We dedicate this page to posting events which may be of interest to our clients and potential clients:

Posted January 31, 2007

NO-FAULT INSURANCE CLAIM FOR LOST WAGES

DC was self-employed as a Taxi-Cab driver in Melbourne Florida. At the beginning of every work day, DC would lease a vehicle from Yellow Cab Trust Co. and would collect receipts from passengers of his cab. At the end of the day, he would turn his gross receipts in to Yellow Cab Trust, netting for himself approximately 50% of the gross receipts plus tips, less the expense of the lease and gas. 

Born and raised in Jamaica with little understanding of any U.S. legal requirements regarding record keeping, DC did not keep any kind of records or documentation to establish the amount of his income. 

DC was involved in an automobile accident and was temporarily disabled from his injuries.  Through his attorney, DC demanded that his insurance company, Peachtree Casualty, reimburse him 60% of his lost wages. Peachtree refused because of a lack of documentation of DC’s income. DC then provided Peachtree with a letter from Yellow Cab Trust, verifying his “employment” with the Trust and verifying that the average driver earned between $50.00 to $75.00 per day. Nonetheless, Peachtree continued to ignore DC’s demand for lost wages because he could produce neither 1099's nor any other tax records.

DC filed a lawsuit against Peachtree in the County Court of Brevard County, Florida. Peachtree, rather than concede DC’s entitlements, hired a lawyer and engaged in an extensive amount of litigation, including numerous depositions of DC, his physicians, Yellow Cab Trust Co. and a number of its principals and employees. Peachtree attacked DC from a number of angles, claiming that DC’s demand for wages was technically deficient and that DC did not lose any earnings.

Ultimately the case was tried and DC was awarded a judgment for income lost over a period of 72 days. Peachtree appealed this verdict asserting numerous errors by the trial court. This verdict was today affirmed by the Brevard County Circuit Court sitting in its Appellate Capacity. Peachtree was ordered to pay the lost wages due DC as well as all of his attorney fees, costs, and pre-judgment interest.

This litigation, which spanned several years, was over a few thousand dollars claimed by DC as lost wages under his policy. DC never paid one penny out of his pocket for the prosecution of this action in his behalf because the entire litigation was based on a no-recovery no-fee contract with our law office. Peachtree, instead of simply paying this relatively minimal amount when sued, as expected, elected to defend the claim through trial and appeal, resulting in tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees both to its own attorney and now due DC’s attorney.

Sometimes insurance companies will contest legitimate claims no matter what the cost of defense, or despite the cost of defense. This is often dependent on the reasonableness of the insurance representative you are dealing with. If you are in a dispute with an insurance company over your entitlements to insurance coverage or benefits, call a trial lawyer who will protect your interests and fight for your rights to all of the benefits paid for under your policy of insurance.
________________________________________________________

Posted October 16, 2006:

Maritime Insurance Dispute:

We are happy to report that after two years of litigation, a number of depositions and a number of court hearings, the Brevard County Court today ruled in favor of our client Mr. T. and found that Allstate Floridian Insurance Company wrongfully deprived him of the benefits he paid for under a marine policy of insurance. Allstate shall now be required to pay not only the amount it should have paid Mr. T. two years ago, but shall be required to pay pre-judgment interest, costs and attorney fees.

Mr. T. purchased a Marine insurance policy from Allstate providing him coverage for damage to his vessel, up to $50,000, and coverage of up to $300,000 for liability to third persons. During a hurricane in 2004, Mr. T’s vessel became dislodged from its anchor and blew over the seawall and onto the property of a riverside homeowner.

Mr. T. contacted Allstate, who immediately hired a crane and barge to remove the vessel from the homeowner’s property and to have it towed to Fort Pierce, Florida where it would be salvaged and sold for Allstate’s benefit. Allstate was charged $12,000 for the “wreck removal” and for the 100 miles of towing of the wreck to Fort Pierce.

Allstate totaled Mr. T’s vessel and paid him the $50,000 required by the policy, less the $12,000 cost of recovery. Mr. T. brought suit against Allstate for the $12,000, arguing that the $12,000 charge should have been credited against the liability portion of Mr. T's policy.

Allstate took the position that the liability coverage of the policy did not come into effect because the homeowner never made a claim for the damage to his property.  Allstate claimed the vessel blowing onto the homeowner’s property was an act of God and therefore the vessel owner was not liable for any damage caused by the vessel and thus the liability portion of the policy was not applicable to the incident.  Allstate took the position that an alternative portion of the policy came into effect, a “wreck removal” provision, which provided far less benefits than the liability coverage of the policy.

Mr. T. argued that the homeowner never brought a claim because Allstate immediately removed the vessel from his property before the homeowner had an opportunity to bring a claim. Mr. T. argued that he was liable to the homeowner from the moment his vessel landed in the homeowner's backyard.  Mr. T. argued that if there was no liability to the homeowner, as argued by Allstate, that Allstate should have simply let the wreck remain on the homeowner’s property rather than charge Mr. T. for its removal. Mr. T. argued the wreck removal portion of the policy was not applicable unless the government ordered the vessel removed, for example, if the vessel sank in the navigable channel of the river. Mr. T. argued that he was entitled to the coverage under the policy that provided him with the greatest benefits and not the least amount of benefits. Finally, Mr. T. argued that the towing charge itself was unreasonable because the 100 mile towage was for the benefit of Allstate and not Mr. T, who would not benefit from the salvage of the vessel, and that therefore Allstate should be obligated to pay the entire charge itself.

The court agreed with Mr. T., the Plaintiff, on all counts and ruled completely in his favor. The court found that Allstate was attempting to penalize the Plaintiff for having the foresight to purchase the broadest coverage possible. As a result, Allstate will be compelled to pay the Plaintiff the additional $12,000 it owed him for the last two years, interest, costs and attorney fees.

It should be noted that rather than concede its error two years earlier, when it could have terminated the litigation simply by paying the $12,000 it rightfully owed Mr. T., Allstate elected to “go to the mat” on the issue. As a consequence, hundreds of attorney hours were expended on this case, court time was expended and Allstate will now be responsible not only for its own attorney’s time and efforts, but for the hundreds of hours expended by Mr. T’s attorney.

Allstate has threatened to appeal but Mr. T., convinced that Allstate's defense is frivolous,  will hold firm and will not negotiate away any of his rightful entitlements due him under his policy of insurance.  _______________________________________________________

Posted August 16, 2006:

Bad Faith Insurance Conduct

We are happy to report that on August 15, 2006, we settled a claim on behalf of our client arising out of bad faith insurance conduct. LK was injured years ago at a nightclub and underwent a triple level cervical fusion as a result of his injuries.

We brought suit against the nightclub but the insurance company for the nightclub refused to defend and indemnify its own insured, claiming there was no insurance coverage for the incident. We entered into a voluntary consent judgment with the night-club owner in which he agreed the amount of the damages to our client approximated $750,000 and in which we agreed not to enforce the judgment against the night-club, but only against the insurer. We then sued the insurer for its bad faith refusal to defend the nightclub and sought damages in the amount of the consent judgment in addition to costs, interest and attorney fees.

At mediation, our client and the insurer agreed to a settlement in the amount of $500,000. LK is obviously very happy with this result when he expected he would never be fairly compensated for his injuries. If an insurance company is not treating your properly, you should consider contacting a lawyer who handles bad-faith insurance litigation and insurance disputes.