Florida No-Fault May Be Dead - WeSueThem

 Something very interesting happened last week in the Sunshine State. A comprehensive bill i) Mandating BI coverage for the first time in state history; ii) Legislatively approving Florida’s crazy bad-faith case law; and iii) Eliminating PIP passed both houses.

Where do I stand? I do both Plaintiff and Defense PIP in FLA, so I am saddened that my $3000 attorney fee and cost settlements may end. I also think the new bad faith statute will trip up insurance carriers more than the Harvey v. Geico standard. Also, eliminating threshold will lead to larger verdicts and more reversals where the jury find for Plaintiff on LOP medical bills but denies compensation for pain and suffering.

The PIP system is quite broken here, only beat out by the roofing cases and the out of control litigation on those matters. Yet, the way people drive in Florida, PIP is a very helpful coverage. There was a compromise bill that I thought would pass – it would replace PIP with $5,000 in mandatory Medpay coverage. The House did not want to pass it.

Long term, that would be preferable to the entire elimination of PIP. I wrote all the members of the House in Florida, but did not succeed in the enactment of a compromise bill.

The last step is for Gov. Ron DeSantis to either sign the bill, the veto the bill or do nothing…

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Monies paid for fraudulently procured services or supplies may be recovered under limited circumstances

  In a case with major implications, the Appellate Term for the 9th and 10th Judicial Districts reached a key compromise behind the dicta found at the Appellate Term’s holding in Fair Price v. Travelers (a precluded defense based upon fraud and unjust enrichment may be recouped in a civil action) and one of the many holdings in Cornell Medical v. Mercury (counterclaims or civil actions for paid-out monies are not permitted when the defense to the paid-out monies has been precluded). Namely, a counterclaim or civil action is permitted where the payments to the alleged fraudulent claims are made within 30-days of receipt of the bills.  To quote the court: If an insurer is precluded from asserting a defense due to its failure to pay or deny a claim within the 30-day claim determination period, it may not later seek to recover amounts it paid on the claim based on a theory of unjust enrichment ( see e.g. Cornell Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co. , 24 Misc 3d 58  [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th
Read more

Intercompany arbitration is inappropriate in New Jersey between a PIP carrier and a major medical insurance carrier

One of the interesting aspects or evolution of New Jersey PIP law is that is has devolved from a comprehensive all encompassing benefit to one that is either limited or non-existent. The historians will remember that until the 1990 Fair Automobile Insurance Reform Act, there was not coverage limit. That changed to $250,000 in 1990 along with the ability to have major medical be deemed primary.. In 1998, AICRA brought the common $15,000 PIP policies and mandated arbitration.   The question that lurked is what happened when major medical said go to PIP, PIP as secondary pays and then seeks to subrogate against the major medical carrier. The Appellate Division said you’re out of luck. (1) “When a PIP-as-secondary insurer receives a claim eligible for primary coverage, it must deny coverage and send the insured a notice advising them to submit the claim to their health insurer” (2) ” Health insurers are also required to make prompt payment of claims, but are governed by N.J.A.C. 11:22-1.1
Read more

When many new Court of Appeals Judge is a former prosecutor

This is not too off topic. The Court of Appeals is run by the prior DA of Westchester. Nassau County DA Singas has now been elevated to the Court of Appeals. Finally, Judge Garcis was a former prosecutor. Judge Cannataro was just elevated to the Court of Appeals but he reminded me of Judge Jeremy Weinstein – a professional administration judge, Not a bad thing mind you. So how does a bench with a dearth of Civil non-criminal experience handle insurance disputes and personal injury disputes? I really do now know. I have read on the criminal law blogs that the defense bar is crying, and I can understand their concern. But it seems that much of the decisions seem to be not necessarily on the pro-consumer side.  Simmons v Trans Express Inc. , 2021 NY Slip Op 03484 (2021)(in effect killing a wage and hour case through limited the bar on collateral estoppel found in the uniform small claims acts);  Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph, LLP v Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. ,
Read more