Car Accident

//Car Accident

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 [...]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:16+00:00 August 5th, 2014|Car Accident, NEWS|Comments Off on Accident Attorney Review of State Farm v. Curran

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 […]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:17+00:00 January 26th, 2014|Car Accident, Civil Litigation|Comments Off on Accident Attorney Review of Coddington v. Nunez

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 […]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:17+00:00 January 23rd, 2014|Car Accident, Civil Litigation|Comments Off on Accident Attorney Review of Pack v. Geico

Bobby Bowden Personally Injured

Car Accidents are tragic events that alter the lives of not just the physically injured, but also the families.  It is particularly tragic to read about personal injury car accidents that occur at or around the holiday season.  Unfortunately, nobody is immune to personal injury car accidents.  This holiday tragedy struck former Florida State football coach Bobby Bowden and his family.  Bobby Bowden lost his grandson just after […]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:18+00:00 December 27th, 2013|Car Accident, Civil Litigation, Personal Injury|Comments Off on Bobby Bowden Personally Injured

Personal Injury Attorney Reviews Casteel v. Maddalena

In Casteel v. Maddalena, the Court of Appeal for the Second District examines whether a witness that provides unexpected false testimony to a personal injury attorney during trial can be used to obtain relief from the judgment based on newly discovered evidence and/or fraud.[1] In the instant case, John Casteel was riding his motorcycle.  It is not in dispute that he pulled up to a stop sign on the right side of a four lane roadway, separated by a median.  Casteel claims that he crossed halfway across the four lane highway and stopped on the median and put his foot on the ground to steady his motorcycle while he waited for the traffic to clear from the traffic flowing in the opposite direction.  It was during this time that Casteel alleges Anna Maddalena struck Casteel with her vehicle.  Maddalena disputes this account, and instead indicates that Casteel was still crossing the road when she hit him.  Maddalena further testified to a personal injury attorney that she was within her lane when she hit Casteel.  Based on their testimony, a jury in the personal injury litigation placed Casteel 55% liable for the accident, while Maddalena was found to be 45% liable. A major portion of dispute argued by the personal injury attorneys was the exact location of the accident.  Casteel’s girlfriend, Melanie Lopez, surprised the court when she testified to the personal injury attorney that she viewed skid marks at the scene.  Lopez’s testimony was a surprise to Maddalena because Lopez claimed that the roadway had been paved the day before.  This testimony would solidify that Maddalena’s vehicle caused the skip marks because there it would be unlikely that any other vehicles skid since the fresh [...]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:18+00:00 December 25th, 2013|Car Accident, Civil Litigation, Personal Injury|Comments Off on Personal Injury Attorney Reviews Casteel v. Maddalena