Central Florida Personal Injury Lawyer - Miscellaneous

Bad Faith Claims Tell the True Story About Insurers

K.C. Bouchillon — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:27:27 GMT

Ever wonder if your insurance company is really as good as they claim? Are you really in good hands? Is your insurance company really like a good neighbor?

There's a way you can find out. Click on the link below:

apps.fldfs.com/civilremedy/SearchFiling.aspx

Then go down to the "Violations" subheading and find your insurance company on the dropdown menu for "Authorized Insurer." Hit search and you will see every bad faith claim filed with the State of Florida against your insurer.

Check out other insurers while you're at it. Some are actually pretty good. Others are horrendous. Get past the slick advertising and find out from the insurance company's own clients how they were treated when it really counted.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by K.C. Bouchillon

Hurricane Ida - does central Florida need to worry?

Bob Grode — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:52:10 GMT

Is it still hurricane season? We have been blessed with a very mild hurricane season but Ida is making her way across the Gulf of Mexico headed towards the panhandle. What does this mean for central Florida? Mostly it means taking stock of your insurance policies and making sure you have the right coverages. Nothing can be done about those policies when the storm is bearing down, but we in central Florida appear to be looking at maybe some rain and a little wind. So take the time to review your insurance policies and speak to your agent to make sure all is in order. After the storm takes your roof off is not the time to realize your policy is not providing the coverage you need.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bob Grode

"Rambo" Litigators Are Losers -- And So Are Their Clients

K.C. Bouchillon — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:25:31 GMT

My partner, Bob Grode, and I just lectured at a seminar about how to deal with "Rambo" litigators. The seminar was geared to attorneys for the purpose of counteracting the unethical and uncivil tactics used by such litigators, but there are important lessons for those looking for a lawyer, as well.

There is a common MISperception in the public that the "Rambo" or "pit bull" litigator is a good thing, and that those types of litigators are more successful than others. That's a myth. The reality is that such litigators 1) act like that because the are more interested in soaking their client for fees than in actually getting a good result, 2) engage in such tactics to leverage a settlement because they are terrified of actually having to go to trial, and 3) are less successful than attorneys that follow the rules and know the law.

In the unlikely event that you can get such a lawyer to actually go to trial, you will probably find that he or she is nervous, arrogant, and offensive to a jury. Most successful lawyers don't have to stoop to such bush-league tactics to get a fair result for their clients. At Lilly, O'Toole & Brown, we don't need to engage in "Rambo" litigation to get good results for our clients Just take a look at our case results to see for yourself. Also, consider that four of our attorneys are board-certified civil trial lawyers, which means we actually go to trial for our clients, if necessary.

Don't let media misperceptions cloud your judgment when choosing a lawyer. Juries are made up of people just like you, and they want to hear the truth, not a lot of rhetoric, spin and misdirection.

At Lilly, O'Toole & Brown, we respect our clients and the legal process, and we are not afraid to go to bat for our clients at trial. That -- and not being a blustering "Rambo" -- is the key to success and good results.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by K.C. Bouchillon

INSURANCE REGULATORS FILE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST ALLSTATE

K.C. Bouchillon — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:20:23 GMT

The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation has filed an administrative complaint seeking to suspend Allstate's authority to write policies in Florida. This is the latest salvo in the battle between regulators and Allstate over Allstate's refusal to turn over documents or give straight answers to its request to increase rates as much as 41%.

The regulators previously suspended Allstate's authority after Allstate refused to cooperate in hearings to get to the bottom of why Allstate wants a huge rate increase when other insurers are decreasing or maintaining their rates. An appeals court lifted that ban until it could obtain further information, and that appeal is still pending.

The administrative complaint is a separate legal proceeding, in which the regulators are asking an administrative law judge to enter a separate finding and order suspending Allstate's authority.

In the meantime, Allstate has refused to budge.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by K.C. Bouchillon

HURRICANE VICTIMS OFTEN SUFFER AT HANDS OF UNETHICAL ADJUSTERS

K.C. Bouchillon — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:34:46 GMT

The hurricanes of 2004 devastated tens of thousands of homeowners and their families in central Florida. But for many, the shoddy treatment and lack of professionalism shown by insurance adjusters was worse than the storms themselves. Unfortunately, far too many insurance adjusters forget that Florida law imposes ethical obligations on them when dealing with policy holders with insurance claims.

Our firm has handled hundreds of insurance claims on behalf of homeowners, and we have held insurers and their adjusters accountable for their actions.

So, what are these ethical obligations?

First and foremost, Florida law requires insurance adjusters to put the "fair and honest treatment of the claimant" above the adjuster's (and the insurance company's) own interest, in every instance. In other words, when an adjuster deals with an insurance claim, he is obligated to do what is best for the claimant. Most adjusters fulfill this obligation and truly try to take care of their claimants. On the other hand, many adjusters believe their highest priority is to save the insurance company's money, which results in claims improperly denied, or in payouts that fall far short of the damages suffered by the claimants.

Also, an adjuster is prohibited from approaching investigations and settlements in a manner that is prejudicial to the claimant. In doing so, the adjuster is obligated to make truthful and unbiased reports after a complete investigation. An adjuster must handle claims quickly and diligently, not let them drag out for months or years. (Is your jaw dropping yet?)

Another failing that we have seen in our lawsuits against insurers is that many adjusters fail in their ethical obligation to advise claimants of their rights under their policies. Insurance policies are very complex and tricky, and the average homeowner can't make heads or tails of what's in the policy. The adjusters, on the other hand, know the policies inside and out, and often fail to tell claimants about various benefits and coverages that may be available in some policies, but which aren't obvious to the homeowner (e.g., debris removal, mold remediation, code upgrades). As a result, claimants can end up with far less than they are entitled to.

The bottom line: If you have an insurance claim, the adjuster is supposed to be working for you and maximizing the benefits you recover. If your adjuster is adversarial or discourages you from making certain claims, then something is wrong, and you should consult with an attorney.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by K.C. Bouchillon

Allstate Withholds Documents, Angers Regulators, Backs Off Rate Hike

K.C. Bouchillon — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:15:02 GMT

The State of Florida has suspended Allstate's license after the insurer refused to hand over documents subpoenaed by state insurance regulators. The documents had been requested after Allstate requested rate increases as high as 41%.

The suspension follows a heated hearing earlier this week between Allstate and the regulators. What was supposed to be a two-day hearing before Florida insurance regulators questioning Allstate's baffling request for double-digit premium rate increases ended after just two hours when it became clear that Allstate was withholding documents requested by the regulators.

Angry regulators accused stonewalling and had threatened sanctions, including the suspension of Allstate's licenses to operate four of its Florida companies, in light of Allstate's willful refusal to turn over the requested documents. Regulators grilled Allstate's representatives and lawyers but received mostly evasive, empty answers when trying to ferret out Allstate's relationships with insurance-rating and risk-monitoring companies and insurance trade associations.

Allstate has requested rate hikes as high and 41.9%, but when regulators subpoenaed the documents supporting such an enormous increase, Allstate responded with a 51-page objection, claiming that the requested documents were "irrelevant."

In light of the regulators' reactions, Allstate now says it intends to drop its requested rate increase.

That speaks volumes about what Allstate is trying to hide. It would rather give up tens of millions of dollars (or more) in additional rates, rather than divulge its internal documents.

Allstate's situation highlights what the plaintiffs' bar has warned about for years. Insurance companies are all about profits, and not about customers. After complaining about their supposedly desperate financial situation following the 2004-2006 hurricane seasons, the insurers and their lobbyists convinced a special session of the Florida Legislature to enact new insurance laws designed to give relief to insurers.

In exchange, the insurers were supposed to pass on the savings to consumers through significantly lower homeowners' premiums. Instead, most insurers lowered their rates very little or not at all, and some, including Allstate, have asked for more money. As a result of the insurers' broken promises, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is exploring a class action lawsuit against insurers to force them to abide by the law.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by K.C. Bouchillon

Florida Property Insurers Face Possible Class Action over Broken Promises

K.C. Bouchillon — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:00:07 GMT

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is investigating a possible class action suit against property insurers for failing to lower rates and pass on savings to insurers after receiving historic concessions from the Florida Legislature.

In the face of massive lobbying by insurance companies begging for relief from several years of disasters and allegedly declining profits, the Florida Legislature in January 2007 overhauled the state's insurance statutes in an effort to relieve the pressure on insurance companies. The trade-off was to be lower insurance rates for Florida property owners, who desperately needed such cuts after devasting losses in 2004 and 2005.

Instead, many insurers, including some of the largest -- such as Allstate and Nationwide -- either reduced their rates minimally or asked for rate INCREASES.

''I'm increasingly concerned they are potentially violating the new law,'' Crist told The Miami Herald.

``Common sense would dictate to you that if they are not passing on the savings to the customer, they are violating the law that says they must pass on the savings to the customer.''

As reported in the Herald, the core of the dispute is the January 2007 law, which provided billions in additional cheap reinsurance to private insurers in return for a requirement that they pass on the savings to consumers.

Many companies have lowered their rates but ''those that have not should be accountable,'' Crist said. He said he believes companies may have tried to skirt the law by minimizing their risks and maximizing their profits illegally.

Allstate has had the temerity to ask for rate ranging from 27.4 percent to 43.4 percent. At the same time, Allstate has dropped at least 350,000 Florida policyholders in the past four years.

''There are consequences to violating the law if we can show that they have -- and I believe that they have,'' Crist said.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by K.C. Bouchillon

Man's Trading Company Recalls Super Magnet Toys

Jenny Albano — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 01:32:15 GMT

Man's Trading Company, in conjunction with the CPSC< is recalling around 2,800 Super Magnets because they can pose aspiration and intestinal hazards to children who swallow the magnets.

The magnet attached to the bottom of a small toy panda can detach. If swallowed or aspirated by young children, the magnets can attract each other internally and cause intestinal perforations or blockages, which can be fatal.

The recalled magnets are a half an inch are resemble panda bears. The small magnet is attached to the bottom of the panda toy and Super Magnets and the company's logo is printed on the front of the packaging for the toy. The super magnet toys have eight in a pack. So far the company has not recieved any reports of injury from the Super Magnets.

The recalled product was available in Dollar and gift stores across the U.S. from September 2005 to November 2007. These items were manufactured in China.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Deadline for Florida Smoking Damage Lawsuits Draws Near

Courtney Mills — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:30:31 GMT

The number of weeks remaining before plaintiffs can file suit for damages as a result of smoking-related illnesses has dwindled down to six. In Miami Dade and Broward counties, there have been only 120 smoking lawsuits filed for smoking-related illnesses to date, according to the Miami Herald.

Part of the reason for so few cases is that plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking out more ideal plaintiffs. Firms are extremely selective in the cases they choose, because they want to genuinely be of service. The ability to verify smoker's claims for damages can be unusually difficult. A large number of potential plaintiffs have also died as a result of smoking, which may tend to act as a disincentive for some families to pursue wrongful death suits in a court of law.

The Florida Supreme Court overturned a class action 2000 civil damage award of $145 billion last year, requiring that each smoker show that cigarettes caused the damages. When the Florida Supreme Court overturned the award last year, it decertified the class, and gave the members a deadline of January 11, 2008, to file individual lawsuits for damages.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Courtney Mills

Florida Legislature Reauthorizes PIP Statute, With a Twist

K.C. Bouchillon — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:48:15 GMT

The Florida Legislature has reauthorized the Florida Personal Injury Protection ("PIP") statute, which will become effective on January 1, 2008.

One particular provision of the new PIP statute dealing with reimbursement of a claimant's attorney's fees is particularly interesting. In some cases, there may be no attorney's fees awarded at all. When a claimant files suit against his or her insurance company for unpaid or unreimbursed PIP benefits, the new provision would potentially bar an award of attorney's fees if the court determines that the claim "should have been brought in a prior civil action" but wasn't.

What does this mean? Well, another provision of the same statute says that "all claims related to the same health care provider for the same injured person shall be brought in one action," ordinarily. In other words, it appears that the Florida legislature has determined that one of the times that a claim "should have been brought in a prior civil action" is when the claimant had made a prior claim against "the same health care provider for the same injured person."

This could create a pitfall for a claimant. For example, if a claimant sues his insurer for failure to pay the claimant's health care provider for treatment, a later suit, based on a later refusal to reimburse, could result in the claimant not recovering his attorney's fees in the second lawsuit. This would seem to require that the claimant complete his treatment with the health care provider to make sure he sues only once for all of the denials of the insurer to pay benefits for treatment by that provider.

What else may qualify as "a claim that should have been brought in a prior civil action" has yet to be determined by a court.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by K.C. Bouchillon