South Florida Car Accident Law Blog

Sometimes getting an insurance company to make payment after a car accident is as difficult as determining who is to blame for the crash. In Novoa v. Geico, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida explains insurers' responsibility to bargain in good faith.

Jose Ordonez was killed in a car accident in Florida on November 10, 2007. Ordonez had stopped the car he was driving to aid a stranded motorist on the side of the road when a car driven by Christopher Meldon slammed into the stranded vehicle. Ordonez's car was also damaged in the accident.

The accident was reported to Geico, with whom Meldon had an insurance policy covering $10,000 for bodily injury and $10,000 for property damage, on the day it occurred. The company sent a check for $10,000 to Ordonez's wife - Vivian Novoa - 17 days later. Claims examiner Lisa DePoy explained in the accompanying letter that the money represented the limit of Meldon's bodily injury coverage. She also requested that Novoa send her insurance information to Geico so that it could evaluate her claim for property damage.

The letter also included a release agreement, which the company asked Novoa to sign. Although the document indicated that Novoa would be releasing all claims against Geico stemming from the accident, the company stated in court filings that the release was intended to cover only the bodily injury potion of her claims.

Instead of depositing the check and signing the release, Novoa responded to Geico by demanding payment of $3,100 to cover the damage to Ordonez's car on Dec. 12, 2007. She hired a lawyer a month later and sued Meldon for wrongful death and Geico for PIP death benefits. She later settled the claim against Geico. Before receiving a copy of the complaint, Geico countered Novoa's property damage demand by offering nearly $1,500. The company explained that the stranded motorist also filed a claim for property damage. Because the combined claims exceeded the $10,000 coverage limit, the company offered Novoa a pro-rated amount.

Continue reading "Court Rejects Bad Faith Claim Against Insurance Company in Fatal Car Crash - Novoa v. Geico" »

In addition to serious injury and property damage, a Florida car accident can raise a number of complex legal issues regarding fault and liability. As the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision in Goheagan v. American Vehicle Insurance Company makes clear, these issues can become even more complicated when insurance companies get involved.

The case stemmed from a high-speed car accident in which John Perkins' vehicle rear-ended a car driven by Molly Swaby, who was severely injured and remained in a coma until she died three months later. Perkins reported the accident to his insurer, American Vehicle Insurance Company, two days after it occurred. AVIC claims adjuster Lee Ann Grieser told Perkins the company would attempt to settle the matter for $10,000 - the maximum amount for which Perkins was insured.

Grieser was unable, however, to get in contact with Swaby's mother, Olive Goheagan, who evaded Grieser during a series of phone calls. Grieser later learned that Goheagan had filed a wrongful death suit against Perkins. Goheagan later rejected AVIC's offer to settle the matter for $10,000.

Following trial in the wrongful death suit, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Goheagan, awarding her nearly $2.9 million in damages and another $20,000 in costs. Goheagan then sued AVIC, claiming that the company breached its duty of good faith owed to Perkins by failing to simply issue Swaby a check for $10,000. A trial court granted AVIC's motion for summary judgment, however, ruling that it would have been futile for the company to issue a check to Swaby because she was in a coma and never recovered. Goheagan, meanwhile, was not authorized to receive payment on Swaby's behalf, according to the court.

On appeal, the Fourth District upheld the lower court's ruling, but based on different reasoning. "When an insurer is handling claims against its insured, it has a duty to use the same degree of care and diligence as a person of ordinary care and prudence should exercise in the management of his own business," the Court explained, citing the state Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Perera v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty. That includes a duty to "settle the claim if possible, where a reasonably prudent person . . . would do so," according to the Court.

Continue reading "Insurance Issues in Florida Car Accident Lawsuits - Goheagan v. American Vehicle Insurance Company" »

In Trout v. Apicella, Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal explains that in car accident cases, a settlement is not a settlement unless it includes a legally valid offer and acceptance.

Ryan Trout was riding in a truck driven by James Apicella and owned by Donald Medlar and was seriously injured when the truck was involved in a accident.

The truck was covered under Medlar's Geico automobile insurance policy. Apicella also had a separate Geico car insurance policy. One day after the accident, Geico sent a letter to Trout with a $100,000 check made out to him and the hospital where he was being treated for his injuries enclosed. Upon Trout's lawyer's request, Geico later sent a detailed description of the coverage under the insurance policies. The second letter from Geico also included more money: two checks for $100,000, which the company said represented the limits of bodily injury coverage under both policies.

In response, Trout's attorney sent a letter to Geico offering to release any bodily injury claims Trout might have against Apicella, Medlar and Geico in exchange for the $200,000. Geico, in turn, answered with a draft release which included a provision stating that Trout was releasing all claims against the parties. Trout viewed this as a rejection of his settlement offer and proceeded to file the present suit against Geico, Apicella and Medlar.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, finding that the parties had settled the matter when Geico responded to Trout with the draft release agreement. On appeal, however, the Fifth District reversed the decision, finding that no settlement had been reached.

Continue reading "Florida Court Rules on 'Settlement' in Florida Car Accident Case - Trout v. Apicella" »