Accident Attorney Review of State Farm v. Curran

New Uninsured Motorist Opinion from the Florida Supreme Court Turning to the Florida Supreme Court, our attention is brought to a case involving uninsured motorist policies and compulsory medical examinations (“EUOs”). The question before the Court was: The Supreme Court answered in the negative for the first part of the issue presented. For the second part of the question, the Court held that the insurer pleading the affirmative defense has the burden of pleading and proving prejudice. The facts go as follows. The Insured held a $100K underinsured motorist policy with State Farm Automobile Insurance Company to cover for personal injury and car accidents. Due to estimated damages at $3.5 million, it should come as no surprise that the insured requested the entire $100K. Because it reached the Supreme Court of Florida, it should be immediately clear that State Farm did not tender the policy limits. Instead, State Farm attempted to set a compulsory medical examination (CME) with a doctor that the insured also attempted to schedule an appointment with. For unclear reasons, the policy holder ultimately declined to attend the CME and simply filed a lawsuit. The trial court in the Fifth District reviewed a summary judgment request that argued that the insured breached the contract for failure to attend the CME. It was denied and the insured went on to win an award of $4,650,589 in damages. On an appeal, the Fifth District sitting en banc held that the insured was unreasonable after breaching his contract with State Farm, but that State Farm must plead and prove prejudice. Uninsured motorist provisions are not optional. Florida Statutes (2007) section 627.727(1) mandate an offer of said benefits unless expressly rejected. The purpose of the [...]

Slip & Fall Attorney Review of Ramsey v. Home Depot

Slip & Fall Attorney Review of Ramsey v. Home Depot Virtually everyone has visited a business and said “somebody is going to get hurt” from a dangerous condition.  Diving a little deeper, you may have wondered whether the owner would be liable if somebody actually becomes injured.  Your slip & fall attorney will first determine whether the danger is concealed or open and obvious.  If the danger is concealed, then the business owner has a duty to warn the public of the hidden danger, but only if the business itself knew or should have known of the concealed danger.  Alternatively, a business can be held liable for injuries that result from a failure to use ordinary care to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Open and Obvious Hazard In Florida, while a business owes a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition, there is no duty to warn against an open and obvious condition which is not inherently dangerous.[1]  However, liability is always apportioned according to fault.  Thus, even when the danger is open and obvious, an injured party may still argue whether the condition was dangerous and whether the owner or occupier of the land should have anticipated that the dangerous condition would cause injury, despite that the danger was open and obvious.[2] Facts In the instant case, Gudrun Ramsey was shopping at Home Depot.  After shopping, she returned to the parking lot and tripped on a wheel stop that is common place in many parking lots.  Ramsey sued home depot for negligence claiming that home depot breached its duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, and also breached its duty to warn of any dangerous, [...]

Dog Bite Attorney Review of Maddox v. FFBG

Dog Bite Attorney Review of Maddox v. Florida Farm Bureau General, Etc. In Maddox v. Florida Farm Bureau General, Etc., dog bite attorneys on both sides agreed that Crystal Maddox and her son Ivan were each bit in the face by the dog, Dixie. [1]  The bite to Maddox came after she attempted to remove Dixie’s bite from Ivan’s face.  The question that the dog bite attorneys disputed over was whether […]

Accident Attorney Review of Coddington v. Nunez

In Coddington v. Nunez, an accident attorney brought a client’s case before the court on behalf of Jaime Nunez. [1]  Mr. Nunez was involved in an automobile accident in which his vehicle was struck by Thomas and Gwynneth Coddington.  The case put forth by the accident attorney returned a jury verdict finding $600,000 in total sustained damages.  However, the jury found that Mr. Nunez was twenty-five percent liable for his injuries and accordingly, his accident attorney secured a final judgment in the amount of $488,500.  See Id.  The appellate court reversed because the trial court erred when it […]

Accident Attorney Review of Pack v. Geico

With medical bills on the line, the appellants accident attorney in the case below filed an appeal after the jury awarded zero damages. In Vicky Pack v. Geico General Insurance Company, Vicky Pack’s accident attorney filed suit against Ms. Pack’s insurance company, Geico, against her uninsured motorist policy. [1]  The Accident Attorney for Geico conceded at the start of trial that […]

Go to Top