statements, and it sent the case to a jury for resolution.

The Facts of the Case

In 2015, the plaintiff was injured when her vehicle was struck by another driver. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against that driver but later found out that he did not carry auto insurance. Thus, the plaintiff added the name of her father’s insurance company to the case, claiming that she was covered under the policy’s uninsured motorist protection.

After the plaintiff filed the claim, the insurance company sent the plaintiff a list of questions. When answering the questions, the plaintiff stated that she lived with her three children. She also stated that her father lived across the street.

Insurance Company’s Failure to Settle Lawsuit Results in Plaintiff’s Bad-Faith Claim

Published on: February 23, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a personal injury case involving allegations that an insurance company acted in bad faith when it failed to settle a case that later resulted in a substantial jury verdict. Ultimately, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to survive the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment, and the case was ordered to proceed toward trial.The case is interesting and relevant to Florida accident victims because it illustrates the difficulties that Florida personal injury plaintiffs may encounter when dealing with insurance companies after an accident.

The Facts of the Case

A motorist caused a five-car collision, in which he was killed and several others were seriously injured. This case involves just two of the victims, J.A. and J.H. The attorney for J.A. and J.H. contacted the at-fault motorist’s insurance company, inquiring about settling the case. The attorney expressed the interest of his clients to settle the case for the policy limit maximum but requested that additional information be passed. The letter asked for a response within 30 days.