What PIP Does NOT Cover

Although PIP is the go-to for no-fault accident coverage in Florida, it does not cover every scenario, every type of loss – or even every person. The following is a list of what PIP won’t cover:

• Property damage. If your car is damaged in the crash, you’ll need to file a separate claim with your own insurance company (or the insurer of the at-fault driver) in order to be compensated for necessary repairs. Florida law requires drivers carry at least $10,000 in property damage liability coverage.
• Motorcycle operators. PIP coverage is not mandated – or even available – to owners/operators of motorcycles or other self-propelled vehicles. Motorcyclists must rely on other types of auto insurance coverage.
• More than $10,000 in medical expenses. No matter how serious your injuries are, PIP is only going to cover up to $10,000 in medical expenses. In fact, PIP is only designed to cover up to 80 percent of “reasonable medical expenses.” Furthermore, if your injuries are not “emergent,” PIP may cover no more than $2,500 in medical expenses. Unless you take legal action against the at-fault driver, you and/or your health insurer will be liable for the rest. If your injuries are “serious and permanent,” as outlined in F.S. 627.727, you may step out of the no-fault system and pursue a claim against the at-fault driver for damages for the full amount of your losses. If they do not have insurance or lack enough insurance, you may file a claim with your own uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) carrier for the difference.
• More than 60 percent of your lost wages. PIP will cover up to 60 percent of your lost wages if you can’t work due to your injuries – but not if it equals more than $10,000 (and usually far less because that is all that’s available to cover your medical expenses too). If you can’t return to work at all or must take a lower-paying job as a result of your injuries, you could be facing substantial income losses. These are recoverable from the at-fault party if you step outside the no-fault system and pursue damages.
• Pain and suffering. PIP coverage only covers economic losses. This would include things like medical bills and lost wages. But Florida car accident victims are traumatized, both physically and emotionally. The law recognizes the impact of this, which is why crash victims can pursue damages (compensation) for pain and suffering – but only in a civil claim. You won’t recover pain and suffering damages from your PIP carrier.

more

Other PIP Coverage Considerations

Other things to note about PIP coverage is claimants have a very short window of time in which to file a claim. PIP claims must be filed within 14 days. If you wait longer to seek medical attention/file your claim, your damages may be limited to $2,500 – or less.

If you have ongoing medical expenses, PIP will only cover those incurred within three years of the crash date. Any long-term medical care or treatment beyond that is likely going to be paid out-of-pocket, unless you take legal action against the other driver.

Note too that PIP coverage also has a deductible, which varies by carrier and policy. Typically, the deductible is about $500. So even if you have $10,000 in coverage, you’d still be paying at least $500 out-of-pocket.

If you have been in a Fort Lauderdale car accident, our injury attorneys offer free initial consultations to advise you of your rights regarding PIP coverage and third-party claims.

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

Additional Resources:

Consumer Pamphlet: Automobile Insurance, The Florida Bar

Perhaps just as scary is the fact that nearly 27 percent of Florida drivers have no insurance.

Even drivers who carry the minimum amount of insurance won’t have enough to cover your damages in the event of a serious crash. Although Florida law requires drivers to carry $10,000 in personal protection and $10,000 in property damage coverage, it doesn’t strictly require bodily injury coverage, which is paid to others hurt if you’re negligent in causing a crash. Drivers are required to be responsible for up to $20,000 in bodily injury coverage per crash ($10,000 per person), but having insurance to cover that amount isn’t strictly required.

What this means, as our Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyers can explain, is that smart Florida drivers don’t waive or skimp on their uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. It one of the best and sometimes the only way you’ll get anything close to full compensation for your injuries after a crash.

Florida UM/UIM Coverage Explained

Uninsured motorist (UM) and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage is insurance you carry to cover the risk that another driver will choose not to carry sufficient (or any) insurance. It will also cover you in crashes where you’re a passenger, pedestrian or bicyclist. It will also cover family members who live with you, and it follows you out-of-state if you’re traveling.

UM coverage is paid to those injured when someone is hurt in a crash caused by a driver who doesn’t have auto insurance or who isn’t identified because he/she fled the scene. UIM coverage provides compensation to those injured by drivers who don’t have enough bodily injury liability coverage or personal assets to cover the damages. Either can kick in when crash-related damages exceed the amount covered both in one’s personal injury protection (PIP) plan and what is covered by the negligent driver’s bodily injury liability coverage.

UM/UIM coverage can be used to pay:

• Medical expenses (past and future)
• Lost wages
• Pain and suffering
• Future loss of earning potential

Given that Florida has one of the highest accident rates in the country, plus the odds are more than 1 in 4 that the person with whom you collide won’t have any coverage at all, UM/UIM coverage is essential for anyone driving in Florida. This is true even though UM/UIM coverage isn’t mandatory in Florida. The option does come standard with auto insurance policies issued in the state, and individuals must sign a waiver to turn it down. UM/UIM must be equal to one’s bodily injury liability coverage.

Stacking UM/UIM Benefits

If you choose to purchase UM/UIM benefits, you might be able to take advantage of something known as “stacking.” This is when a policyholder stacks coverage based on the amount of vehicles covered in a policy.

For example, if you opt for $100,000 in UM/UIM benefits and have three vehicles on your policy and the policy allows stacking, then in fact you actually have $300,000 in UM/UIM coverage. The amount of coverage is multiplied by the number of vehicles covered under the policy.

Stacking is also allowed across multiple policies. So for example, let’s say you have two separate UM/UIM policies in your name that cover two separate vehicles. As long as both of those policies are in your name, you should be able to stack that coverage too (unless the policies expressly disallow it).

The trade-off of stacking is paying higher premiums. On the other hand, having coverage limits that are too low will mean you’ll be stuck with the bill for post-accident expenses that exceed your coverage limits.

Don’t assume that collecting UM/UIM benefits will be easy just because it’s your own insurer. Our Fort Lauderdale car accident attorneys can help.

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

Additional Resources:

Facts + Statistics: Uninsured motorists, Insurance Information Institute

More Blog Entries:

Filing a Florida Pedestrian Accident Lawsuit, Feb. 15, 2020, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

As Fort Lauderdale injury lawyers can explain, the occasion of a rear-end collision carries with it the rebuttable presumption of negligence by the driver in the rear. A rebuttable presumption is a legal presumption made by the court, taken as try unless someone can prove otherwise. Thus, it is presumed that the driver in the rear of a rear-end collision was in the wrong because he/she is required by law to maintain an assured clear distance.

An increasing number of rear-end collisions are caused by driver distraction, particularly with smartphones. Evidence that a driver was distracted at the time of a collision can be used as additional evidence of negligence in car accident litigation.

However, as noted in a recent Florida car accident lawsuit ruling by Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal, the presumption that the rear driver’s negligence was the only cause of a crash can be rebutted if there is any evidence from which a jury can infer the front driver was also negligent. In other words, the rear-end collision rebuttable presumption doesn’t supersede the state’s comparative negligence system, as outlined in F.S. 768.81, wherein a claimant’s own fault contributing to an injury proportionally diminishes the amount of damages he or she can collect.

So for example, if the front driver in a rear-end collision suffers $180,000 in damages from the crash but is deemed 25 percent at-fault, he will only be entitled to receive 75 percent of his total damages, or $135,000, from the rear driver.

Rebuttable Presumption as a Matter of Law vs. Fact

The rebuttable presumption allows courts to decide a rear driver negligent for a rear-end crash as a matter of law. However, where there is a dispute as to whether plaintiff shared some of that fault, this is a matter for the jury to decide. That’s what the appellate panel ruled in the March 2019 case of Restal v. Nocera et al. Here, the appellate panel agreed in part with a defendant who argued the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment on the issues of causation and liability in a rear-end crash, and the case was sent back to the lower court for retrial.

According to court records, defendant struck the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle, causing her to sustain personal injuries. According to plaintiff’s testimony, she was on an unfamiliar road and tried to make a U-turn, only to realize she couldn’t legally make a U-turn there. In heavy traffic, she slowed, but maintained she never hit her brakes or moved into the turn lane. She was soon after struck from behind.

Defendant argued plaintiff had stopped, that he saw her brake lights and at the time he struck the rear of her vehicle, he was about half a car length behind her. From the time he saw brakes to the time of impact, he estimated about 3 seconds had passed. He did note, however, that he failed to remain a proper distance behind her.

The court granted a partial summary judgment to plaintiff on the issue of liability and the trial proceeded solely on the issue of damages, which plaintiff won.

Defendant appealed, arguing the issue of causation and liability should have been taken to the jury as well because even the rebuttable presumption of his own negligence didn’t negate plaintiff’s alleged negligence. The appellate panel agreed. There was significant difference in the testimony with regard to whether plaintiff applied her brakes and stopped prior to the crash.

“There was evidence from which a jury could have inferred (plaintiff) was also partially liable for the collision,” justices wrote.

This case illustrates why even if you are injured in a Fort Lauderdale rear-end collision, you cannot presume the case will be an easy win. An experienced injury attorney can help you build your case.

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

Additional Resources:

Restal v. Nocera et al, March 8, 2019, Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeals

Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyers can explain that when a vehicle defect or defective vehicle part plays a role in a crash or exacerbation of injuries, product liability claims may be filed against the auto maker.

Tesla is among the latest to come under intense scrutiny after a number of serious injuries and fatalities resulting from a range of alleged defects that plaintiffs in numerous injury and wrongful death lawsuits say rendered their electric cars unreasonably dangerous.

Defects in Batteries, Door Handles and Autopilot Feature Alleged

A recently-filed Broward County wrongful death lawsuit alleges a 48-year-old anesthesiologist and father-of-five was killed in a Davie crash after he lost control and crashed into a palm tree. He suffered no broken bones from the crash, but when the vehicle battery burst into flames, he was trapped. First responders were on scene and ready to help, but were reportedly unable to gain access because the Model S retractable door handles malfunctioned, rendering them inaccessible. This, wrongful death attorneys say, resulted in an unreasonably dangerous fire risk.

Tesla advertises its cars as “the safest on the road,” but the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is currently investigating possible battery defects in the company’s vans and SUVs in Model S and Model X vehicles made between 2012 and 2019 that that may cause some to spontaneously burst into flames.

In addition to reportedly inaccessible doors and spontaneous combustion risk, Tesla has also come under fire for its Autopilot feature. In August, a wrongful death lawsuit alleged a 50-year-old man who died in a Palm Beach County car accident while operating a Model 3 while the Autopilot feature was engaged. Neither the system nor the driver stopped the vehicle from impact. The company markets the feature as allowing for “full self-driving capability,” but then conversely warns drivers to pay attention and keep their hands on the wheel. Two other wrongful death lawsuits stemming from fatal crashes last year – one on the Florida Turnpike and another in Fort Lauderdale – make similar complaints.

This summer, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released a study concluding the names that vehicle manufacturers use for these automated systems (particularly “autopilot”) send a misleading message to drivers, no matter what the fine print.

Proving Vehicle Defect in a Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawsuit

In Florida product liability lawsuits against vehicle manufacturers, cars or their components can be deemed “defective” either by design, manufacture or marketing. A defective design indicates it was flawed and unreasonably dangerous because of the way the company designed it. Defective manufacturing means something went wrong in the manufacturing or shipping process that rendered the vehicle unsafe, even if the design itself didn’t pose any hazards. Defective marketing occurs when an automaker knows about a certain defect (or should know about it) but fails to give consumer warnings or properly label with sufficient instruction.

Common vehicle defects that can be a factor in car accidents include faulty:

• Wiring
• Airbags
• Tires
• Fuel systems
• Computers
• Seat belts

These cases tend to be quite complex and often difficult to prove. It’s imperative to hire an injury law firm with both the resources, experience and track record to help pursue your injury or wrongful death case.

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

Additional Resources:

Tesla sued for ‘defective’ Autopilot in wrongful death suit of Florida driver who crashed into tractor trailer, Aug. 1, 2019, By Soo Youn, ABC News

Man fatally burned in fiery Tesla crash after door wouldn’t open, lawsuit alleges, Oct. 24, 2019, By Catherine Thorbecke, ABC News

More Blog Entries:

Why Those Injured in Car Accidents are Required to Repay Health and Auto Insurers, Oct. 12, 2019, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyers Blog

• 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

Yet up until very recently, it was perfectly legal for rental car companies to loan out recalled vehicles to unsuspecting customers – without making repairs or warning customers of the danger. That should alarm motorists everywhere, but it’s especially troubling here in South Florida, which has a booming rental car industry from tourism. Now consider that there have been record vehicle recall rates in recent years – with an average of 900 recalls annually breaking down to some 2.5 every single day. In the last two years, more than 100 million vehicles were impacted by safety recalls. To give you a better idea of how big that is, there are a total of 260 million vehicles registered in the U.S.

The good news is that now, following an arduous legal battle, the Raechel and Jacqueline Houck Safe Rental Car Act of 2015, which passed as part of a larger transportation bill, went into effect June 1, 2016 and mandates that rental car companies with 35 or more vehicles in fleet must ground any recalled vehicles until they can be repaired.more

Although the rental car industry comprises a relatively small percentage of the total vehicles registered in the U.S., it nonetheless poses a significant threat not only to the passengers of those vehicles, but everyone else who shares the road with them.

The law requires that vehicles in the fleet that have been subject to recall must be grounded within 24 hours of the notice. Rental car companies may be given up to 48 hours if the recall affects a substantial portion of their fleet.

One issue that has raised some concern is that the law says the clock starts ticking on that 24-hour window as soon as the rental company receives written notice of the recall from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), either via email or U.S. mail. (It should be noted that e-mail transmission of recall notices isn’t standard at this juncture). But in all reality, recall information is made known weeks or even months before the NHTSA submits a written recall notice to rental car companies. This information regarding the recalls is widely available to the public from the NHTSA, the auto manufacturers and the news media. And yet, the law doesn’t correct the disparity of the timing.

So technically, a rental car company may have knowledge of a recall weeks or even months before they legally have to do anything about it.

Still, the rental car company likely could still face a more substantial exposure to liability than before if a Fort Lauderdale car accident is caused by a defective rental car and there is evidence the company had constructive knowledge (knew or should have known) about the recall, and yet failed to act.

Overall, though, the measure is likely to improve safety for those who rent vehicles and those who share the road with them.

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

Additional Resources:

Safe Rental Car Act: What Now? April 2016, By Chris Brown, Auto Rental News

More Blog Entries:

Facebook While You Drive? Better Make Sure You Can Afford the Insurance Bill, July 1, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Attorney Blog

According to The Sun-Sentinel, the Ed Morse Toyota Scion, which is part of the larger Ed Morse Automotive Group, offered condolences to the family of the decedent, a Canadian woman who was the rear passenger of the bike.

Police with the Delray Beach department allege that a mechanic for the auto dealership was speeding along Dixie Highway when he reportedly lost control of the vehicle, a 2002 Lexus sedan. He was reportedly test-driving the vehicle.

A press release sent out by authorities indicate witnesses told investigators that the Lexus driver was traveling at a “very high rate of speed.” It was about 3:30 p.m., and traffic was heavier than usual. The driver reportedly had a close call with another car and swerved to avoid impact. That’s when he collided with the motorcycle, a Honda Goldwing.

Both the male driver and the female passenger were transported to the local hospital as trauma alerts. Both suffered critical injuries, and the woman was soon after pronounced dead.

As of this writing, authorities haven’t released the identities of those involved, except to say that the pair on the motorcycle were visiting from Canada.

The dealership issued a statement saying it extends sympathy and prayers to those involved in the crash. The statement stopped short, however, of an apology or conceding any wrongdoing by the company or the employee.

That was to be expected, though it does not mean the company won’t be held responsible through vicarious liability. That means even if the dealership itself didn’t do anything wrong, it can be made responsible to pay for damages caused by the negligence of its employee. The idea stems from the legal doctrine of respondeat superior, Latin for “let the master answer.” So if the worker is engaged in an activity that furthers the goal of the employer, the employer can be held responsible because it exercises a degree of control over the actions of the employee.

What is not totally clear at this point in the Delray Beach car accident is whether the mechanic was on-the-job at the time of the crash. If he was test-driving the vehicle for purposes of buying one for his own personal use, it is possible the courts may not agree with an allegation of vicarious liability by the employer because he would have been acting in his capacity as an individual, as opposed to an employee. However, if he was “test-driving” the vehicle in the course and scope of his employment (i.e., to test whether certain features were working properly), then absolutely, the legal theory of vicarious liability would be applicable.

Also in this situation, the employer – as the owner of the vehicle – might be found vicariously liable on that fact alone because motor vehicles in Florida are considered dangerous instrumentalities. This assertion would likely apply regardless of whether the employee was working at the time of the crash, so long as he had the dealership’s permission to operate the vehicle.

Additionally, the employer could be found directly negligent with assertions of:

• Negligent hiring or retention;
• Negligent supervision;
• Negligent entrustment.

It’s important to explore these options too because vicarious liability is capped per F.S. 324.021.

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

Additional Resources:

Canadian woman killed after mechanic on test drive collides with motorcycle; dealership expresses condolences, April 7, 2016, By Kate Jacobson, Sun-Sentinel

More Blog Entries:

De La Torre v. Gallardo – Florida Dram Shop Law, April 5, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

Of course, this has the potential to cause injuries.

Still, that won’t prevent the at-fault driver from asserting the low-impact defense if they can help it. They will try to introduce as evidence pictures of the minimal amount of damage to the vehicle. They may also introduce witness testimony to illustrate the crash occurred in stop-and-go traffic or while vehicles were not traveling fast. They may also highlight the fact that plaintiff refused medical attention immediately after the crash, insinuating that plaintiff may be exaggerating the extent of his or her injuries.

The case of Rish v. Simao, recently heard by the Nevada Supreme Court, involved a low-impact car accident lawsuit.

According to court records, plaintiff was moving along in stop-and-go traffic when he was struck from behind by defendant’s vehicle. The damage to both vehicles was not extensive. And although emergency medical services technicians were called to the scene, plaintiff refused any medical treatment or transportation to a local hospital.

However, a few days after the crash, plaintiff went to a local health care provider to report he was in near constant pain. He was having massive headaches and his neck ached. He sought a series of medical treatments to address these problems, which doctors opined were caused by the earlier crash.

After plaintiff filed a lawsuit against defendant to recover damages for his injuries, defendant sought to present evidence that plaintiff’s injuries were not as serious as he alleged because the force of impact was so minor.

However, an earlier case in Nevada, Hallmark v. Eldridge, resulted in a finding from the Nevada Supreme Court that an expert biomechanical engineer must have sufficient foundation in order to testify as to certain conclusions (i.e., extent of damages and injuries). Defendant in this case did not retain any biomechanical engineer. On this basis, plaintiff sought an order from trial court that would prohibit defense introduction of any evidence that would tend to show the crash happened at low speeds/ had a minimal impact. Plaintiff argued that because defendant did not have a qualified biomechanical engineer to attest to conclusions that would be made about a low-impact crash, all such evidence should be blocked.

Trial court agreed.

Throughout trial, defense continued to slip in evidence that indicated the low speed/ minimal impact. Trial judge sustained several objections by plaintiff. Finally, by the eighth such violation of that pre-trial order, trial court imposed a sanction on the defense in the form of a summary judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Before the issue of damages could be addressed, defense appealed that summary judgment.

The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. In its decision, the court clarified that there was no requirement that defendants in such cases hire an expert biomechanical engineer for these cases. Rather, if they did present the testimony of such a professional, that individual had to be sufficiently qualified.

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

Additional Resources:

Rish v. Simao, March 17, 2016, Nevada Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Report: U.S. Drivers are Distracted More Than Half the Time, March 20, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Accident Lawyer Blog

In Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill., the court denied a bid by the insurer to assert it couldn’t have acted in bad faith because it did finally pay the insured. But bad faith by insurers can be revealed as much as much by the timing of the payment as the amount.

And in this case, the plaintiff – a man who was injured in a car accident by an underinsured driver – waited four full years to get a check from the insurance company. And even then, it came with settlement agreement language that effectively barred him from taking further action to collect anything further. He refused to accept it, and it was another six months before the insurer sent him another check with no such language.

But by that time, plaintiff was set on pursuing a bad faith insurance action. In Florida, people can file either a first- or third-party lawsuit against insurance companies for delaying or denying reasonable claims for benefits under the policy. If the court finds the insurer was liable for the underlying claim and acted in bad faith toward the insured, it can be made to pay triple damages. That’s not three times the policy limit – that’s three times the actual damages.

It’s supposed to serve as a powerful incentive for insurers to treat customers fairly. Unfortunately, many still try to get away with it, hoping the insured will simply settle just to get it over with. But Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyers know this case shows why fighting back can be worthwhile.

According to court records, plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of an auto accident caused by the negligence of an underinsured driver. After the accident, he filed a claim with his own insurer for the limits of his underinsured motorist policy.

By October 2008, plaintiff filed a Civil Remedy Notice as required by law, alleging the company failed to attempt a good faith settlement of his claim. He received no response within the statutory 60 days, so in April 2009, he filed a lawsuit against the company seeking to determine liability under the policy.

In February 2010, plaintiff filed a notice of proposed settlement for the policy limits of $50,000. However, the insurer didn’t respond and the court after 30 days deemed the settlement rejected.

Trial was set for March 2011. A month before the trial date, insurer submitted a check for $50,000, stating on the check it was a full and final settlement of all claims. Plaintiff rejected this offer and insurer requested a continuance, which trial court granted.

Six months later, before the rescheduled trial, insurer submitted a new check with no settlement language. However, it did contain a “confessed judgment,” arguing it should not be held in bad faith. Plaintiff rejected this, asserting a jury should decide how much the insurer should pay under a future bad faith claim.

At trial, jurors determined the other driver was 100 percent responsible for the crash and the insurer was liable to pay the $1 million in damages.

Insurer sought a new trial, which was denied. Insurer appealed, and the verdict was reversed, finding the confession of judgment should have settled the claim and made the UM claim moot.

The Florida Supreme Court, however, quashed that ruling. Ultimately, the court determined that the insured was entitled to a determination of liability and the full extent of his damages in the UM case before he was forced to pursue a first-party bad faith claim.

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

Additional Resources:

Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill., Feb. 25, 2016, Florida Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Researchers: Economic Improvement Tied to Uptick in Traffic Deaths, Feb. 10, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Accident Lawyer Blog

Unfortunately, because the defendant is a municipality, the award is capped at $100,000. The city hasn’t yet said whether it will appeal the decision.

Plaintiff, 52, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her son just a few weeks before Christmas 2010. Defendant Daniel Gowans, a Fort Lauderdale police officer, was responding to a domestic violence call when he arrived at the intersection of Southeast Fourth Avenue and Sunrise Boulevard. His cruiser collided with the vehicle driven by plaintiff’s son. As a result of that impact, plaintiff’s wrist was broken in eight different places.more

In lawsuits like this, police officers and their employers are granted certain protections – known as sovereign immunity – in many personal injury lawsuits.

However, there are waivers to this immunity, and one of the more common is for vehicle liability, when police or other government employees are involved in auto accidents. Police aren’t allowed to carelessly run stop signs or blow through traffic signals or travel at excessive speeds.

If the government worker was responding to a genuine emergency (usually indicated with lights and sirens), the standard of proof is higher. Plaintiff will have to show the worker (in this case police officer) displayed willful and wanton disregard for the well-being of others.

In the case involving Officer Gowans, the court did hear evidence Gowans had activated his lights and sirens. However, due to heavy traffic volumes, plaintiff’s son couldn’t see him until it was too late to stop.

Central to the case was the fact that prior to Gowans entering the section, dispatch sent out notice that another officer was already on scene. That meant that there was no need for him to have his lights and sirens still on when he entered the intersection.

Plaintiff did not have insurance, and racked up a hospital bill of more than $80,000. The hospital administrators did reduce that bill, but it was still far in excess of what she could afford.

After weighing all the evidence, jurors determined the officer was negligent and further that he was 90 percent to blame for the crash. Plaintiff’s damages were more than $30,000 for previous medical bills, $7,000 for bills to be paid in the future and $300,000 for pain and suffering.

The officer is still with the department. Coincidentally, he was also the subject of a lawsuit that was settled four years ago by a defendant who alleged he was wrongly arrested for resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. While surveillance video at the home indicated the man was cooperative, Gowans had reported otherwise. Defendant in that case was awarded $30,000.

In this case, the only opportunity plaintiff will have to obtain the full amount of the award would be to petition a politician to introduce and pass a claims bill. Prior experience has shown this can take many years.

At this point, plaintiff attorneys have stated, they are hoping the city does not appeal the decision.

“Our hope is that after years of fighting this, they choose to honor the jury’s verdict,” the Sun-Sentinel quoted the lawyer as saying.

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

Additional Resources:

Woman wins $306,000 judgement against Fort Lauderdale for crash with cruiser, Feb. 3, 2016, By Rafael Olmeda, The Sun Sentinel

More Blog Entries:

Wrong-Way Accidents in Broward, Miami-Dade Target for Safety Advocates, Jan. 25, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney 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