Trucking carriers are required to carry insurance by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and they don’t follow the same rules as those required for passenger vehicles. In general, policies that cover semi trucks are much larger than those that cover passenger vehicles, primarily because it’s well-established that these vehicles tend to cause far more damage when involved in an accident. Typically, you don’t want to settle a truck accident claim too quickly because it’s important to have a good idea to have a better handle on the type and scope of injuries, the necessary treatments involved and the impact it will have on one’s work and home life.

Because it’s not uncommon in these cases for victims to be dealing with more than one commercial insurance company, it’s imperative to seek the assistance of an experienced truck accident lawyer.more

Let’s look, for example, at the recent truck accident wrongful death case of Great West Cas. Co. v. Robbins, recently weighed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The matter before the court did not have to do with liability for the crash. Rather, the action was to ascertain whether a commercial insurer had an obligation to indemnify defendant truck driver and his employer. The insurer argued it shouldn’t have to, but the defendants and a second commercial insurer argued it should.

For plaintiff, of course, indemnification by this insurer would mean the potential for additional damages, which were extensive given that this was a wrongful death lawsuit.

According to court records, the crash happened in January 2011 when a tractor-trailer driven by defendant Philips struck a vehicle operated by decedent Robbins on a highway in Indiana. Robbins died from his injuries. At the time, Philips was an employee of Hoker Trucking, LLC and was driving the tractor-trailer in the course and scope of her employment. That company is based in Iowa and owned the tractor driven by Philips. However, the trailer that was being hauled was on loan from a company called Lakeville Motor Express Inc., based in Minnesota. However, Lakeville wasn’t even the actual owner of that trailer. The owner was a company called Wren Equipment, LLC, also based in Minnesota. Wren had leased the trailer involved in the crash on a five-year basis to Lakeville for $22,600 per month and provided insurance on those trailers. After the five years were up in 2006, the lease converted to a month-to-month, though at the time of the crash, Lakeville had signed on a 1-year lease extension. At that point, Lakeville agreed to provide at least $1 million in insurance coverage. The trailer continued to be leased until 2013.

To satisfy the lease agreement, Lake purchased a $5 million commercial insurance policy from Great West Casualty Co., and Wren was added on as an additional insured policy. Neither Philips nor Hoker were named as insured parties on that policy. Meanwhile, Hoker was insured by Northland Insurance Company, which provided $1 million primary coverage at the time of the crash.

Plaintiff, decedent’s widow, filed a lawsuit in state court against the trucking company, its driver and the company that leased the trailer, alleging negligence. The company that leased the trailer was later dismissed form the action.

Subsequently, Great West filed a request seeking declaratory judgment stating it was not liable to defend or indemnify the trucking company or its driver for the crash. Trial court ruled the Great West policy unambiguously excluded Hoker and Phillips as insured parties under the policy, which meant plaintiff would not be entitled to collect on that $5 million policy. The 7th Circuit affirmed, finding that because the trailer was being driven in furtherance of Hoker’s business – not Lakeville’s – the policy unambiguously excluded coverage.

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

Additional Resources:

Great West Cas. Co. v. Robbins, Aug. 16, 2016, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

More Blog Entries:

Road Debris Causes Thousands of Florida Car Accidents Annually, Aug. 15, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Truck Accident Attorney Blog

The homicides occurred in Stuart at the exclusive Yacht and Country Club, where the gunman apparently gained status as a resident, despite not owning a property there and having an extensive criminal background.

The wrongful death lawsuit alleges negligence on the part of:

• The construction company;
• The property owners’ association/ security company;
• The actual homeowner.

As described in The Daily Business Review, this was, “the perfect storm of failures” by these three defendants. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges negligent security. That is, defendants owed a duty to protect the victims from a foreseeable harm by adhering to existing security procedures.

According to news reports of the incident, the man suspected of committing the murders before turning the gun on himself had been arrested at least nine times prior for 19 different crimes. He was, however, the son of a successful construction company owner.

That construction company had been hired to conduct a series of renovations and repairs on the unit of a resident homeowner within the gated community. These renovations and repairs were to be conducted while she was out-of-town. While she was gone, she allowed this individual free access to her home, where she kept a loaded firearm.

During this time, this individual reportedly formed a friendly relationship with the neighborhood security guards, as well a several of the neighbors. He soon effectively took up residence at the home. He was known by both the association and the guards to be living at this construction client’s residence. He was daily waved through the security gates and he parked directly outside her residence. He was, victims’ attorneys argue, treated as a lawful tenant. This was despite the fact that he’d never passed a criminal background check, as all other residents at the association were required to do.

It is alleged that around this time he began to deal drugs.

Although association rules and regulations prohibited this individual as a non-resident from granting access to other non-residents, both guards at the front gate waved in the victims one evening at the suspect’s request.

Soon after, the mother-and-son were both shot and killed inside the residence and the suspect then killed himself shortly thereafter. Local authorities believe the motive was likely robbery. The male victim, 45, was reportedly friends with the gunman and was asked to come to the residence at his request. However, he could not drive because his license was suspended, so he asked his 72-year-old mother to take him.

The case raises questions about the degree of responsibility property owners and security companies have when screening residents and guests in gated communities. There is a great deal of variation in terms of the security standards these companies employ. Some will check and screen driver’s licenses of guests. Some will require residents to undergo background checks. Some will check the license plates of those who enter.

Questions of liability raised in this wrongful death lawsuit will be watched closely because increasingly, short-term rentals promulgated via channels like Airbnb and VRBO are becoming increasingly common.

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

Additional Resources:

Wrongful Death Suit Against Association Illustrates Perils of Negligent Security, Screening, August 1, 2016, By Michael L. Hyman, Daily Business Review

More Blog Entries:

Surprise Settlement in Florida Air Bag Liability Lawsuit, July 29, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Negligent Security Attorney Blog

The toddler, Lane Graves, was snatched by an alligator as he was splashing in about six-to-twelve inches of water, about one foot in at the bank of a man-made, freshwater pond, his father just footsteps away. His father wrestled with the alligator to try to free his son, but tragically, he did not succeed. The boy’s body was found intact after an exhaustive 16-hour search.

Soon after word of this nightmare emerged, it was revealed that there were “No Swimming” signs posted nearby. However, there was no mention of alligators or any other wild animal. Of course, those of us who live in Florida are familiar with the fact that any freshwater body – and even some saltwater – is a potential habitat for gators. But this was a resort and it was known many people would be staying from out-of-town. This family was no exception, as they’d been visiting from Nebraska.

But could Disney be liable for wrongful death in this case?

Based one what we know of the case, it seems plausible.

First, let’s start with the fact that Disney is a business and it invites members of the public onto its property for a fee, from which it derives a profit. That means it owes the highest duty of care to its guests to ensure the property is reasonably safe for them. That would include posting appropriate signage near water where it is known wild alligators live.

Of course, some might argue that it’s not Disney’s job to protect guests from all possible dangers, the company did owe a duty to protect against foreseeable dangers, and this would certainly be one. Even though the company opines there has never been an alligator attack like this on its property in 45 years, it is well-known that alligators have been known to attack people at the edge of water, particularly in the evening or at night. It’s been asked why the resort didn’t simply get rid of all the alligators on its property to begin with. The Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) reported the company does routinely remove alligators from the property, but most wildlife experts agree that would be virtually impossible to get rid of them all. But that also tells us that Disney knew or should have known waters on its property were inhabited by alligators. So then the question becomes, did the company do enough to warn guests of the danger?

If there is a finding that they knew of the alligators’ presence and did not pass this information on to guests, that could be considered negligence. In fact, there could even be grounds to argue gross negligence, which is a higher legal standard that requires a showing of actual disregard for the safety and welfare of guests. This is particularly true because there are now reports that staffers were aware of an ongoing problem of guests feeding the alligators. Some staff members had asked management to install some type of fencing, but those requests went unheeded.

What’s more, the park reportedly encouraged people to gather in that location by inviting families to come to the beach to watch movies and fireworks. Although speculation is that the park did not want to scare guests by posting signs about potentially dangerous alligators. But if you can’t fix the problem, the question is, why even have a beach there in the first place?

The park has since said it is installing more signage and temporary barriers at beach resort locations until they can work out a permanent, long-term solution.

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

Additional Resources:

Disney’s liability, prior knowledge questioned, June 21, 2016, By Roger Yu, USA Today

More Blog Entries:

Florida Tractor-Trailer Accident Victim Dies One Year Later, June 14, 2016, Florida Wrongful Death Attorney Blog