Personal Injury

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.

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.

Appellate Court Holds Negligent Security Plaintiff’s Status is Relevant in Lawsuit Against Florida Apartment Complex

Published on: January 29, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A Florida appeals court has found that a negligent security plaintiff’s status on the land is relevant. In Nicholson v. Stonybrook Apartments, LLC, a woman was shot while attending a party in the common area of an apartment complex. Following the incident, the woman filed a negligence lawsuit against the complex in a Florida court. According to the woman’s complaint, the apartment complex failed to provide adequate security or maintain the premises in a safe manner. In response, the complex countered that the woman was trespassing on the property when she was shot. Because of this, the complex argued that its duties related to the woman’s safety were extremely limited.

Prior to trial, the woman sought to exclude all evidence related to her status on the property at the time of the shooting. In addition, the woman argued that whether she was a trespasser was irrelevant because she did not file a premises liability case against the apartment complex. The trial court ruled that the woman’s status to the land at the time of her injury was important because it had an effect on the duty the apartment complex owed to her. Because of this, the trial court instructed the jurors to determine whether the injured woman was a trespasser or an invitee when she was shot.

Florida Appeals Court Orders New Trial in Motorcycle Crash Case

Published on: December 8, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial in a motorcycle collision case. In Shaver v. Carpenter, a motorcycle carrying a husband and wife was struck by an automobile in an intersection. Following the traffic wreck, the couple filed a negligence lawsuit against the driver who allegedly caused their crash injuries. As expected, the issue of fault was a main source of contention at trial. In the end, a jury found that the defendant motorist was 95 percent at fault for the couple’s accident harm. The jury also determined that the couple was five percent liable for the collision. In response to the jury’s award, the allegedly negligent motorist appealed the damages award.

On appeal, Florida’s Second District stated the damages award issued by the jury was tainted by inadmissible evidence. According to the court, a state trooper was erroneously permitted to offer testimony regarding which driver failed to yield the right of way. Although the allegedly at-fault driver admitted some level of culpability for the collision, the appellate court found that evidence related to which driver had the right of way was inconclusive. Despite the automobile driver’s objections, the lower court allowed the law enforcement officer to state the defendant driver violated the couple’s right of way. The Second District held that this ruling was in error based on the relevant case law.

Tampa Federal Court Remands Medical Device Products Liability Case Back to Sarasota County

Published on: October 22, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Middle District of Florida in Tampa has remanded a products liability case back to state court. In Wier v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., a man was allegedly hurt by a medical device that was surgically implanted in his hip. As a result, he filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the device and the distributor in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit in Sarasota County. In the man’s case, he asserted the two companies were negligent, failed to warn him, committed breach of an implied warranty, and should be held strictly liable for his harm. He also claimed that the medical device manufacturer was guilty of breach of express warranty.

Although the device manufacturer hailed from a different state, the defendant distributor was a Florida citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a lawsuit that was filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the parties are citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. In general, any doubts regarding whether federal jurisdiction is proper should be decided in favor of a lawsuit proceeding in state court. Despite this, the manufacturer successfully removed the case to the Middle District of Florida based on diversity of citizenship.

Appeals Court Overturns $5.9 Million Florida Wrongful Death Verdict Against Tobacco Company

Published on: October 15, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Aycock v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a Florida woman filed a wrongful death case in the Middle District of Florida against a tobacco company over her husband’s 1996 lung cancer death. In her complaint, the woman sought both compensatory and punitive damages from the company that manufactured the cigarettes her spouse smoked throughout their marriage. According to the woman, his nicotine addiction caused her husband’s death. Evidence provided to the court suggested that the decedent was also addicted to alcohol.

The man’s cancer was reportedly discovered when he was admitted to a local hospital “complaining of confusion, disorientation, and impairment of equilibrium.” At the time, the man’s treating physicians diagnosed him with lung cancer that spread to his brain. The man’s death certificate listed “lung cancer” as his cause of death, but the man’s family apparently refused a biopsy to confirm his diagnosis.

Fort Myers Federal Court Refuses to Remand Car Accident Case Back to Lee County

Published on: October 1, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Jackson v. St. Jude Medical Neuromodulation Division, a man was injured in a rear-end collision while riding as a passenger in an automobile. About one year later, the man filed a lawsuit in Lee County, Florida seeking damages from both the driver and the owner of the vehicle that rear-ended him. The injured man later amended his complaint to release the named defendants and include the company that insured the allegedly at-fault driver at the time of the crash. In his lawsuit, the man accused the insurer of breach of contract over the company’s purported failure to make timely disability and medical payments related to his traffic wreck injuries.

Several months later, the man again amended his complaint to add a medical device manufacturer to the lawsuit. According to the man, the company manufactured two separate devices that malfunctioned before and after the automobile wreck. About six months later, the medical device manufacturer was served with notice of the case. In response, the company sought removal to federal court. Although both the medical device manufacturer and the automobile insurer consented to removal, the plaintiff claimed the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. After the case was removed to the Middle District of Florida in Fort Myers, the injured man filed a motion for remand.

Orlando Court Refuses to Dismiss Couple’s Negligence Lawsuit Against Cruise Ship Owner

Published on: September 26, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Shore v. Magical Cruise Co., Ltd., a couple set sail on a themed cruise ship. While aboard the vessel, the wife apparently suffered a staphylococcal infection following a treatment in the ship’s spa. In addition, the husband allegedly became ill as well. After the couple returned from their cruise, they filed a negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium lawsuit in the Middle District of Florida against the owner of the cruise ship and the operator of the spa where the wife was purportedly injured.

In response to the couple’s lawsuit, the defendants argued that the couple failed to plead sufficient facts to support a negligence lawsuit. Specifically, the defendants claimed the couple failed to allege they had a duty to warn the woman or that they breached their duty. Normally, in order to demonstrate negligence, a plaintiff must assert the at-fault party owed the plaintiff a duty, the at-fault party breached that duty, the plaintiff was injured as a result of that breach, and the plaintiff suffered damages. The federal court disagreed with the defendants and stated the allegations included in the couple’s complaint were sufficient to state a negligence claim.

Florida Appeals Court Refuses to Limit Discovery Regarding Doctor’s Relationship With Law Firm in Car Accident Negligence Case: Brown v. Mittelman

Published on: September 5, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Brown v. Mittelman, a plaintiff who was injured in a car accident sought medical treatment from a physician following the collision. The plaintiff’s attorney apparently referred the plaintiff to the medical provider. In addition, the doctor reportedly treated the plaintiff under a letter of protection agreement. Such an agreement is generally used to help an injured person pay for medical care they would not be able to afford otherwise. In many cases, a letter of protection is sent to a medical provider by a plaintiff’s attorney who agrees to remit payment for services following an accident settlement.

After the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, the defendant sought to discover certain billing documents from the non-party physician. The doctor objected to the defendant’s request, and a trial court overruled the medical provider’s objections. After that, the lower court compelled discovery of the evidence that was sought by the defendants. In response, the non-party physician filed a writ of certiorari seeking to quash discovery with Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals.

According to the physician, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5) prohibited discovery of the information sought by the defendant because there was no evidence to support the notion that the plaintiff’s law firm directly referred the plaintiff to him for treatment. The appellate court disagreed and stated a lawyer’s financial relationship with a medical provider is discoverable because the relationship may result in bias. The Fourth District added that jurors should be allowed to review evidence related to such a relationship because the doctor may have a financial interest in the outcome of the plaintiff’s negligence lawsuit.