Fort Lauderdale injury attorney

February 2, 2017

Florida Lawmakers Consider Repeal of No-Fault Auto Insurance

Florida lawmakers are slated to begin considering whether to repeal the state’s long-standing no-fault auto insurance requirement. On average, this additional protection costs drivers about $81 per policy, according to recent research. The question legislators have to decide is whether those savings are going to be worth it in the end due to the fact that it will likely result in an uptick of car accident lawsuits.

The no-fault insurance for motor vehicles allows that there is “no-fault” when it comes to paying out an auto insurance claim following a car accident under a certain amount. Instead, drivers are required to carry personal injury protection (PIP) coverage, which extends payment for any medical expenses and certain non-medical costs associated with the crash, such as lost wages or replacement benefits (i.e., having someone come help you clean your house while you are unable to do so). All Florida drivers are required to carry a minimum level of PIP benefits in addition to liability insurance requirements. Then if they are involved in a crash, they file a claim with their own auto insurer. The only way they can pursue a claim outside that no-fault system is if the injuries are considered permanent or permanently disfiguring/ scarring or if there is some significant or total loss of an important bodily function. Drivers have to carry at least $10,000 in PIP benefits.

Legislators have decided that in the spring, they will mull a proposal to scrap the no-fault insurance law that has been followed in the state since the 1970s. Continue reading

January 10, 2017

Modisette v. Apple Inc. – Distracted Driving Blamed on Crash That Killed 5-Year-Old

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

The family of a 5-year-old girl killed in a car accident by a driver who was reportedly distracted is suing technology giant Apple Inc. for wrongful death. Plaintiffs allege Apple officials knew its FaceTime app, in use by the at-fault driver at the time of the fatal crash, was being used by drivers in a dangerous manner. Further, plaintiffs say, Apple had the technology needed to make the app inaccessible to drivers (while still allowing passengers to access it), and yet chose not to implement it.

Specifically, plaintiffs say the company failed to install and implement a safer alternative design that would have halted a driver from accessing the app while speeding down the highway.

According to court records in Modisette v. Apple Inc., filed in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County, the girl was in a booster seat in the rear passenger seat, behind her father, who was driving. He slowed his vehicle because traffic ahead on the highway was backed to a standstill. However, the driver behind them, a 22-year-old from Florida in a sport utility vehicle, apparently didn’t notice the slowed traffic as he barreled down the road at 65 mph. He slammed into the back of the car. Everyone was injured, the little girl and her dad most severely. He survived. She did not. Continue reading

September 25, 2016

Jorge v. Culinary Inst. of Am. – Vicarious Liability of Employer for Car Accident

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

Some car accident cases are more complicated than others. This is especially true of cases in which one of the driver was on-the-job, acting in the course and scope of employment and/or was operating a company vehicle.

First, there is consideration that – generally regardless of fault – an employee injured while working can collect workers’ compensation.

Second, if the employee was at-fault and others are injured, those injured persons may seek compensation from the employer by alleging vicarious liability (via the legal theory of “respondeat superior,” which is Latin for, “Let the Master Answer”) or for direct liability (i.e., inadequate training, negligent hiring, inadequate supervision, unsafe equipment, etc.). Even if the employee wasn’t technically on-the-clock, there could be a claim for vicarious liability against the company if the worker was driving the company vehicle. That’s because in Florida, motor vehicles are known as inherently dangerous instrumentalities, and therefore, owners can be held responsible for the negligence of anyone entrusted to operate them. Continue reading

May 25, 2016

Florida Fatal Car Accident Spurs Lawsuit Against Uber, Driver, Deputy

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

A 28-year-old Uber passenger in Orlando was killed in December when the driver allegedly ran a red light and struck a deputy, speeding through the intersection.

Now, the family of that victim, Corey Allicock, is suing:

Uber
The Uber Driver
The Deputy

Although investigators did not fault Seminole County Sheriff’s Deputy Scott Sullivan in the crash, witnesses who saw the deputy just before the crash said he was traveling 60 mph on the road. Authorities later revealed he was on his way to an emergency domestic violence call. However, it is undisputed he had not activated his emergency lights and siren. The 73-year-old Uber driver, meanwhile, was cited for running a red light and for causing the young man’s death. He has not driven for Uber since the crash. Continue reading

April 8, 2016

Hughes v. Farmers Auto Ins. Ass’n – Per-Accident Insurance Limits

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

In many Fort Lauderdale car accident cases, the amount of damages available will be determined by how much insurance coverage is involved.

Auto insurance policy limits are generally expressed as:

Amount per person;
Amount per accident.

So let’s say there is a policy that allows $100,000 per person and up to $150,000 per accident. That would mean if only one person is hurt, he or she could collect up to $100,000. However, if two people equally suffer $100,000 in damages, the most either could collect would be $75,000 – because the policy limit is $150,000. Continue reading

February 27, 2016

Florida Energy Drink Lawsuits Allege Serious, Irreversible Effects

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

A man in his 20s, constantly on-the-go, felt a sudden wave of nausea come over him as he was driving on the way to work. His vision grew blurry. He pulled over and called his boss. He wouldn’t be in that day. Within hours, he was rushed to the emergency room, where he discovered he had stage 4 kidney disease.

The case, according to a recently-filed lawsuit, is long-term consumption of energy drinks. He reportedly drank four every single day, which is the caffeine equivalent of 12 Coca-Colas. He did this for 10 years. Now, he’s awaiting a liver transplant.

His case is one of five filed against Monster Beverage Corp., asserting claims of severe and almost deadly health problems resulting from longtime use of the drink. It’s alleged that habitual drinkers of the products suffer renal failure, stroke and heart attacks, among other health concerns. Continue reading

January 25, 2016

Wrong-Way Accidents in Broward, Miami-Dade Target for Safety Advocates

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

Imagine driving along a dark stretch of a four-lane highway. A few taillights pass. Then suddenly, you see headlights suddenly flash. They’re right in front of you. It’s too late to do anything but brace.

It’s a nightmare that plays out all too often in real life for drivers in South Florida. The impact of these collisions are often violent. They are often fatal. Officials are forced to halt traffic on major highways for hours as they launch complex investigations and massive cleanup efforts.

It’s a scenario local law enforcement and other safety advocates are fighting to end. Continue reading

December 2, 2015

Joerg v. State Farm – Florida Supreme Court Rules on Collateral Source Benefit Evidence

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

The Florida Supreme Court recently took on the issue of collateral source evidence in Joerg v. State Farm, a case stemming from a serious bicycle accident injury.

The collateral source rule, also sometimes referred to as the collateral source doctrine, prohibits the admission of evidence that a plaintiff or victim has received compensation from some source other than defendant. The idea is a defendant shouldn’t have to pay less for a tortious act just because a plaintiff had health insurance or collected workers’ compensation.

Still, since 1984, the court had allowed a limited admission of evidence regarding certain kinds of free or low-cost future collateral source benefits. But that has now changed. In the Joerg case, the court ruled all defendants are barred from introducing evidence of collateral source benefits plaintiffs may receive in the future. These include Medicare and Medicaid. Given that almost all Americans will at least collect on Medicare at some point in their lives, the decision has widespread implications in personal injury law. Continue reading