Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer Blawg

Our society seems to have grown all too indifferent to the suffering of individuals and I opine that in the area of personal injury lawsuits, this overwhelming disrespect for the care, concern and full legal compensation for personal injury accident victims has been in large part caused by a very purposeful intention by the insurance industries and corporate America. I submit to you that insurance company and corporate America's financial self interests far exceed their concerns over whether their insureds or their employees are responsible for negligently injuring others.

And I strongly submit to you that the insurance industry and corporate America has been clandestinely changing America's perception of right and wrong, of justice and injustice, concerning the respect and rights due personal injury accident victims, for the better part of a century now; in complete contradiction to the great laws of the State of Florida and the United States of America.

If you are reading this article and are or have been the victim of a Fort Lauderdale personal injury accident you all too well can understand this discussion. You have found that the Florida insurance industry and corporate industries have effectively perpetuated a system of creating further victims out of victims. It is this law firm's commitment to uphold the laws of the State of Florida and the United States of America for the utmost benefit of personal injury accident victims. To be continued in Part III in the next Blawg Article Post

For further discussion regarding this topic please feel free to contact the Fort Lauderdale Accident Lawyers at 1-877-529-0444 or by email at info@schulaw.com

It is this writer's opinion that uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits are the single most beneficial forms of coverage. Uninsured motorist benefits provide full bodily injury liability protection for you the insured, in the event that the individual who caused your Fort Lauderdale vehicular accident has no or not enough bodily injury liability insurance of their own. It is this writer's opinion that uninsured motorist protection is a necessity and is the cheapest form of disability insurance that an individual can purchase to protect themselves in the event they are severely impaired and disabled as a result of an uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle accident.

It is this writer's opinion that almost all Florida automobile insurance companies that could sell uninsured motorist protection intentionally persuade their insureds not to purchase uninsured motorist protection because their primary allegiance is to the insurance carrier and not to the Florida insureds. Florida automobile insurance agents generally, wrongly advise Florida vehicular insurance purchasers that they do not need uninsured motorist protection if they have PIP and med-pay, by improperly describing uninsured motorist coverage as simply additional medical benefits. This is false and misleading and Florida automobile insurance agents generally, intentionally omit describing all the benefits that a prospective insured would be entitled to directly from uninsured motorist benefits, whether by a settlement with the insurance company or from a jury verdict and judgment. Those benefits could include the payment for past and present pain and suffering, the loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, disability and impairment, as well as for medical, hospital and nursing costs and lost wages well in excess of the underlying PIP and med-pay benefits provided.

For further information on this serious topic please feel free to contact the Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyers by email to info@schulaw.com or by calling 1 (877) 529-0444.

When purchasing Fort Lauderdale Automobile Insurance one should consider a variety of concerns. Firstly, an understanding of insurance in general may be helpful. It is this writer's opinion that essentially, the intention behind obtaining insurance is to shift the risk and responsibilities associated with the possibility of having a vehicular accident to an insurance company that will agree to pay for your liabilities in exchange for a limited initial investment which is commonly referred to as an insurance premium. When an individual or business agrees to enter into an insurance contract they are essentially gambling that if a pre-determined event occurs, which is generally an undesirable event, the insurance company will pay the full amount of its agreed to liability limits in exchange for the premium purchased amount.

Insurance purchased for an automobile can provide risk benefits against damages caused to another's property; for bodily injury; for rental benefits; for towing; for the insured's own personal injury protection (PIP), for additional medical benefits (med-pay) or for uninsured or underinsured motorist protection (UM or UIM benefits).

The general intention behind purchasing each form of insurance benefit is the presumption that in the event of a Fort Lauderdale vehicular accident, the insurance company will protect and provide the agreed to benefits that the insured has selected.

While most Fort Lauderdale, Florida drivers are led to believe that the most important coverage is for bodily injury liability protection, most insureds are generally persuaded against acquiring the more personally beneficial insurance benefits. It is this writer's opinion that every Florida driver should obtain the maximum amount of PIP, med-pay and uninsured motorist coverage offered. PIP benefits cover 80% of all reasonably related accident medical costs, up to $10,000; as well as 60% of all accident related gross lost wages or lost income, within that $10,000 maximum coverage. Med-pay covers all accident related health care costs at 100%, and is typical sold in amounts of $1,000, increments up to $10,000, of additional benefits over the PIP coverage.

For further information on this serious topic please feel free to contact the Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyers by email to info@schulaw.com or by calling 1 (877) 529-0444.

Fort Lauderdale personal injury accident victims who receive medical care and incur medical expenses that may be entitled to Medicare or Medicaid government benefits need to be aware of several ramifications once benefits are received. Firstly, Medicare and Medicaid are conditional payments and the government has a right of recovery against their settlement proceeds. This right, which now almost always appears in all other contractual insurance programs is commonly referred to as the right to Subrogation. Briefly, if a lawsuit is successfully resolved the government is entitled to be returned a portion of its conditional Medicare or Medicaid benefits from the total amount of the Fort Lauderdale personal injury victim's recovery. This right will reduce the amount of the net settlement funds that a Fort Lauderdale injury accident victim will ultimately receive and can provide for a myriad of complications.

For instance, if the Fort Lauderdale, Florida accident injury victim's case resolves for a gross sum of FIFTY THOUSAND ($50,000) DOLLARS, but the government's claim to recovery is substantial in relation to that amount, the victim ultimate recovery is greatly compromised.

Pursuant to Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) which was signed into law by President George W. Bush, the government's ability to enforce the Medicare Secondary Payer Act was given much more far reaching strength.

For further information on this serious topic please feel free to contact the Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyers by email to info@schulaw.com or by calling 1 (877) 529-0444.

Oftentimes a significant personal injury case resolves by way of settlement - and depending on a number of factors, the Plaintiff can have the option of accepting the insurance company's offer of settlement proceeds through a "structure" that provides for agreed-to allocations of those settlement benefits over designated periods of time. Inherent in the structured settlement agreement are the limitations and prohibitions against the Plaintiff receiving any assets sooner than the agreed-to structured time payment periods.

It is this writer's considered opinion that with the right legal counsel, certain limitations and prohibitions are abundantly in the best interests of the recipient of those settlement funds and should not have been agreed to from the onset unless fully understood by the Plaintiff of a structured settlement for serious Florida personal injuries.

Unfortunately, there is a sub-industry of opportunistic entrepreneurs who selfishly try and often succeed at tempting and misleading the beneficiaries of these structured settlements into obtaining a "cash-out" of their proceeds sooner than as designated in the structure agreement - prying upon the recipient's vulnerabilities. These opportunistic structure buyout companies attempt to obtain these structures at a fraction of what the Florida personal injury victim is otherwise entitled to receive, the end result being typically disaster for the victim who falls prey to these predator companies.

Continue reading "Beware of companies looking to buy structured settlements from Florida Personal Injury Victims!" »

#9 in a series of discussions on Florida's Motor Vehicle No-Fault laws.

Unfortunately, there are those situations where an insurance adjuster maintains a completely untenable position in refusing to negotiate or refusing to attempt to settle a claim brought by a victim of a Florida vehicular accident, when it could and should have done so under the circumstances. These situations may arise when the victim has not availed her or himself of the benefit of skilled personal injury lawyer; or for a myriad of reasons, even if the victim is properly represented. Florida Statute section §624.155 was created by the Florida legislature to deal with such civil injustice. While this practice should never be tolerated, many victims of "bad faith" not only neglect to pursue their legal remedies against the wrongdoer and/or their insurer, but also fail or overlook the opportunity of obtaining the assistance of the insurance commissioner's office to deal with such inappropriate behavior by an insurer.

Whether the insurer's action is as a result of extraordinary oversight or by a deliberate intent to avoid or delay paying rightfully due insurance benefits, it is incumbent upon victim and/or their personal injury attorney to not only file the appropriate claims with the insurance commissioner's office but also to bring a separate lawsuit for bad faith against the rogue insurance company, under the right circumstances. This process can be quite complex and it is strongly suggested that the victim of a vehicular accident, who suspects that they may be the victim of a rogue insurance adjuster or company, obtain the skilled representation from the right Fort Lauderdale Personal Injury Lawyer who will identify these wrongs and know how to act against the carrier and in the best interests of the victim by bringing the bad faith action.

#8 in a series of discussions on Florida's Motor Vehicle No-Fault laws.

This discussion will be split into an analysis of those refusals by an which could possibly be justified, and those which are clearly the insurance company's insurance company "bad faith" refusal to settle a case for injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident in the State of Florida when it could and should have done so under the circumstances had it acted reasonably towards its insured.

As we have previously discussed, it is the insurance company's adjuster's role to find issue with any possible factor concerning the victim's claims for bodily injuries and damages as a result of a vehicular accident in Florida. In order to prevail in a personal injury claim, the victim, through his skilled personal injury attorney, has the burden to prove that the wrongdoer was 100% at fault for the accident, that the victim has suffered "threshold injuries", as defined by Florida's Motor Vehicle No-Fault statute and that such injuries were directly related to the accident. It is the insurance adjuster's role to attempt to disprove each and every aspect of that burden of proof. Insurers will often attempt and have the right to attempt to prove that the victim was anywhere from 1-100% comparatively at fault, and that the victim suffered no causally related injuries. These affirmative defenses could be alleged with regards to if the victim had a pre-existing similar injury or condition, had a previous or subsequent accident which could account for the victim's complaints, or by simply using an insurance company paid doctor to minimize or discredit the victim's allegations of injury.

#6 in a series of discussions on Florida's Motor Vehicle No-Fault Laws

So you have chosen to stand up for yourself and hold the wrongdoer who negligently caused a Florida car, motorcycle or trucking accident responsible for your injuries and damages (and hopefully their insurance company), how do you go about doing that?

While you have the right as a matter of law to immediately file a lawsuit against the person and/or company responsible for your serious injuries, as a practical matter, you may want to determine whether that wrongdoer will be financial responsible for your losses before doing so.

The most efficient means of determining this information is by placing the wrongdoer on written notice of your intent to sue and demand their insurance information pursuant to F.S. 627.4137. This statute requires the wrongdoer to provide information concerning the name of their car, motorcycle or truck insurance carrier, the amount and types of insurance coverage provided for the wrongdoer, and whether there will be any coverage defenses where they might attempt to deny your claim.

Every licensed operator of a vehicle in the State of Florida has a duty to maintain financial responsibility.

Unfortunately, at times more than 60% of the persons causing vehicular accidents in the State of Florida were financially irresponsible, i.e., uninsured which oftentimes seems to go hand in hand with how irresponsibly they operate their vehicles.

#5 in a series of discussions on Florida's Motor Vehicle No-Fault Statute

There is no question in this writer's opinion that the appropriate behavior for a victim of car, motorcycle or trucking accident in the State of Florida is to civilly hold the wrongdoer who causes an accident and injures others responsible for their negligence.

Our system of civilized justice calls for each of us to be responsible for our actions and wrongdoings, whether negligently or intentionally caused. If our society functioned without accountability, we would be a society that would operate on a basis or inherent unfairness. If someone is the victim of another's carelessness or negligence, philosophically, why should the victim (or society) bear the burden and expense and let the careless individual off without any responsibility or accountability? Unfortunately, many of us seem to be morally or ethically challenged when it comes time to stand up for our rights and seek accountability for the injuries suffered in these accidents. How often have we heard the phrase, "I'm not the type of person who sues"?

I hereby submit to you that this questioning or reluctance to seek justice by accident victims has been taught to us by the very industry that profits by our disasters but has no pure intention to properly compensate the victims or their insureds. The insurance industry has very effectively taught many of us to question and seriously consider that "... good people suck it up when they're hurt ... only the lying, malingers bring insurance claims for car, motorcycle or trucking accidents." While nothing could be further from the truth, just remember the insurance industry has perfected that belief throughout our society for one purpose - so they do not have to pay as many righteous claims as they should.

#5 in a series of discussions on Florida's Motor Vehicle No-Fault Statute

So in the past four articles, we have laid a very basic but realistic foundation for how Florida's automobile no-fault laws had come into effect and how they were intended to operate in the best interests of the automobile insurance industry. The basis of this article will be to discuss what is the appropriate course of action for the unfortunate victims of motor vehicle accidents in Fort Lauderdale, Florida as well as the state of Florida.

First of all, if you or someone you care for is seriously injured as a result of a vehicular accident, then you all too well know what it means to suffer pain, physical disfigurement, scarring, loss of income, loss of personal enjoyment, and emotional distress, to name a few of the common injuries and damages suffered by the victims.

The question then becomes whether you choose to hold the person or company that caused your auto, motorcycle or trucking accident responsible for your injuries and damages, and if so, what is the appropriate and proper manner to do so? We will discuss this in two separate segments. The first segment will be a discussion concerning the philosophical aspects of bringing a claim for personal injuries and damages and the second article will be a discussion of how it is actually brought from a practical standpoint. Those articles will then be followed by a discussion of whether and how to choose the legal representation that would best serve your interests.

#4 in a series of discussions on Florida's Motor Vehicle No-Fault

If you have been a victim of a car or truck accident in Florida and have suffered injuries or someone you care for has suffered a wrongful death and have by the significance of those injuries met the threshold requirement of F.S. 627 - Florida's No Fault Statute, you will then most likely be dealing with an car or trucking company's insurance carrier in order to recover your monetary losses and damages. The difficulty you will then face is in dealing with the insurance company that functions for the benefit of its profit margin as opposed to the absolute best interests' of the injured victims of a Florida automobile and trucking accident. Let there be no mistake in your perception that the auto insurance company is committed to avoiding and or reducing its liability for its negligent insureds on each occasion there is a claim made against a wrongdoer whom they insure.

As is true for each and every profit centered business entity, an insurance company must be responsible to two simple principles: 1) increasing its cash flow; i.e., collecting our premiums; and 2) reducing and/or minimizing its expenses; i.e., by the avoidance of voluntarily making full claim payments for car accident cases.

The insurance company employs well trained adjusters, claims specialists and defense attorneys who are committed to the best interests of the insurance company and not yours, even if it is your own insurance company that you are making your claim with. Many, if not all, of the employees of an insurance, company as well as their defense attorneys actually operate with an unspoken belief that they are doing a righteous task, not only by protecting the insurance company's bottom line profits, but by defeating the interests of Florida's automobile and truck accident victims.

#3 in a series of discussions on Florida's Motor Vehicle No-Fault

Continuing our discussion, the reality of the No-Fault system was an attempt by the insurance industry to raise substantial revenues, while at the same time decreasing the number and amounts of settlements or jury awards for injuries caused by the negligent operation of a car, or vehicle in Florida. Unfortunately, the system was so poorly thought out that it not only failed to limit the volume of personal injury cases, but it also effectively drove up most costs associated with car accident cases.

In the beginning, the threshold for bringing a Florida car accident case was if the victim of a car or truck accident would incur in excess of $1000 worth of medical expense related to his or her vehicular related injuries. Back in the early 1970s physicians typically didn't charge more than $18 for an office visit, even for the treatment of accident patients. It took the medical community slightly less than a nanosecond to figure out how to charge more than a $1,000 for the treatment of a car accident patient. Incredibly, the insurance industry thought that they would limit the number of cases brought if they raised that threshold to a $3,000 minimum.

That failed wisdom just simply taught the medical community to raise their rates in an additional nanosecond. This failed reasoning continued until October 31, 1984 when Florida Statute Chapter 627 was finally amended to require the following four thresholds:

1. The victim had to suffer a wrongful death;
2. The victim had to suffer a significant loss of an important bodily function;
3. The victim had to suffer permanent and significant scarring or disfigurement;
4. and then the last Threshold was if the victim of a car accident suffered a permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability.

This last category only opened up the interpretation for a soft injury claim and the insurance industries' ability to dispute those injuries through it's paid for defense experts' controlled opinions. All the while, the system enabled doctors, such as orthopedic physicians to charge over $1500 for that initial first visit, compared to $18 in the early 1970s.

Frankly, the auto insurance industry can be thanked for exponentially multiplying the cost of trauma care in this country while at the same time inciting an explosion in the related fields that are supposed to care for accident victims.

#2 in a series of discussions on Florida's Motor Vehicle No-Fault

Prior to the passage of Florida's Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law anyone involved in a car or motor vehicle accident had the legal right to seek damages for their accident related injuries without any pre-conditions to filing a lawsuit. In addition, car or motor vehicle insurance was not mandatory in the state of Florida prior to Florida's Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law (and in fact, approximately 60% of all car owners in the state of Florida were uninsured prior to the passage of Florida's Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law). It is this writer's opinion that the insurance industry and their special interests intended to have laws passed that would make it mandatory that all operators of cars or motor vehicles must obtain car or motor vehicle insurance in order to astronomically increase their gross revenues by collecting previously non-existent insurance premium payments from that non-participating 60% of the car owners in Florida - an extraordinary increase in the sheer number of payments, alone.

The insurance industry's premise for making car insurance mandatory was predicated upon a misleading concept that their insured would receive greater value in not having to prove fault before being able to receive benefits for medical expense and lost wages, instead of having to wait for medical or chiropractic care and the payment of lost wages until a court of law determined who was at fault for the accident. The original enactments of this Act provided for these benefits (PIP or Personal Injury Protection Benefits) with up to $10,000 of benefits, at 80% of any related medical expense including chiropractic care, and inclusive of 60% of a claimants gross lost wages to be paid, also from that $10,000 source. Fault would not be a determining factor in order to receive these PIP benefits. What was not and has never been candidly revealed to the insured public in the state of Florida at that time was that the insurance industry was permitted to sell this $10,000 PIP coverage with an $8,000 deductible - meaning that before the insurance company would pay dollar one, the injured insured would have to personally pay the first $8,000! Frankly, no one could easily afford to do so then, or now, and therefore obviously the intention of this act was not to actually pay the average insured one penny!

#1 in a series of discussions on Florida's Motor Vehicle No-Fault

Victims of motor vehicular accidents - (defined by: F.S. 627.732 (3) "Motor vehicle" means any self-propelled vehicle with four or more wheels which is of a type both designed and required to be licensed for use on the highways of this state and any trailer or semitrailer designed for use with such vehicle and includes:

(a) A "private passenger motor vehicle," which is any motor vehicle which is a sedan, station wagon, or jeep-type vehicle and, if not used primarily for occupational, professional, or business purposes, a motor vehicle of the pickup, panel, van, camper, or motor home type.

(b) A "commercial motor vehicle," which is any motor vehicle which is not a private passenger motor vehicle.

The term "motor vehicle" does not include a mobile home or any motor vehicle which is used in mass transit, other than public school transportation, and designed to transport more than five passengers exclusive of the operator of the motor vehicle and which is owned by a municipality, a transit authority, or a political subdivision of the state.) intending to pursue the recovery of their money damages for the injuries they may have suffered, must be aware that their lawsuit will likely be governed by the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act, or more commonly known as Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law (§ 627.730. Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law).

This particular Act, which has been in existence since the 1970s, strictly governs the basis for being compensated if one is the victim of a car or motor vehicle accident. This Blawg site will go into great depth and have many discussions on both the technical applications of this body of law, as well as a very in dept and candid analysis of the real implications of this body of law, over the many months to come. And to say that Florida's Automobile Reparations Reform Act/ the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, has been the source of much debate is an extraordinary understatement. The basic premise of this writer's candid opinions will be centered upon the belief that the Act was originally intended by the insurance industry and its special interests as a source of increasing the insurance industry's revenues and profits without true regard for its policy holders or for righteous claimants who have been injured and demand damages for accident related injuries.