Blog

Victims of auto accidents are sometimes surprised to learn that health insurance carriers are entitled to be reimbursed for any medical care expenses they incur as a result of an auto accident if the victim of an auto accident receives a monetary recovery.  Section 768.76, Florida Statues, governs “collateral sources of indemnity” and sets forth the obligations and rights of both the claimant and the “collateral source”.  A collateral source is any entity that may have made payments to the claimant or on the claimant’s behalf as defined in Section 768.76, Florida Statues.  When a party is injured in an accident, that party’s Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) coverage is the primary source for payment of medical expenses.  The amount paid by PIP for medical care will not be reimbursed from any recovery obtained against the “at fault” party. However, if any medical expenses are paid by health insurance, Worker’s Comp insurance, Medicare or from some other third party source, they would be entitled to be reimbursed from any proceeds from a settlement or judgment.  Accordingly, it is important to make sure that an accident victim uses their PIP coverage first before any other collateral source that may be entitled to reimbursement in the event of an accident.

The majority of accidents in the Tampa Bay area are “low impact accidents” involving little or no damage to the vehicles involved in the accident.  A common refrain from insurance adjusters is that the occupants of vehicles involved in low impact accidents surely cannot be injured.  However, there are many factors that go into the mechanism of an injury sustained in a low impact accident.  The fact is, there is no direct correlation between the amount of damage to a vehicle and the injuries sustained by the occupants of such vehicle.  Lawyers on both sides of the argument commonly hire biomechanical experts to testify before the jury as to the mechanics of car crashes and the effect that it has on the occupants.  These biomechanical experts measure things such as the velocity of vehicles, impact angles, crush resistance, metallurgical fatigue, and how the bumpers behave during impact.  Each crash must be analyzed on its own with respect to all of the above parameters before a biomechanical expert can reach an opinion as to the effect a low impact crash has on the occupants of such vehicles.  Studies have shown that the average juror, after viewing post crash photos of vehicles with very little to no property damage, tend to assume that the occupants therein could not have been injured.  Accordingly, it’s the lawyer’s job to educate the jury, sometimes with the help of a biomechanical expert, that low impact accidents can cause significant injuries to the occupants despite the lack of damage to the vehicles involved.

Governor Rick Scott has asked lawmakers to present proposals for next year’s legislative session to eliminate the mandatory Personal Injury Protection coverage that each Florida driver is now required to maintain.  Governor Scott has cited the increased costs associated with paying fraudulent claims by unscrupulous policy holders who stage accidents as the primary reason that new legislation is needed.  Governor Scott’s proposes that the consumer be entitled to decide what type of coverages, if any, each consumer wants to carry.

 The current system in Florida requires that each person with a registered motor vehicle must carry Personal Injury Protection insurance and property damage insurance.  The Personal Injury Protection (PIP) was originally designed to ensure that every person involved in a car accident would get necessary medical treatment of regardless of fault in the accident.  In addition, drivers are also required to maintain a minimum of $10,000.00 worth of property liability coverage which means that if you cause damage to another vehicle in an accident, you have up to $10,000.00 of insurance coverage to pay for that damage.  What is not required of Florida drivers is bodily injury liability insurance, which covers the occupant of a vehicle that may be damaged in an accident.  Frankly, it has never made any sense to me that Floridians are required to have insurance coverage for damage to a vehicle but are not required to have any insurance coverage for damage to the occupant of that vehicle.  Many states do require drivers to carry bodily injury liability. In fact, one of the prior proposals during previous discussions in the legislature was to do away with PIP coverage but require bodily injury coverage in its place.  Governor Scott wants to leave that decision to the individual consumer.  It seems to me that leaving the decision up to each individual would result in millions of uninsured drivers traveling on Florida roads.

Governor Scott points the finger at staged accidents as the root cause of increased insurance premiums. However, staged accidents represent a very small part of the overall claims made as a result of accidents in the State of Florida.  Most accidents are just that – accidents.  Without PIP coverage, victims of accidents would be back to fighting over who should pay for proper medical care.  For accident victims with no health insurance, PIP is typically the only available medical insurance available to cover treatment of injuries sustained in an accident.  The insurance companies of course are jumping on board with Governor Scott.  They would like the general public to believe that they too are victims of staged accidents which ultimately increases everyone’s premiums.  To the contrary, staged accidents are inconsequential compared to the other factors that go into determining premiums such as population, accident history, claims made, driving history and so on.  Blaming staged accidents allows the insurance companies to justify increased premiums which are simply making the fat cat insurance companies fatter.

If anything, the legislature should address increasing the amount and types of insurance that Florida drivers should be required to maintain.  In addition to PIP and property damage, each driver should be required to maintain bodily injury limits of at least $25,0000.00 per person.  If you are injured by the negligence of another in a car accident, at least you will know there will be some money available to compensate you for those injuries. Governor Scott, please don’t leave that decision to the individual driver.  In this economy, no one will have sufficient coverage to compensate those injured in automobile accidents.

The current “No-Fault” system in Florida was born from the idea that every person injured in an automobile accident should have access to medical care and other benefits regardless of who was at fault in the accident.  Prior to our “No-Fault” system, if a person was injured in a car accident and had no health insurance, that person would not have access to medical treatment (other than emergency room treatment) for the injuries that he or she sustained in the accident.  Under our current “No-Fault” system, every person who has a registered motor vehicle in the State of Florida must carry personal injury protection (PIP) insurance.  In most cases, limits of PIP coverage are $10,000.00 per person.  So every person who has PIP coverage has at least $10,000.00 to go towards medical care and lost wages incurred as a result of an automobile accident. Each person with a registered motor vehicle is also required to carry $10,000.00 of property damage coverage.  That means if you cause damage to another party’s vehicle, your insurance company will pay up to $10,000.00 to fix that person’s vehicle.  In addition, under our “No-Fault” system, a person injured in an automobile accident would only be entitled to recover from the “at-fault” party, economic losses such as past and future medical expenses unless they have sustained a threshold injury that would entitle that person to pain and suffering damages.  A threshold injury is; (A) a significant and permanent loss of an important bodily function; ( B) permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability other than scarring or disfigurement; (C) significant and permanent scarring or disfigurement and (D) death.

If you have been involved in an accident based on the negligence of another, and you have sustained one of the enumerated threshold injuries, you may be entitled to pain and suffering damages in addition to your economic damages such as past and future medical expenses, lost wages and loss of earning capacity.  Every system has its flaws and Florida’s “No-Fault” system is no exception.  It seems like every year our legislators try to change it or tweak it but for better or for worse, for now it works.

The Casey Anthony verdict was surprising to almost anyone who followed the case.   Most casual observers predicted that a guilty verdict was the only logical conclusion based on the bits and pieces of evidence that we heard as lay persons.  To say the jury verdict was surprising is an understatement.  Most of us were shocked given the amount of so called “evidence” against Casey Anthony.  However, the verdict clearly shows the unpredictability of jury verdicts.  This holds true whether the case is criminal or civil in nature.  Lawyers and litigants spend a great deal of time and money trying to analyze the psychology behind jury verdicts.  Despite years of research and empirical evidence, one constant remains– that is no one can predict what a jury is going to do.

This constant holds true in personal injury cases as well.  That is why lawyers and insurance professionals alike encourage resolution of personal injury claims through mediation and arbitration as opposed to going to trial.  A trial is a gamble for both parties.  In some cases however, there is no alternative but to let a jury decide a verdict in a personal injury case.  When all other means of settlement have been exhausted, the best approach to trial is to prepare, prepare, prepare and prepare.

       At Carman & Bevington, we start preparing for trial on the very first day we meet our client.  While the majority of personal injury cases settle before trial, from the very first day, we assume each case is going to trial.  With that in mind, we are constantly preparing to ultimately present the best case we can in front of a jury.  While juries are unpredictable, being prepared for trial lessens the unpredictability of the ultimate jury verdict.  No one can ever predict what a jury is going to do.  At Carman & Bevington, we try to minimize that unpredictability by representing our clients in a professional manner, by preparing for trial from the very first day we meet our clients and by presenting the best case we can to hopefully get the best results for our clients.