South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

The Applicability of Risk-Utility Tests and Consumer Expectation Tests in Florida Defective Device Lawsuits

Published on: October 23, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida law concerning design defect claims is continuously evolving, and courts have not reached a consensus on which test is appropriate in these matters. In most cases, courts use one of three different product liability tests: the consumer expectations test, the risk-utility test, or the reasonable alternative design test. In a recent opinion, a Florida appellate court considered whether the consumer expectations test or risk-utility test was appropriate in a defective complex medical device lawsuit. The case is based on a wrongful death lawsuit that was filed against several defendants, including a hospital, its surgical team, and the manufacturer of the medical device. The decedent’s estate filed the lawsuit after the victim died while undergoing lung surgery. The plaintiff’s lawsuit against the device manufacturer claimed that the manufacturer was liable for the product’s design defect, failure to warn, and negligence.

After settling with the health care providers, the claim against the manufacturer proceeded to trial. At trial, the plaintiff submitted a jury instruction that stated that the jury could find the defendant liable for an unreasonably dangerous product if the plaintiff established the consumer expectations test or risk-utility test. Florida law provides that the consumer expectation imposes liability if the plaintiff can prove that the product failed to perform as safely as a consumer would expect, if the product is used in a reasonably foreseeable manner. In contrast, the risk-utility test imposes liability if the plaintiff establishes that the risk of danger outweighs the benefit. The defendant proposed the risk-utility test, and the trial court proceeded with that jury instruction. On appeal, the plaintiff claimed that the judge overseeing the trial should have provided the jury with a consumer-expectations instruction, and the judge’s failure to do so required a new trial.

The plaintiff argued that previous Florida courts adopted the consumer expectations test in Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp. In this case, the appellate court distinguished the case at hand with the previous ruling, primarily finding that this case involved a medical product that is “too complex” for the consumer expectation test. Further, the prior court found that plaintiffs may opt to proceed with a consumer expectations test for design defect claims, but they did not address whether a medical professional may be considered an “ordinary consumer.” Moreover, even if a portion of the consumer expectations test could apply, the jury instruction would need to address a medical professional’s reasonable expectation. Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiff’s requested instruction would have only confused the jury, and providing such an instruction would have been a misstatement of the law. As a result, the plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed.

Damages Caps in Florida Lawsuits Against Government Entities

Published on: October 16, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Florida Supreme Court recently addressed the state’s statutory damages cap in cases against a governmental entity or actor. The state supreme court was tasked with answering whether the governmental immunity law caps damages at $200,00 for all injuries or deaths as claims “arising out of the same incident or occurrence.” The question stems from a negligence lawsuit that a father brought against Florida’s Department of Children and Families (DCF).

In this case, a man shot his estranged wife and five of her children, resulting in the death of the woman and four of the children. The children’s father filed a negligence and wrongful death lawsuit against DCF. He argued that the agency received several domestic disturbance calls at the residence. Further, he alleged that the agency failed to investigate the circumstances of the calls appropriately. He contends that the agency’s inadequate investigation and ultimate finding that the children were not at significant risk of harm were negligent and a breach of their nondelegable duty to protect the children. In response, the agency raised several defenses and argued that Florida statute 768.28(5) provides a limitation on the plaintiff’s available recovery.

Florida law provides a waiver to the archaic “sovereign immunity” doctrine, which provided complete protection against lawsuits against the government. The waiver allows individual parties to file tort actions against the state to recover money damages for the victim’s injury, loss of property, or death caused by the negligence or wrongful act or omission of a state actor. However, the law provides a limitation to a plaintiff’s available recovery against the state agency or actor. The state cannot be liable for a claim by one person, which exceeds $200,000 for the same incident or occurrence.

The Effect of Willful Non-Compliance in a Florida Insurance Claim Proceeding

Published on: October 14, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Owning a home is a major milestone, but also comes with significant responsibilities and costs. Unlike renting, maintenance is no longer a call away to help fix things when they break or leak in your home. Home insurance, however, can often provide recourse in unexpected situations that are out of your control. These insurance policies often have specific rules and instructions on how to file a claim in the event of an issue that gives rise to a claim. As a homeowner, it is crucial that you read and understand these rules so that if an incident arises in your home, you can properly assert your rights for recovery.

In a recent Florida District Court of Appeal opinion, a homeowner filed a lawsuit against his home insurance company, arguing that they had breached their contract. The plaintiff’s home was insured by the defendant. The insurance policy provided that in the event of a loss giving rise to the claim, the homeowner must provide “prompt notice” to the defendant, give the defendant the requested records and documents, and submit to an examination under oath to recover for the loss.

Following a major plumbing leak incident in the homeowner’s house, the plaintiff provided notice and documentation of loss, but failed to show up for his examination under oath because he was out of the country and unaware that the examination under oath had been scheduled. The defendant subsequently denied the plaintiff’s claim, arguing that the plaintiff had breached the insurance policy’s requirements. The lower court ruled in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

Filing a Florida Products Liability Case After A Hot Beverage Spill

Published on: October 10, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Visiting a coffee shop and purchasing a hot beverage is a delight for many people. However, when the coffee cup is defective, it can lead to serious injuries. Those injured by defective or dangerous products may be able to obtain compensation for their injuries through a Florida product liability claim. In a recent case, a state appellate court was tasked with determining whether a coffee shop could be held liable for a plaintiff’s injuries. The case involved a plaintiff who was injured after she purchased a cup of hot tea in a defective cup and accidentally spilled it onto herself. Ultimately, the court determined that the hot tea and defective cup were too remotely connected to the plaintiff’s injuries, and thus, the coffee retailer could not be held liable.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff ordered a cup of hot tea from a local coffee shop. The plaintiff picked up her cup of tea at the counter and noticed the beverage was “double-cupped,” but did not have a sleeve around the outside of the cup. After grabbing her tea, she removed the lid and tried to sit down at a nearby table when the chair pushed forward unexpectedly. She grabbed onto the table to maintain her balance, which caused the drink to spill onto her legs, and she suffered second-degree burns. After the accident, she filed a products liability suit against the coffee shop.

Under a products liability claim, a plaintiff alleges the defective product caused their injuries. The manufacturer, distributor, or retailer can be held liable if a defect in their product causes an injury when the product is being used in a foreseeable way. A product can also be defective if it fails to include a warning about its known risks. To succeed in their product liability claim, a plaintiff must show the defective product, or the lack of warning, was the ultimate cause of their injuries.

Florida Court Addresses Declaratory Judgment in Insurance Dispute

Published on: September 30, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

An appeals court issued its opinion in a Florida insurance dispute between a homeowner and an insurance company. According to the opinion, a homeowner entered into a contract with an insurance company where they agreed that in exchange for a lower premium, the insurance company would have the option to repair any damage with its preferred contractor. The current claim arose after the homeowner’s home experienced water damage after Hurricane Irma. Immediately after the damage, the homeowner contacted a company to perform mitigation repairs. In addition, he contacted a public adjustor company to appraise the value of damage and assist in settling any claims with the insurance company. About a month after the damage, the homeowner contacted the insurance company.

The insurance company acknowledged receipt of the claim and sent its inspector to evaluate the premises. The company’s inspector valued the loss at around $13,000, and the company chose to repair the damage. Pursuant to their policy with the homeowner, the company notified him of their election, and required the homeowner to file a sworn proof of loss within 60 days. After the period lapsed, the company filed an action for declaratory judgment and a breach of loss. The homeowner moved to dismiss the case, and in the alternative, compel appraisal. At trial, the court dismissed the insurance company’s complaint. The insurance company argued that the homeowner’s failure to provide a sworn proof of loss amounts to a contract breach. As such, they argued that the court should find that the breach justified a loss of coverage.

Under Florida law, a party moving for a declaratory judgment must prove that there is a good faith dispute between the parties; there is a question regarding the existence of rights or status, there is a dispute regarding a party’s rights, and there is an actual need for the judgment. When a petition for declaratory relief meets these factors, the court should not dismiss the matter for failure to state a cause of action.

Florida Product Liability Lawsuits Involving Recalled Products

Published on: September 28, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida product liability laws allow individuals and their families to pursue civil actions to recover damages for injuries they suffered because of a defective product. Product liability claims generally stem from design defects, manufacturing defects, or marketing defects. In these cases, there may be multiple responsible parties. Liability often hinges on the type of defect and the injury the victim suffers. Individuals who pursue these claims must establish that they used the product in the manner that it was intended, and that they followed the product’s directions and contemplated the warnings and risks associated with the product’s use.

In many cases, liable parties will defend against a claim by arguing that they issued a recall, and therefore they should not be responsible for the victim’s injuries. However, a recall does not automatically protect a manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, or retailer. Injury victims should contact an attorney to discuss how to overcome these assertions.

Generally, federal agencies do not recall products; instead, they urge companies to recall dangerous products and make announcements after the company notifies them of a recall. In some cases, companies refuse to recall dangerous products. When that occurs, federal agencies can commence legal proceedings against the company. Typically, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces medical and food-related recalls, the United States Department of Agriculture and Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announces meat and poultry recalls, and the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) handles consumer product recalls. In some cases, the recall occurs after the company faces a civil lawsuit for injuries related to a defective product. In other situations, the company issues a recall as soon as they discover a defect.

Pursuing Compensation After a Florida Cruise Ship Slip and Fall Accident

Published on: September 24, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Every year, many families travel to tropical destinations aboard cruise ships for the vacation of a lifetime. With so much to do and so many opportunities to relax, a cruise sounds like the perfect option for any adventurous traveler. However, accidents can occur while on these trips. When they do, those who are responsible can be held accountable through a Florida cruise ship injury lawsuit.

In a recent federal appellate opinion, a plaintiff suffered a severe injury while on a cruise ship vacation with her family. According to the court’s opinion, on the fourth day of the trip, the plaintiff went to pick up food from the ship’s breakfast buffet. As she was returning from the buffet line, she was forced to take a detour because diners at a nearby table had rearranged their chairs. While moving around a busboy station, the plaintiff tripped over a cleaning bucket that she had not seen, suffering injuries to her shoulder and fracturing her arm. For the remainder of the cruise trip, the plaintiff was bedridden. Following the trip, she sought medical attention from various doctors and physical therapists due to her injuries. The plaintiff subsequently brought a lawsuit against the operator of the cruise ship.

At trial, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff with $650,000 in past general damages, $500,000 in future general damages, and $61,000 in past medical expenses, all to be discounted by 10% due to the plaintiff’s comparative negligence. The total award amounted to roughly $1.1 million in favor of the plaintiff. Following the verdict and damages calculations, the defendant persuaded the lower court to reduce the jury’s award to approximately $16,000, on the theory that a plaintiff’s recovery was limited to the amount that was actually paid for her medical treatment.

Florida Court Issues Opinion in Case Involving Uninsured Motorist Dispute

Published on: September 21, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, a Florida appellate court issued an opinion in a plaintiff’s appeal of several issues in a car accident lawsuit against their uninsured motorist carrier (UM). The case stemmed from a chain-reaction three-car accident. According to the court’s opinion, the driver of the first car made a sudden lane change and abruptly slammed on their brakes. This resulted in the second-car rear-ending the first car, and the third car, driven by the plaintiff, slammed into the second car. The driver of the first car received a citation and assumed liability.

Shortly after the accident, the plaintiffs sent a demand letter to their UM carrier. They requested full policy coverage but failed to include the husband’s medical records. After the UM requested additional information, the plaintiffs asserted their rights again, and included medical documentation. The UM carrier denied coverage, and requested several other pieces of information, including confirmation of the host vehicle’s coverage, tender of available coverage, and additional hospital records. Certain information indicated that the husband might have been mostly at fault for the accident. However, the plaintiffs advised the company that they would sue if the company did not pay the full benefits. The husband filed a Civil Remedy Notice (CRN), and a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, apportioning 90% fault on the first driver, and 10% on the husband. However, the court reversed jurisdiction to conduct a bad faith trial.

After an initial mistrial, both parties filed motions to preclude the admission of certain documents. The court granted the defendant’s motion to admit the parties’ mediation activity log. The defendants used the log to show that the plaintiffs initially wanted a $50,000 settlement instead of their current demand of $500,000. The husband argued that the log was inadmissible because it was confidential, irrelevant, violated the trial court’s orders, and would only inflame the passions of the jury.

Florida Homeowner Successful in Bad Faith Claim Against Insurance Company

Published on: September 17, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, an appellate court issued its opinion in a bad faith claim homeowners filed against their home insurance company. According to the court’s opinion, the homeowners filed a claim with their insurance company after suffering losses from Hurricane Irma. The insurance company investigated the claim and determined that the homeowners’ loss was $3,013.20. In response, the homeowners provided the insurance company with their public adjustor’s estimate of their losses. According to the insurance agreement, the insurer began the appraisal process. The policy contained provisions that either party could demand an appraisal if the parties failed to agree to the amount of loss. Further, the policy included a provision that homeowners could not file a lawsuit unless the parties fully complied with the policy’s terms.

The homeowners filed a civil remedy notice of insurer’s violation (CRN), alleging that the insurance company breached its duty to settle the claims in good faith. They argued that the company was given notice of the severity of the homeowners’ losses, and the opportunity to inspect the property. The homeowners contended that, despite this opportunity, the insurer failed to identify the full extent of losses. As such, they filed a complaint based on Florida’s bad faith statute.

Under Florida Statutes, section 624.155, policyholders maintain a civil remedy for an insurance company’s bad faith. The claim applies in situations that an insurer failed to act reasonably, honestly, and in good faith to settle claims. Florida law requires plaintiffs to provide the Florida Department of Financial Services and the insurer with written notice of a violation. The CRN notice must include specific statutory violations, relevant facts and policy provisions, and a statement asserting the plaintiff’s right to pursue a civil claim. The statuary requirements to a Florida bad faith insurance claim require the claimant establish that the insurer was liable for coverage, the policy holder’s damages, and compliance with the notice requirements. The statute does not bar an insured from sending a CRN before a determination of liability or damages.

Court Finds in Favor of Plaintiff in Florida Trip and Fall Accident

Published on: September 15, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida premises liability lawsuits often involve a slip and fall or trip and fall. These accidents can occur at businesses, restaurants, grocery stores, hospitals, nursing homes, and public buildings. Generally, under state law, business owners and land occupiers owe invitees a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition. Despite the law, property owners often fail to maintain their property safely and often delay making repairs or address hazards.

On the other hand, in some instances, a business owner may believe their property is safe. In these cases, the trier of fact will determine whether the property is safe under a “reasonable person” standard. In other words, the court will ask whether another similarly situated entity would act similarly or evaluate the danger in the same way. Moreover, some business owners may argue that the danger was “open and obvious.” When this occurs, the court will determine whether the condition was so open and obvious that it serves as a warning to the invitee to protect themselves from its dangers.

For example, in a recent opinion, a Florida court addressed whether a groove in the pavement in an ice cream store’s parking lot was an open and obvious hazard. In that case, a woman was navigating a parking lot to get to the ice cream shop when she tripped and fell into a groove in the pavement. The woman initiated a lawsuit against the parking lot owner, alleging that her injuries arose because of its negligence. At trial, the defendant argued that the depression in the pavement was so open and obvious that the woman should have realized its dangers and taken steps to avoid hurting herself.