injury lawyer

Published on: August 5, 2020

Florida Punishes Car Owners Who Fail to Carry Insurance – PIP Setoff

You probably have some kind of car insurance, since the law requires it. However, oftentimes you may not know what your car insurance actually pays until it’s too late. After a car accident, you call your insurance company, they might ask you follow-up questions by mail or phone, and then a month or more later, one of the people involved in the accident gets a check covering the some of their eleigible expenses. Just what are all those details that the insurance companies are working out before they decide how much to pay? Different types of car insurance pay for different things, and in some cases, they can even cancel each other out. If you are not sure if the amount that the insurance company offered you after your accident is correct, contact an attorneybefore you accept the settlement offer.

What is PIP Insurance?

All registered vehicle owners in Florida must carry PIP insurance, as well property damage liability insurance. PIP stands for Personal Injury Protection, which covers up to $10,000 of medical expenses and lost income when someone gets injured at an accident, regardless of who is at fault for the accident. In order to get PIP insurance to cover your accident-related expenses, you must seek medical treatment within 14 days of the accident. If a driver collides with a pedestrian or bicyclist who does not own a car (and therefore does not have PIP insurance), the driver’s PIP insurance might also pay the medical expenses and lost income of the pedestrian or bicyclist. If the drivers involved in the accident have additional optional car insurance, such as bodily injury or uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, then the amount covered by PIP gets subtracted from what the other types of insurance must cover. This is called the PIP setoff.

Continue reading →

Published on: July 23, 2020

The Compulsory Medical Examination or CME

By Dean Freeman

Most Plaintiffs in personal injury cases that are in litigation are required to undergo a Compulsory or Independent medical examination also known as the CME. This is an examination that is requested by the opposing side and is done by a physician that is hired by the opposition.

The CME involves a review of records, a physical examination, face to face interview, review of test results, and conclusions. The goal of this examination is to confirm the initial injury diagnosis and determine whether such injury was due to the accident. The physician is also looking to verify that the current symptoms and findings are consistent with the diagnosis made. Lastly, they are looking to determine whether the individual is exaggerating or making up their complaints. This examining physician is not a treating physician and is also considered a hired expert for the opposition. Due to this, it is understood that there is always an element of bias involved in their conclusions.

It is important to keep in mind that by the time the plaintiff enters the examination room, the physician has already had the chance to review all treatment records and other records that were provided to him prior to the examination. The Plaintiff must be prepared for this examination and understand what could potentially be asked by the physician. Hired CME physicians are trained to look for and document potential indicators of fraud and deception during the interview portion of the examination and the availability of all these records prior to the appointment makes it easier for them to find. The physicians look for things such as verbal behavior indicators, omitting information such as prior injuries, too much information, overly specific answers, aggressive reactions to the questions, invocation of religion not to answer the questions and the use of qualifiers such as “honestly” and “truthfully”.

Continue reading →

Published on: November 5, 2018

Florida Personal Injury Settlement Offers: How Your Injury Attorney Decides What’s Fair

By Dean Freeman

One of the first things our Plantation injury lawyers are asked by new or prospective clients is, “What is my injury case worth?” That is actually a pretty complex question, but we may be able to give a ballpark estimate fairly early on. What you should absolutely avoid, though, are accepting any personal injury settlement offers without discussing it first with your attorney. That’s because it’s very common for injury case defendants and insurers to toss out Florida personal injury settlement offers that may seem like a lot at first blush, but in fact are much lower than to what you might actually be entitled.

Personal injury settlement offers are made by defendants (or more likely, the insurance companies representing those defendants) or plaintiffs in order to settle the case prior to a trial. Civil injury trials are time-consuming and expensive, and both sides have an interest in avoiding them if at all possible. That doesn’t mean Plantation injury lawyers should be quick to settle. We recognize that often the first offer made by insurers is not the best and final offer. Your lawyer should have a strong sense of how much your claim is worth as well as the tactics often employed by defendants in these cases.

This is especially important because of provisions of Florida law that penalize parties who reject reasonable personal injury settlement offers and end up with virtually the same or worse outcome at trial.

Florida Personal Injury Settlement Offer Statute Continue reading →

Published on: August 19, 2018

Court: Golf Course Had Duty to Protect Patrons From Wasp Nests

By Dean Freeman

A recent decision by a California appellate court has held that a golf course does owe a duty to use reasonable care to those playing golf to protect them from wasp nests on site. Such cases fall under the umbrella of premises liability, and pertain to the expectation that those who welcome guests onto their property have a responsibility to make sure they are reasonably safe, and that they are warned about dangerous conditions about which the owner/ manager knows or should know.

As our Orlando injury lawyers have seen, golf course injuries usually tend to involve golf cart accidents, fast-flying rogue golf balls and trip-and-fall or slip-and-fall hazards. However, here in Florida, we also have amazing – but potentially very dangerous – wildlife patrons may encounter on golf courses. These include alligators (the most common large animal on Florida greens, as noted by The Guardian), pythons, bears, bobcats and of course stinging or biting insects like bees, wasps and red ants.

In terms of liability, Florida golf course owners have a responsibility to take measures to protect their guests by addressing these issues or posting adequate warning so guests can be alert and use appropriate caution. Continue reading →

Published on: April 29, 2018

Driverless Vehicles Legal in Florida, Liability Questions Arise

By Dean Freeman

It may seem as if the question of driverless, autonomous vehicles is one we aren’t likely to confront for several years, if not decades. In reality, though, legislation passed by Florida lawmakers in 2012 make it perfectly legal for self-driving vehicles to operate on our roads. In theory, a totally driverless car could pull up next to you with no human occupant and there would be no law against it.

Sen. Jeff Brandes (R-St. Petersburg) is the one who consistently championed that measure and continues to advocate for advancing vehicle technologies. He explained recently to The Tampa Tribune that Florida is one of the most forward-thinking states in regards to mobility and transportation, and the goal is to lure developers and other companies to grow expand this technology here. However, that hasn’t come without concern of the potential risks.

As many personal injury attorneys are noting, this technology may not be fully ready. There are practical and legal concerns about how such vehicles are going to respond in real-life scenarios. One recent example of how things might go terribly wrong occurred recently in Tempe, Arizona. As reported by The New York Times, Uber and other rideshare companies started testing driverless cars a few years ago in Arizona, after officials in that state promised not to impose stringent restrictions on developers. Then earlier this month, an autonomous passenger car operated by Uber (with an emergency backup driver behind the wheel) struck and killed a pedestrian. It’s believed to be the first pedestrian fatality associated with self-driving technology. Continue reading →

Published on: October 20, 2017

Tech Firm Sued for Florida Personal Injury at Store

By Dean Freeman

When an employee causes injury to someone else in the course and scope of employment, their employer can be held vicariously liable for those injuries. The legal doctrine is called respondeat superior, which is Latin for, “Let the master answer.”

Of course, an employer could also be found directly liable as well for things like negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent supervision or negligent security. But respondeat superior does not require a finding that the business was negligent. As long as the negligent employee was acting in furtherance of the business at the time the incident occurred, the business may be liable.

This is what is alleged in a Florida personal injury lawsuit recently filed against Apple Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case is filed federally because, while the injury occurred in South Florida, the company is headquartered in California. Continue reading →

Published on: May 20, 2015

Harris v. Norfolk Southern Rail Co. – Lack of Proximate Cause Proof Derails Train Injury Lawsuit

By Dean Freeman

A woman seriously injured when a train ran off a section of damaged train tracks and into her workplace will have to endure a second trial after a federal appeals court ruled the lower court had not made a proper finding of proximate cause.

In Harris v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., trial court granted summary judgment to plaintiff on the issue of defendant’s liability, and held a trial only on the issue of damages (denying her the right to seek punitive damages at the outset). Jurors awarded her nearly $3 million for her medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering.

It had been established the rail company had breached its duty of care in failing to properly inspect and repair that section of track.

Continue reading →