• It involved a phantom motor vehicle;
• The court inferred the ladder in the road had fallen from a pickup truck that had parked in the right emergency lane;
• The court inferred the ladder had fallen into the road (causing a chain collision) due to negligence in securing the ladder.

These conclusions were based primarily on circumstantial evidence and witness statements. Plaintiff’s uninsured motorist (UM) insurance carrier argued there was no proof of those last two points, the assertion relying wholly on circumstantial evidence and failing to exclude other possibilities. Defense sought a directed verdict in its favor. The court denied the motion and jurors decided the case in favor of plaintiff. The phantom vehicle was found 60 percent at-fault for the collision, while the soda company truck that rear-ended plaintiff’s vehicle when she made a sudden stop on the highway was 40 percent at-fault. The UM carrier is liable for damages caused by the “phantom vehicle.more What is a “Phantom Vehicle” in a Fort Lauderdale Uninsured Motorist Claim?

“Phantom vehicle” is a term used by auto insurers to describe a car or truck that left the scene of an accident unidentified. Unlike a hit-and-run, there is no actual collision with a phantom vehicle, but that motorist may nonetheless be at-fault. Some also call these “miss-and-run” accidents. Typically, it involves another motorist’s reckless or sudden movement that cause plaintiff to hit a third vehicle or to run off the road. In this case, it involved alleged negligence of the phantom vehicle’s driver to properly secure items within the truck, causing the ladder to come loose and fall from the truck, into the highway lane where it posed serious danger to other motorists.

Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyers at The Ansara Law Firm can explain that phantom vehicle cases can be challenging to prove because if the two vehicles don’t collide, there may be very little evidence another vehicle was involved at all, except for the word of the plaintiff. What plaintiff had going for her in this case was there were numerous witnesses who attested to the suspected phantom vehicle.

Plaintiff’s sister-in-law was driving, with plaintiff as front seat passenger, in the second lane of I-295 behind two other vehicles when suddenly, all three in the travel lane stopped abruptly because of the large ladder lying in the road. Seconds later, a soda company truck slammed into the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle, causing her serious injury.

Two independent witnesses told investigators that just before the crash, they observed the pickup truck in the far right emergency lane with a man standing outside the truck, seemingly focused on the ladder as if trying to retrieve it. However, the driver of that truck was not identified.

Plaintiff filed a claim against the soda company and its driver, which were later settled. As Fort Lauderdale car accident attorneys can explain, there is a rebuttable presumption of fault by a driver in the rear whenever there is a rear-end collision. Motorists have a responsibility to keep a safe distance from the vehicles ahead of them precisely for a scenario like this. Drivers are supposed to anticipate that there may be a sudden emergency ahead, whether it’s a traffic jam or a tire in the road, that would require the driver in the lead to make a sudden stop, and maintain enough space between their two vehicles to safely stop or maneuver away if that happens. Rebuttable presumptions are explained in F.S. 90.302. These are presumptions to be taken as fact by the court unless there is credible evidence sufficient to prove otherwise.

However, closure of the claim against the soda truck company wasn’t the end of it because someone was still liable for the ladder in the road that set off the chain of events. Here, the jury concluded plaintiff was entitled to UM benefits. Defense appealed, arguing plaintiff had “stacked inferences,” which is depending upon inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence as proof of one fact and then constructing another inference upon the initial reference to establish it as fact. This isn’t allowed unless plaintiff can show the original, basic inference was established to the exclusion of all other reasonable inferences. Basically, courts don’t want verdicts to be reached on the basis of speculation and conjecture. The appellate court, however, affirmed the verdict, finding the original inference (that the ladder fell from the phantom vehicle) was made to the exclusion of all reasonable others.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

State Farm v. Hanania, Dec. 10, 2018, Florida First District Court of Appeal

More Blog Entries:

When Your Florida DUI Injury Lawsuit Conflicts With Criminal Proceedings, Nov. 4, 2018, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Attorney blog

Such damages are typical to seek in Florida crash injury claims, but this last one is what we want to focus on here. While serious injury, disability and medical costs can be established with documentation such as medical records, bills, bank statements, pay stubs and tax returns (among other types of evidence), loss of life enjoyment is a little trickier because it is highly subjective. It’s also sometimes referred to as “hedonic damages,” “loss of life’s pleasures” or “lost value of life.” It is a type of non-economic damages, which means there is no clear-cut value for the loss, as opposed to economic damages, which are the result of monetary losses suffered as a result of an injury or wrongful death.

In this case, as reported by the Florida Record, the motorist alleges defendant struck her vehicle in December 2016, causing her to sustain severe injuries that required hospitalization and ongoing nursing care. It also had the effect of exacerbating an existing medical condition. Details of the injuries and crash circumstances weren’t given in the initial complaint, except that it occurred at an intersection of the southbound I-95 ramp in Fort Lauderdale and plaintiff alleges defendant failed to maintain control of her vehicle or exercise proper lookout for other vehicles.

Given that sometimes psychologists are called as expert witnesses in civil injury litigation to establish loss of life enjoyment, a case law analysis by the Psychology Department at the University of Nebraska is insightful. The study noted that while it can be difficult to quantify non-economic damages in general, judges often make assumptions about quantification, with total damages for harm generally being higher when those for pain and suffering (physical) are treated as a separate issue from loss of life enjoyment (mental/ emotional). Courts across the country have varied on whether to allow this, with judges and justices finding against it reasoning that it results in duplicative damages. Florida courts do allow it to be sought separately.

The study noted the primary factor considered for loss of life enjoyment is the effect of the injury on a person’s lifestyle (which has correlated with jurors’ perceptions of injury severity and thus damage awards). As Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyers, we establish this by showing how active, happy, fulfilled one’s life was before the crash, how much life they had left to live and how the crash has negatively impacted that. Although it may seem somewhat unfair, for this particular type of damages, those who will tend to receive higher loss of life enjoyment awards are:

• Younger;
• Have young families/ loving spouses/ other close and meaningful relationships;
• Are active and involved in their communities and recreation;
• Are in the prime of a successful career or on the verge of a promising one.

These aren’t the only factors, but they often come into play. This particular type of damages is one of the primary reasons one will want to be cautious about what they post in social media and other public forums after a crash. This is because while we all know our social media presence is a projection of our “best selves,” it can be construed by defendants in a courtroom as one not having suffered as severely mentally and emotionally as alleged.

If you have been in a serious crash in Fort Lauderdale, it’s important to discuss these issues with an attorney as soon as possible, before agreeing to a settlement with an auto insurance adjuster.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Lawsuit claims I-95 car accident left woman disabled and disfigured, July 29, 2018, By Janie Mallari-Torres, The Florida Record

More Blog Entries:

Court: Crash Case Defendant/ Employer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment, June 3, 2018, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Attorney Blog

In some situations, drivers may have more than one uninsured motorist policy that applies in an accident. Although some may see this as a good problem to have, warring insurance companies – each trying to get the other to pay – can delay payment to the injured car accident victim. An experienced injury lawyer can help to ensure your rights and best interests are protected.

In the case of Countryway Ins. Co. v. United Financial Casualty Ins. Co., recently before the Kentucky Supreme Court, two auto insurance companies were fighting each other over which should cover the damages incurred by an insured who was riding in the passenger seat of her son’s semi-tractor trailer when it was struck by the uninsured driver of a passenger vehicle.

The crash happened in September 2007 in Bowling Green. There was no question by any involved that the uninsured driver was to blame for the crash, or that insured plaintiff suffered significant injuries. The issue was which insurer should cover her claim for uninsured motorist benefits – her personal auto insurer, the insurer who provided coverage of the semi-truck or both?

The tractor-trailer was insured by a company called United, which provided an uninsured motorist policy of up to $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident. As a person occupying the vehicle, plaintiff was insured under that portion of the policy.

Meanwhile, she had her own UM policy for her personal vehicle that was for $100,000 per person or up to $300,000 per accident. As a family member and spouse of the named insured (her husband), she was insured under that policy (provided by Countryway) as well.

Neither insurer denied plaintiff was insured under its respective policy, but both denied her coverage for UM benefits on the ground the other company’s liability came first – and neither would pay until the other did.

That gave plaintiff no choice but to file a lawsuit against both of them, seeking a declaration as to which company should have to pay.

While this dispute was pending, United waived its position in the dispute with Countryway and settled with personal injury plaintiff for $22,500.

The case between the two insurers continued, with United arguing that because the excess clauses in both policies effectively canceled each other out, they should each pay pro rata, or in equal proportion to the amount of coverage they supplied. Countryway, meanwhile, argued against that result on the grounds that United, as the insurer of the owner of the vehicle involved in the crash, should be the first to pay.

Trial court sided with United, but the appeals court reversed, finding (much to Countryway’s dismay) that it was Countryway that should be liable for the full amount.

The Kentucky Supreme Court, though, reversed and remanded, finding the appellate court applied the incorrect analysis of controlling case law in this matter. Here, it was United, as the vehicle insurer, that held the first responsibility of coverage. Once that coverage was exhausted, then plaintiff could seek relief from Countrywide.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Countryway Ins. Co. v. United Financial Casualty Ins. Co., Aug. 25, 2016, Kentucky Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Morton v. Schlotzhauer – Personal Injury Lawsuit Affected by Personal Bankruptcy, Aug. 29, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

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.

That’s why whenever possible in cases where more than two vehicles are involved, our Fort Lauderdale accident attorneys will look to see whether it’s possible that there were technically two or more accidents – as opposed to a single accident.

This might sound a bit tricky, but it usually comes into play in multiple-vehicle accident claims, such as a pileup on the interstate. These “chain reaction” crashes may actually be deemed numerous crashes for insurance purposes. Often it will depend on how each vehicle came in contact with the other, and whether the very first incident played an integral role in the next and so on.

The recent case of Hughes v. Farmers Auto Ins. Ass’n is one such example of a case where it was argued that numerous accidents had occurred, rather than just one.

According to court records, this was an Iowa Supreme Court case in which the court was asked to determine whether a chain reaction crash that resulted in separate impacts that occurred seconds apart was in fact one “accident” or two.

A sport utility vehicle was traveling the wrong direction down a highway. The SUV collided with a semi-truck, totaling the SUV and killing the driver. The semi-truck driver suffered injuries.

Seconds later, a motorcyclist slammed into that totaled SUV, which was still in the middle of the road. The motorcyclist also suffered serious injuries, including amputation of his leg.

The truck driver and the motorcyclist filed a request for a declaratory judgment from the trial court, seeking to establish for purposes of claims against the SUV’s insurance that there had been two accidents – not one. Specifically, they both wanted to maximize the amount they could collect under the SUV’s per-accident limit on bodily injury liability insurance.

The district court granted a summary judgment in favor of the insurer on this matter. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed.

The state high court noted the number of vehicles involved in the accident didn’t matter so much as the cause of each impact.

Although the court noted it’s not uncommon to refer to a multi-vehicle “accident” as a singular event when in fact there may have been multiple collisions, in this case, there was just one accident. The court took note of the fact that it would be an “extremely rare occurrence” that three or more vehicle would collide in the exact same place at almost the exact same time and not have it be a single crash.

When accidents are separated by time, space or cause, it is then that they may be deemed multiple accidents, instead of just one.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Hughes v. Farmers Auto Ins. Ass’n , April 1, 2016, Iowa Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Premises Liability for Dangerous Spring Break Gathering, April 2, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Accident Lawyer Blog

Now, her best friend is advocating for legislative change on her behalf. She has spoken out to lawmakers in support of a Florida bill that would require state and local transportation officials to install barriers near retention ponds and other bodies of water identified as dangerous or where other motorists have died after leaving the roadway.

The measure, called Chloe’s Law, is named after the young Orlando woman who “died in a completely preventable accident.” The bill has passed its first House committee.

The young woman’s friend noted that in Maryland, where she lives, these types of crashes are “unheard of.” But here in Florida, they happen all the time. In fact, Florida leads the country for submerged vehicle drownings. This makes sense when you consider that Florida is not only surrounded by water, but there 18.5 percent of Florida’s total area contains water.

Federal crash data reviewed by the Orlando Sentinel after Chloe’s car accident death last year showed 49 people in Florida died inside submerged vehicles from 2008 to 2012. No other state even comes close. Texas, which ranks No. 2, had 18 deaths, followed by Indiana with 14, and Arizona and Louisiana, each with 10.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in a 2011 study indicated those numbers were probably a significant underestimate. In its review, the agency indicated that just from 2004 to 2007, there was an average of 57 submerged vehicle drownings every year in Florida. Nationally, the federal agency counted, there are 384 a year.

The reason the NHTSA’s figures are so much higher is likely because the agency had access to death certificate information, which was not public record for reporters, who were basing it solely on police traffic accident reports.

That report indicated in-vehicle drownings account for 2.1 percent of the total number of Florida’s overall traffic fatalities.

Others put the figure even higher: At between 1,200 to 1,500 nationally a year.

Counties with the highest concentration of motor vehicle drownings were:

• Palm Beach
• Broward
• Miami-Dade

Orange, Duval, Lee and Collier Counties are tied for fourth place.

Retention ponds and roadside canals appear to be the biggest culprit. Safety experts say that while many state and local governments may have already taken initiative to install guardrails and other barriers, many have not been built in adherence of federal safety standards. Those that have not need to be re-erected, they say.

Many of these cases have been high-profile. Take for example the case of 23-year-old Scott Patrick Wilson, who drowned inside his vehicle when polo millionaire from Palm Beach County crashed into him and forced his vehicle off the road. The polo magnate was recently convicted of DUI manslaughter at his retrial.

Then there was the 19-year-old son of Julius Erving, who disappeared from his family’s home, setting off a national search. He was found little more than a month later, in his vehicle at the bottom of a retention pond, just a half mile from his home.

While there are resources out there that aim to educate people who find themselves in a submerged vehicle, the new bill takes the position that prevention is the better strategy.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Aimed at Preventing Traffic Accident Drowning Deaths, ‘Chloe’s Law’ Passes First House Panel, Feb. 8, 2016, by Sascha Cordner, news.wfsu.org

More Blog Entries:

Fort Lauderdale Crash Injury Victim Wins $300k Against Police, Feb. 14, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

The crash, which occurred in Stuart, about 90 minutes north of Fort Lauderdale, killed an 83-year-old man named Donald Maloney, who was a passenger in the Honda CR-V. That Honda had just been taken out for a test drive, though the dealership employee was behind the wheel at the time of the crash, according to WPBF ABc-25 News.

Investigators say the dealership employee was traveling south and then turned left at an intersection – and into a Chevy Tahoe. The sport utility vehicle impacted the passenger vehicle on the right front passenger seat. That’s where Maloney was sitting. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

What officials aren’t sure of at this point is the color of that light at the time the car dealership employee made the turn.

The two other people in the CR-V were transported to a local hospital, as were two individuals who were inside the SUV. None of their injuries appear to be life-threatening.

Fort Lauderdale car accident attorneys know cases like this raise the question: Does insurance follow the driver or the car?

In this situation, assuming the crash was the fault of the dealership employee driver, damages would almost certainly be paid by the dealership’s insurance company. That’s because the dealership would be liable for injuries resulting from the negligent actions of an employee who was acting in the course and scope of employment. Returning customers from a test drive would certainly qualify as something that occurred on-the-job.

However, there are a fair number of cases in which individuals who are test-driving vehicles are the ones behind the wheel at the time of the crash. This makes sense when you consider that it may be the first time the driver has been behind the wheel of that type of vehicle. They are still getting acquainted with the various controls and operating systems.

In these cases, liability would depend heavily on the circumstances. Generally, the at-fault party is responsible to pay for damages. Car dealerships do secure coverage for their vehicles, regardless of who is driving. So if a person test-driving a vehicle causes a crash, it’s possible those in the other vehicle could demand compensation from the dealership. The dealership might pay that amount, but then in turn demand reimbursement from the driver and/or the driver’s personal insurance policy.

Usually, dealerships require potential buyers to sign forms prior to the test drive that confer liability for damages from the dealership to the driver. But that wouldn’t apply in this instance, as it was the dealership employee behind the wheel.

In a case where another driver is at-fault and injures the test-driver, the test-driver may be able to collect compensation from both the at-fault driver and the dealership insurance.

Where there is a serious accident resulting in severe injuries or a death, lawsuits often result in damage awards that exceed policy limits.

Much is going to depend on who is involved, what insurance policies are applicable and how the accident occurred. Our personal injury lawyers can help victims sort through the aftermath.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

FHP Troopers Investigate Fatal Crash Involving Dealership Car in Stuart, Dec. 2, 2015, By Angela Rozier, WPBF, ABC-25 News

More Blog Entries:

Car Insurance Study: Florida No. 1 for Careless Driving, Nov. 28, 2015, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog