Florida’s bad faith civil litigation law, F.S. 624.155(1)(b)(1), holds that an insurer commits bad faith when it fails to act fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for his or her interests, even though it could have done so given the circumstances.

Of course, that definition leaves a lot to interpretation, which is why we often have to rely heavily on case law. Some examples of bad faith insurance might include:

• An insurer delaying, discounting or denying payment without reasonable basis;
• Failure to acknowledge or reply promptly once receiving notice of a covered claim;
• Failure to affirm or deny coverage in a reasonable time;
• Failure to conduct a prompt, thorough and proper investigation.

Claims of bad faith insurance following Florida car accidents should only be handled by a legal team with extensive experience. They are often complex and challenging – but the payoff can be substantial (three times the original damage award).

In the recent case of Enrique v. State Farm, it was alleged the auto insurer had engaged in bad faith by refusing to render the full $100,000 of its uninsured motorist (UM) coverage limits to its insured after she was struck and seriously injured by a driver with no insurance. At issue was whether the insurer acted reasonably in refusing to pay the claim, as it argued plaintiff’s knee injuries were actually caused by a pre-existing condition and not the crash.

According to Delaware Supreme Court records, an uninsured driver in 2005 smashed into plaintiff’s car by improperly turning into her lane. Plaintiff suffered a fractured rib, soft tissue injuries abrasions and trauma to her left knee, which rendered her a candidate for arthroscopic surgery.

Plaintiff, a cafeteria worker, could not go back to work for nine months after the accident. Even when she returned to work, she was on light duty for several months.

After exhausting her personal injury protection benefits, plaintiff sought recovery for her losses and injuries through her UM policy, the limits of which were $100,000. Due to high claims volumes, the claim had to be reassigned and the new adjuster consulted a number of other employees on the claim. The supervisor ultimately authorized the adjuster to settle for between $17,500 to $22,500. The adjuster had the claim valued at between $25,000 and $30,000. He offered her $17,500, which she rejected.

The adjuster reportedly had reservations about the value because plaintiff apparently had pre-existing knee problems. Adjuster made another offer to settle for $19,000, which plaintiff again rejected.

Throughout these negotiation processes, there were numerous concerned raised by defendant of plaintiff’s pre-existing knee injury and questions of causation. Adjuster at one point noted it wasn’t clear to what extent the accident was the cause, but after receiving an updated medical history, adjuster put the claim at between $35,000 and $50,000.

There were then significant lapses in the time during settlement negotiations. Plaintiff asked for $165,000. An attorney for defendant told adjuster at that point the claim could be worth as much as $50,000 if the accident caused her knee injuries. The insurer then offered her $25,000. She rejected that offer and continued to demand the original amount, $65,000 in excess of the policy limit.

Insurer’s final offer was $45,000, while plaintiff was willing to settle for $90,000. They still could not agree. The case went to trial and plaintiff was awarded $260,000. Once the state supreme court affirmed, defendant paid the full $100,000 policy limit. But then plaintiff pursued her bad faith claim, seeking recovery of the additional $160,000 on that judgment, plus interest and punitive damages.

However, the trial court granted summary judgment to defendant, a decision later affirmed by the supreme court on the basis plaintiff had not proven the insurer displayed reckless indifference in handling the claim because of the questions of causation that arose due to her preexisting knee condition.

If you have been a victim of a traffic accident, call Chalik & Chalik at (954) 476-1000 or 1 (800) 873-9040.

Additional Resources:

Enrique v. State Farm, June 14, 2016, Delaware Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Lik v. L.A. Fitness – Gym Injury Lawsuit to Proceed, June 9, 2016, Miami Car Accident Lawyer Blog

That is, that the negligent actions of defendants caused plaintiff’s injuries  and therefore plaintiff is entitled to compensation. Depending on the case, one element may be more tough to prove than the other, but it’s important not to neglect any of them.

In the recent case of Lowman v. State Farm, plaintiff was able to establish that her insurance company was liable in her uninsured motorist (UM) coverage case. However, when it came to the issue of damages, jurors awarded her $0. When she appealed the case to the Nebraska Supreme Court, she asserted it was contradictory for jurors to find in her favor on liability, and then award her no damages. The state supreme court disagreed, citing past case law precedence. 

According to court records, plaintiff was injured in a car accident with a vehicle driven by an uninsured driver. More than two years after the crash, plaintiff and her husband filed a complaint against their own auto insurance company, seeking collection of underinsured motorist coverage.

Before trial, insurer admitted that the underinsured driver was negligent. Still, the case went before a juror on the issues of causation and damages. Just before trial, plaintiff withdrew her claim for loss of earning capacity. She also conceded that all of her medical bills had been paid by her health insurance company. Therefore, plaintiff’s attorneys only argued for damages with regard to pain and suffering.

At the close of trial, jurors were given a single verdict form that indicated whether they found in favor of plaintiff and if so, for how much. Jurors indicated they did find in favor of plaintiff, but awarded $0 in damages.

Plaintiffs requested a new trial, but that request was denied, so they appealed. They argued the court erred in giving jurors a verdict form that allowed jurors to find in favor of them, yet award no monetary damages. The state supreme court disagreed.

The court first cited the 1954 case of Ambrozi v. Fry, in which jurors in a negligence lawsuit found in favor of plaintiff, but awarded no damages. Trial court ruled this was an invalid verdict and sent it back. Jurors returned with a damage award of $75. Plaintiff sought a new trial, which was granted. Defendant appealed. The state supreme court ruled it was clear the jurors intended to find in favor of the plaintiff, and yet award no damages. However, the court still affirmed the award of a new trial because the injuries suffered by plaintiff clearly exceeded $75, and thus the jury’s award was inadequate.

Since then, the court has affirmed a number of other cases in which jurors found in favor of plaintiff, and yet awarded $0 in damages.

Of course, this isn’t necessarily a common outcome. However, the issue of damages is not one that can be overlooked, and must be approached with as much meticulous analysis and research as the issues of negligence and causation.

Damages may be proved by presenting medical records, therapy reports, testimony from family members, expert witness conclusions, pay stubs and analysis by those who can predict your future would-be pay, given your career trajectory before the injury and more.

Our goal is to maximize our clients’ compensation in the best interest of justice and their future.

If you have been a victim of a traffic accident, call Chalik & Chalik at (954) 476-1000 or 1 (800) 873-9040.

Additional Resources:

Lowman v. State Farm, Feb. 26, 2016, Nebraska Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

“Frivolous Injury Lawsuits” Problem a Myth, Feb. 27, 2016, Miami Car Accident Attorney Blog

There are many important procedural steps to take when initiating a personal injury action.  The local laws can be confusing and there are critical time limitations to adhere to every step of the way.  Another important aspect of any injury case involving a car vehicle accident is the victim’s right to recover under various insurance policies, depending on the circumstances.  The manner in which one handles the case can impact a victim’s entitlement to a potential damages recovery.

In a recent case, Newton v. Ragland, Ga. Ct. of App. (2013), the appellate court reversed the lower court’s refusal to enforce a settlement agreement in a personal injury action that arose from car accident.  In March 2009, Newton ran a red light at an intersection and crashed into Ragland’s vehicle.  As a result of the accident, Ragland sustained severe injuries.  Newton’s vehicle was covered under two separate insurance policies: her own automobile liability insurance (USAA General Indemnity Company policy) and a Zurich Insurance Company policy that was held by a dealership that owned the car at the time of the accident.

Both policies included a per person bodily coverage limit of $25,000.  Significantly, the victim, Ragland, also had uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UM/UIM”) coverage. In order to move forward with the case, Ragland’s attorney sent a letter to the insurance claims adjusters at both of Newton’s insurance companies demanding the $25,000 payment from each, in return for a limited liability release under Georgia state law.  The letter advised both companies that in order for Ragland to recover UM benefits as well, it would need their respective payments first, by a specified due date.

USAA sent the $25,000 in a timely fashion and included a letter indicating that they have now settled the claim, and attached a general release (instead of a limited one requested).  Ragland’s attorney then faxed a letter confirming receipt of the funds, stating that he assumed the tender of the $25,000 is conditioned upon his client signing the release. He did not mention that the release was general and not limited as originally requested.  He also made no mention that Ragland may not sign the document.

Ragland hired a new attorney and filed this action against Newton claiming that USAA had rejected his settlement offer by providing a general release instead of a limited one.  Newton answered by filing a motion to enforce the original settlement agreement.  The trial court denied the motion.  The court of appeals reversed, finding that the contract to settle the matter was formed when USAA sent the policy limits to Ragland within the offer letter’s due date.  Under contract formation principles, the inclusion of a general liability release was not deemed to “impose a new condition of settlement.”

As one can see from this ruling, it is terribly important to understand the local court rules and state laws that are applicable to car accident cases.  If you have been the victim of a car accident, resulting from the negligence of another, you are encouraged to contact an Atlanta-based injury attorney who can help to protect your rights to a recovery.

Stephen M. Ozcomert is a caring and dedicated injury attorney  with over 20 years of experience handling car accident cases.   Contact us today by calling (404)-370-1000 to schedule your free initial consultation, or you can reach us through our website.

Related Blog Posts:

 Limited Liability Waivers in Your Georgia Car Accident Case

Negligent Third Parties and Automobile Collision Causation

Georgia Court of Appeals Rules Expert Testimony not Required for Causation of Back Injuries in Car Accident Cases