Florida Insurance Claims Lawyer Blog

Under Florida insurance law, vehicle drivers are required to carry personal injury protection (PIP) insurance to cover medical expenses in the case of an accident and injury. PIP is meant to be an alternative to a legal liability system, covering the driver under the state's no fault accident laws. A new PIP law, one aspect of reforms made to the law last year, has excluded acupuncturists, massage therapists, and chiropractors from covered medical treatments. Those groups of medical providers filed a case against the law itself, which Judge Terry Lewis at the Second Circuit Court recently decided in Myers v. McCarty Case No. 2013 CA 73.

These medical providers claim the law threatens their business viability. The new law provides for $10,000 in emergency medical care but only $2,500 for non-emergency injuries, which is much of what chiropractors, massage therapists, and acupuncturists do for patients with more chronic conditions. Judge Lewis had granted this group an injunction blocking this part of the law, and in this most recent decision he revisited his injunction and decided to uphold it. Judge Lewis said he understood the difficulties from insurance companies and Florida regulators, but that he continued to feel a temporary injunction was appropriate relief to remain in effect. He highlighted that while he also understood the concerns of the medical providers, his main motivation in continuing the injunction is for Floridians' right of access to the courts. Judge Lewis said, "The reason for issuing the injunction was to protect the constitutional right and prevent the potential harm to citizens injured in auto accidents who, under the present PIP statute, may not receive necessary medical care."

In response to this recent ruling upholding the injunction, the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation filed a motion to expedite review of the decision at the First District Court of Appeals. They brought questions about the validity of Judge Lewis' decision. The motion states that Judge Lewis ignored a Florida Supreme Court precedent that states a law has a presumption of constitutionality unless it is beyond all reasonable doubt that it conflicts with the constitution. The motion also claims that Judge Lewis' injunction gave no indication of what insurance regulators are supposed to do, only blocking that part of the law and leaving policyholders in an unclear position.

It seems Florida lawmakers are happy to leave this decision up to the courts. Despite being central to Governor Rick Scott's agenda last year, it seems the state government does not want to confront PIP reform again this year.

With the issue in this case clearly being framed to preserve access to the courts for Florida victims, if you have been injured in an accident and are having a problem with your insurance provider, contact a Florida insurance attorney to learn about your options as soon as possible. Under Florida law, if you proceed with a case and you succeed. the attorney's fees will automatically be the responsibility of the insurance company. So no matter the size of your claim, you would get to keep the court award and not have to worry about paying lawyer's fees.

See Our Related Blog Posts
$6 Million Award to Victim of Insurance Company
Golf Cart Accident Leads to Lawsuit Over Lack of Warnings

Anyone paying attention to Florida property insurance knows that there have been a lot of concerning problems recently. Not only is property insurance in our state expensive, but there have also been problems with insurers, including state insurers, and with fraud, causing the property insurance to be even more confusing and worrying for consumers than usual.

A recent article in the Insurance Journal discussed how shady financial dealings and fraud caused a Florida property insurer to collapse, leaving state funded organizations to attempt to help the stranded policyholders. This is about Magnolia Insurance Company, a subsidiary of IRG Financial Group, which had about 100,000 Florida property insurance customers. In April 2010, Florida regulators had to take over Magnolia because they determined that Magnolia no longer had the financial resources to meet its obligations to its policyholders. What happened from 2008 was a complicated list of financial dealings with the company Allianz Risk Transfer, based in New York. By 2010, agreements had led to Allianz's takeover of Magnolia, without taking any of the risk of losses from the company.

When state regulators took over the company in 2010, most of the policies were shifted to the state run Citizens Property Insurance Corp, and the remaining claims were the responsibility of the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association. The Florida Insurance Guaranty Association had 2,032 Magnolia claims as of March 2013.The fund already paid $30.8 million in Magnolia losses and associated expenses so far, and expects $8.5 million more in payments to still-open claims.

The Florida Department of Financial Services filed a complaint in this matter against Allianz in Second Judicial Court of Leon County, asking that Allianz pay the state back $23.9 million for these costs. The complaint states, "As part of the plan of the Allianz defendants to ensure that Allianz would not take a loss or incur any risk in making the loan to IFG for Magnolia, and would be excessively compensated, the Allianz defendants required exorbitant fees and security in advance of the loan and quickly began to exercise control over the business affairs of Magnolia."

Allianz had 30 days from the date of complaint to file its answer, so those of us following the Florida insurance market will wait to see how the case turns out and what its impact may be on Florida property insurance policyholders.

With all of these shenanigans going on, and news about problems with Citizens and rate hikes, it is understandable if Floridians are concerned about insurance. So if you are having problems with your insurance company treating you unfairly, contact a Florida insurance attorney to learn about your options as soon as possible. Under Florida law, if you proceed with a case and you succeed, the attorney's fees will automatically be the responsibility of the insurance company. Large or small claim, you would get to keep the court award and not have to worry about paying lawyer's fees just to get what you deserve under your insurance policy.

See Our Related Blog Posts
Class-Action Against State-Run Citizens Insurance
$6 Million Award to Victim of Insurance Company

Sinkholes have been in the news lately and Floridians are rightly concerned about both safety and ensuring their property is properly covered by insurance in case a sinkhole damages their home. Building off of our last post on sinkholes and the difficulties for homeowners and their insurance policies in Florida (see post here), our Florida property insurance lawyers saw another recent story about a case involving this very issue.

Florida's First District Court of Appeals, in a case called Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company and Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Company v. State of Florida, Office of Insurance Regulation, has upheld a decision by state regulators saying that property insurance companies must offer sinkhole loss coverage equal to the value of the dwelling coverage limit. The case began when Farm Bureau Insurance requested to amend its policies to limit sinkhole damage coverage to 25 percent of the overall coverage amount. Florida's Office of Insurance Regulation rejected this request. The Office cited section 627.706(1) of Florida Statutes, providing that insurers must "make available ... coverage for sinkhole losses on any structure ... to the extent provided in the form to which the coverage attaches". They interpreted that to mean that insurers must offer an equal amount for sinkhole losses as the dwelling coverage limit, and not any lesser amount as Farm Bureau wanted. So Farm Bureau, dissatisfied, brought the case to the courts.

The First District Court of Appeals, in a decision written by Judge Marstiller (the decision can be found here), found that the Office of Insurance Regulation's decision was not clearly erroneous and their decision was a permissible interpretation of the statute entitled to deference from the court. The DCA noted that when the relevant statutory provision is read as a whole, it ties deductibles to base policy coverage limits. Therefore, the Court found it is reasonable to interpret the statutory provision as intending that the amount of sinkhole loss coverage be equal to that coverage provided in the base insurance policy. In ruling thus, the Court noted that Florida property insurance companies have been required to provide catastrophic ground cover collapse coverage in addition to optional sinkhole insurance coverage since 2007 when it was included in the language of section 627.706, even before it was amended in 2011.

With so much tied up in the value of your home and the cost to insure it, make sure you stay on top of what your insurance policy covers and does not cover. And if you are having problems with your insurance company giving you the run around, contact a Florida insurance attorney to learn about your options as soon as possible. Under Florida law, if you proceed with a case and you succeed, the attorney's fees will automatically be the responsibility of the insurance company. Large claim or small claim, you would get to keep the court award and not have to worry about paying lawyer's fees just to get what you deserve under your insurance policy.

See Our Related Blog Posts
Sinkholes and Your Home
Property Insurance Rates Triple in Florida

Unless you have been in the situation, maybe you don't even know what "force placed" insurance is. Force placed insurance, sometimes called "lender placed", is when a lender or creditor takes out insurance on an asset that doesn't have insurance, and the costs of the insurance are passed on to the customer, hence why it is "forced". It is mostly used in property insurance, including homes and cars. Therefore, when a person buys a car or a house with a mortgage or a loan, the creditor, usually a bank, requires that the buyer carry insurance on that property. If the buyer doesn't get his or her own insurance, the creditor obtains the insurance to protect their investment.

As a Florida property insurance attorney, I have been following the force placed insurance issue in our state. I recently saw an article on this very topic.This past summer in August, Florida Insurance Commissioner, Kevin McCarty, rejected the force placed insurer QBE's proposed rates. Around the same time, he announced that state regulators were going to investigate the cost of force placed premiums and the relationship between insurance companies and mortgage holding banks that send force placed business to the insurance companies.

Now, QBE is proposing to cut its force placed insurance rates by 19 percent. A portion of those cuts will be coming from commissions the insurer pays to the banks and mortgage lenders. This could be interesting news, considering that QBE is the second largest force placed insurance company in the country. But it might not be enough, considering the substantially larger rate reductions required by other states. California regulators recently imposed a 30.5 percent cut on Assurant, and mortgage giant Fannie Mae is asking for a 30 to 40 percent reduction. And industry experts, including one cited by Commissioner McCarty, claim these insurance companies could cut rates in half and still make a substantial profit.

This newest rate offer by QBE's subsidiary, Praetorian, has not been accepted by Florida regulators yet. A spokesperson for the Office of Insurance Regulation said, "We have not been in 'negotiations' with Praetorian. However, there were numerous discussions with the company on what information needed to be provided in their filing." Florida is also waiting for Assurant, the company whose rates California cut by more than 30 percent, to file proposed rates with the state, as well.

Regardless, a Florida insurance attorney can assist you in an insurance claim action. Under Florida law, if you succeed in your case, the attorney's fees will automatically be the responsibility of the insurance company. This means that no matter how big or small your claim, if you win your case, you get to keep the entire award and the insurance company will pay all of your lawyer's fees. So if you are having difficulties, it is worth it to discuss your case with an experienced attorney and see if there is a way to move forward.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Florida Judge Rules On Validity of Wind Credit Insurance Forms

It's nothing new- underage drinking while parents weren't watching. But what about when parents are not only watching, but supplying the alcohol to their children? The ramifications, both moral and legal, are at the forefront of this issue. Many parents feel that allowing their kids to drink at home under their roof makes it safer and less of the "forbidden fruit" syndrome. They feel that by monitoring the amount of alcohol consumed by their teens makes for "responsible" drinking. Many parents have even extended these allowances to the friends of their children. They feel that by removing the taboo along with taking the car keys, the situation is a safe one. They view it as a rite of passage. They may feel it is a safe situation but it is certainly not a legal one. In 1995, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the "open house party" law. This law states that if anyone under 21 years of age is caught drinking alcohol or using drugs in your home or on your property, you will be arrested. The charge is a misdemeanor and is punishable by up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine. Underage drinking has cost the residents of Florida $3 billion dollars. Palm Beach County residents foot the bill for $223 million of that.

Perhaps the Florida Supreme Court will change the minds of parents by enforcing the law holding parents responsible for supplying alcohol to underage drinkers. Recently, in Boca Raton, Florida, several families have been made an example of the "open house party" law. According to the Sun-Sentinel, the parents were arrested for knowingly having, allowing and supplying alcohol at their homes to several hundred children. One parent thought the charges were unreasonable. His feeling is that the law is not realistic and that teens aren't going to sit around drinking milk and cookies.

There are still many teens that make the decision to abstain from alcohol. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, more and more teens are enjoying drug free parties. Community organizations, schools and parents are all hosting these alcohol free parties with big turnouts.

The legal consequences that can follow a family who allows alcohol at their home and gets caught are serious and can follow them for years to come. If anyone is injured or killed because of the events, the financial consequences to the homeowner can be even more significant, as the law can hold the homeowner responsible for any resulting injury and economic loss suffered by an underage drinker.