by

Every personal injury plaintiff must plead and prove that the defendant owed and breached a duty of care and that the breach proximately (i.e., foreseeably and substantially) contributed to the specific injury suffered. These are the prima facie elements of a personal injury case.

Whether a duty exists is a matter of law for the court (judge) to determine rather than a factual question for the jury. The duty element of negligence focuses on whether the defendant’s conduct foreseeably created a broader “zone of risk” that poses a general threat of harm to others. See Kaisner v. Kolb, 543 So.2d 732, 735 (Fla. 1989) (citing Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So.2d 33, 35 (Fla. 1983)). It is a minimal threshold legal requirement for opening the courthouse doors. See McCain v. Florida Power Corporation, 593 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1992) (In footnote number 1, the court qualified and explained the concept as follows: “Of course, to determine this legal question the court must make some inquiry into the factual allegations. The objective, however, is not to resolve the issues of comparative negligence or other specific factual matters relevant to proximate causation, but to determine whether a foreseeable, general zone of risk was created by the defendant’s conduct.”)

On the other hand, the proximate causation element is concerned with whether and to what extent the defendant’s conduct foreseeably and substantially caused the specific injury that actually occurred. Id. at 502. This is a “much more specific factual requirement that must be proved to win the case once the courthouse doors are open.” Id. at 502. Generally, issues of breach, proximate cause and foreseeability as related to proximate cause are fact questions for the jury, not resolved by summary judgment. McCain and See Springtree Properties, Inc. v. Hammond, 692 So.2d 164, 167 (Fla.1997). Importantly, it is immaterial that the defendant could not foresee the precise manner in which the injury occurred or its exact extent. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 435 (1965). In such instances, the true extent of the liability would remain questions for the jury to decide. McCain at 503.
Continue reading

by

barricade.jpgCourts and lawyers have turned the following legal principle — whether a party has a duty of care depends on the ability to exercise control — on its head.

These cases and countless others state the principle: Metsker v. Carefree/Scott Fetzer Co. 90 So.3d 973, 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (“In a premises liability case, the issue of whether a party has a duty of care does not depend on ownership or title to the premises. Instead, the appropriate inquiry is whether the party has the ability to exercise control over the premises.”); Regency Lake Apartments Associates, Ltd. V. French, 590 So.2d 970, 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991 (“In general, a cause of action for premises liability does not hinge on legal title ownership, but rather on the failure of the party who is in actual possession or control to perform its legal duty.”); Haynes v. Lloyd, 533 So.2d 94, 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (“The crux of the cause of action for premises liability is not legal title or ownership, but the failure of a person who is in actual possession and control (be it the owner, an agent, a lessee, a construction contract, or other possessor with authority to control), to use due care to warn or to exclude, licensees and invitees from areas known to the possessor to be dangerous because of operations or activities or conditions.”).

Too often, however, the principle is misunderstood and misapplied. It is most commonly misunderstood and misapplied to mean that lack of control means lack of duty as a matter of law. It doesn’t.
Continue reading

by

scales of justice.jpgI have blogged here ad nauseam about the continual conflict between insurance companies and their insureds over claims. While carriers insist upon receiving premium payments timely, their all too common approach to the claims process is delay and deny.

Carriers have at their disposal a bag of tools designed to effectuate this delay/deny business model. Examination Under Oath (EUO) (an oral examination conducted under oath by an insurance company of an insured making a claim under a policy), Independent Medical Examination (IME), appraisal, policy application misrepresentation, refusal to cooperate are just some of the tools at their disposal. Some are statutorily prescribed, others are a matter of contract.

An insurance policy is a contract. While statutes control various rights and obligations between carriers and insureds, the terms of the insurance policy determine many others.

Courts frequently become embroiled in conflicts involving the application of contested policy provisions. One such conflict of significance was fought out in State Farm v. Curran, (Fla. 2014). The Florida Supreme Court framed the conflict as follows:

WHEN AN INSURED BREACHES A COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION PROVISION IN AN UNINSURED MOTORIST CONTRACT, DOES THE INSURED FORFEIT BENEFITS UNDER THE CONTRACT WITHOUT REGARD TO PREJUDICE? IF PREJUDICE MUST BE CONSIDERED, WHO BEARS THE BURDEN OF PLEADING AND PROVING THAT ISSUE?

Curran, State Farm’s insured, sustained catastrophic injuries in a vehicle crash. Because the at-fault party’s insurance coverage was inadequate, Curran demanded from State Farm the $100,000 in UM available under his own policy. He gave State Farm thirty days to tender the money, estimating his damages to be $3.5 million because she suffered from reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome (RSD) type 1. On the 29th day, State Farm demanded that Curran undergo a Compulsory Medical Exam (CME) pursuant to the terms of the policy. Curran refused and proceeded to sue State Farm. A jury trial culminated in an award of $4,650,589 in damages to Curran.
Continue reading

by

caduceus-1219484-m.jpgHere is my Letter to the Editor, word for word, that was published by the Miami Herald on June 25, 2014:

WRONGFUL DEATH CAP

Re the June 19 letter DeGennaro the best person to lead Miami VA: While Barth Green may be a prominent South Florida doctor, he is hardly a legal scholar. While writing in support of Dr. Vincent DeGennaro, his “close friend and respected colleague,” he tries to bolster his argument by adding gratuitous debunked comments about doctors fleeing Florida because of its torts laws.

Continue reading

by

people.jpgIt seems that not a television or radio ad segment goes by today without the marvels of testosterone therapy being touted as the fountain of youth. Be especially cautious because buying the claims can be hazardous to your health! Not only that, but the benefit claims are in doubt.

While prescription testosterone therapy has been approved by the FDA for the treatment of men for a recognized medical condition known as hypogonadism, the ad campaigns run by the makers of testosterone products Androgel and Axiron cleverly promote testosterone usage as the fountain of youth for those who merely have low testosterone levels due to the natural aging process. Low testosterone levels due to the natural aging process is a different condition than hypogonadism, which is a “clinical syndrome that results from the failure of the testis to produce physiological levels of testosterone (androgen deficiency) and a normal number of spermatozoa due to a disruption of one or more levels of the hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular axis.”

Why should this matter? Because testosterone usage has been associated with many harmful side effects, including:

Lawsuits are starting to be brought against manufacturers for those who have suffered injuries as the result of testosterone usage, with the chief allegation against them being that the dangers were known but suppressed for economic gain.
Continue reading

by

truck2.jpgVicarious liability has been recognized in Florida since 1920. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629 (1920). As applied to motor vehicles, the legal concept allows the owner of a vehicle to be held liable without fault for damages caused by the negligent operation of the vehicle by a consensual driver. This is known as the Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine.

The financial exposure of owners for damages under the Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine, as contained in section 324.021(9)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, is lower than it is for consensual drivers. For the statutory section to apply, the vehicle must have been loaned to the permissive user, as demonstrated by the following language: “3. The owner who is a natural person and loans a motor vehicle to any permissive user….”

Disputes have arisen over the meaning of the word “loans” in this section. Recently, in Youngblood v. Villanueva (opinion filed May 21, 2014), Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal held that the vehicle involved in a crash, resulting in a wrongful death, had not been loaned. The facts of the case were set forth in the court’s opinion:

The testimony at trial established that Youngblood consigned his uninsured vehicle to Teddy Aponte of Extreme Auto Sales with instructions to sell the vehicle. Youngblood testified that he never wanted to see the vehicle again after he handed the keys to Aponte, and he gave him no time limit in which to sell the vehicle. Because Aponte was driving the vehicle for his personal use when he struck and killed Eduardo Villanueva, Youngblood contended that this constituted a theft or conversion which exempted him from liability.

Continue reading

by

motorbike-1055084-m.jpgMotor vehicle bodily injury (BI) insurance compensates for economic and non-economic damages caused by the insured at-fault driver and vehicle owner. The amount available under any particular policy is capped by the coverage limits chosen by the insured.

BI coverage is not mandatory in Florida. The insured must pay a premium for the coverage on top of what is required to obtain the mandatory coverage of property damage liability and personal injury protection (PIP). For this reason, many Florida drivers do not maintain BI coverage.

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage is designed to fill the void where BI is either not available or the BI limit is less than the total damages sustained. Put another way, UM provides coverage for damages which you are legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle who causes an accident which results in your bodily injury. Like BI, UM insurance is not mandatory.

Is UM available to a motorcyclist who sustains personal injuries in a crash caused by an uninsured motorist? Maybe.
Continue reading

by

handshake2.jpgIn a decision demonstrating strong support of confidentiality provisions, even at the expense of family dynamics, in Gulliver Schools, Inc. v. Snay, the Third District Court of Appeal punished a father (the Plaintiff) for informing his college-age daughter that a settlement was reached with the Defendant in an emotional case.

When his employment contract was not renewed, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant for age discrimination and retaliation under the Florida Civil Rights Act. Florida Statute Sections 760.01-760.11 and 509.092. Within days of the settlement, which included a confidentiality provision, the Plaintiff’s daughter posted the following message on her Facebook page.

Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver. Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.

As a result, the Defendant refused to pay the Plaintiff a large portion of the money promised under the settlement agreement. Plaintiff’s subsequent Motion to Enforce was granted by the trial court. However, the trial court order was reversed on appeal.
Continue reading

by

law books.jpgFlorida Statute 624.155 provides a civil remedy for persons damaged by an insurer’s failure to settle claims in good faith. The remedy can include an award of damages in excess of the insured’s policy limits, attorney’s fees and litigation costs. This threat is the spur that motivates insurance companies to handle claims properly. (Side note: Insurance companies hate that their insureds have this stick at hand to keep them in line. Each legislative session for the past few years, Republican legislators friendly with the insurance industry have sponsored legislation to eliminate or water down the law. Thankfully, each effort has failed. Unfortunately, they will continue trying.)

The law was recently put to the test in Perdido Sun Condominium Association, Inc. v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, 129 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

Citizens is an insurer created by the legislature for the public purpose of providing “affordable property insurance to applicants who are in good faith entitled to procure insurance through the voluntary market but are unable to do so.” § 627.351(6)(a)1., Fla. Stat. As a creature of statute, Citizens’ operations, procedures, duties, and legal status are governed by section 627.351(6), Florida Statutes.

After its insured property was damaged by a hurricane in 2004, Perdido Sun made a claim on its insurance policy with Citizens. Perdido Sun was not satisfied with the amount of Citizens’ eventual payment on the claim and filed a breach of contract action to recover additional sums under the insurance contract. Perdido Sun prevailed on the breach of contract claim.

Based on the result in the breach of contract case, Perdido Sun filed a second lawsuit against Citizens for the civil remedy provided in section 624.155(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes, a statutory “bad faith” claim. Citizens asserted that it was immune from suit under section 627.351(6)(s)1., Florida Statutes, and that a statutory bad-faith action under section 624.155 was not among the specifically listed exceptions to this immunity. § 627.351(6)(s)1., a.-e., Fla. Stat.
Continue reading

Contact Information
Main Office
9999 NE 2nd Ave, #304
Miami Shores, FL 33138
Phone: 305-758-4900
Fax: 305-758-4949
Email: jgale@jeffgalelaw.com
Palm Beach Gardens
2401 PGA Blvd #140
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Phone: 305-758-4900
Fax: 305-758-4949
Email: jgale@jeffgalelaw.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2024, Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design