Commentary: Florida High Court Med Mal Award Cap Ruling Ignores Market History

June 28, 2017/in The Insurance Journal

Commentary: Florida High Court Med Mal Award Cap Ruling Ignores Market History

By Robert E. White, Jr. | June 28, 2017

In its recent ruling that the cap on noneconomic damages for personal injury awards or settlements in medical negligence cases was unconstitutional, the Florida Supreme Court ignored why these caps were put into place—to ensure patients’ access to care and ability to receive quality care.

On June 8, 2017, the court held that the cap violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Florida Constitution because it unreasonably and arbitrarily limited the right of recovery for those most grievously injured by medical negligence. The court went on to hold that arbitrary caps on personal injury noneconomic damages do not pass what is known as the “rational relationship test,” where a challenged law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

While disappointing, this ruling in North Broward Hospital District, et al v. Kalitan was not unexpected. In its opinion, the court heavily relied upon its 2014 ruling in The Estate of McCall v. USA, where it held that noneconomic damage caps were unconstitutional in wrongful death medical negligence cases.

In reaching its decisions in McCall and Kalitan, the court ignored the fact that on Aug. 28, 2002, Governor Jeb Bush appointed the Select Task Force on Healthcare Professional Liability Insurance because of a looming crisis of skyrocketing malpractice insurance rates.

This task force included the presidents of Florida A&M, University of Central Florida, and University of Miami; a past president of the University of Florida; and a board member of the University of South Florida. It undertook a comprehensive review of published studies and relevant literature and received extensive testimony during several meetings. The task force produced a 345-page report and 13 volumes of supportive material, making recommendations in the areas of patient safety, tort reform, and insurance reform.

The Florida Legislature debated the matter throughout the 2003 session but could not agree on how to resolve the complex issues that created the crisis. Then-Governor Bush called them back into special session in the summer of 2003 three times before both houses of the legislature could finally agree on a solution.

In the end, they found that Florida was in the midst of a medical malpractice insurance crisisof unprecedented magnitude that was causing physicians to retire early, move out of state, and limit the types of procedures they performed. The crisis was also causing hospitals to close obstetrical wards. They found that the crisis was not only restricting access to care for Floridians but also impacting the quality of that care.

The legislature based their findings that a crisis existed and action was needed on the following:

– In 2002, the average premium per doctor in Florida was 55 percent higher than the national average.
– In the preceding six years, the average increase in Florida insurance premiums was 64 percent compared to 26 percent for the rest of the country.
– Premium increases were being driven by increases in payments to patients.
– Noneconomic damages constituted 77 percent of total damages paid to claimants.
– The high cost of medical malpractice claims could be substantially alleviated by imposing a limit on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice actions.
– Besides the impact on patient care, the elimination of the cap on noneconomic damages because of the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to increase the frequency and cost (severity) of claims. This could drive up premiums and ultimately the cost of healthcare.

Make-Up of Court’s Impact on Caps

The only good news in the Kalitan decision is that it was decided on a 4-3 vote while McCall was decided on a 5-2 vote, because Justice C. Alan Lawson was appointed by Governor Rick Scott earlier this year to replace retired Justice James E.C. Perry.

The dissenting opinions in both of these cases argue that the court’s majority violated the separation of power rule by infringing upon the legislature’s role to make policy under the Florida Constitution. Of the four justices who voted to find the cap unconstitutional, three—Barbara J. Pariente, R. Fred Lewis, and Peggy A. Quince—are facing mandatory retirement in January 2019.

A supreme court more favorable to caps may exist in the future, and the battle over the philosophical bent of the future court has already begun.

About Robert E. White, Jr.
Robert E. White, Jr. is senior vice president and regional operating officer for The Doctors Company. White is located in Jacksonville, Fla. and is responsible for The Doctors Company’s Southeast Region. The Doctors Company is the largest insurer of healthcare providers in Florida, insuring over 14,000 healthcare providers in the state. White has 48 years of experience in the insurance industry, including managing the claims and loss prevention departments of several commercial and doctor owned insurance companies before coming to The Doctors Company in an administrative capacity 15 years ago. He served as president of the Insurance Operations of FPIC Insurance Group from 2002 to 2011 and has played a role in the legislative process in Florida’s tort reform battles since 1982.

See Full Article

Litigation Scheme Seen as Driving Auto Glass Claims in 5 Florida Counties

June 23, 2017/in Florida Record

Litigation scheme seen as driving auto glass claims in 5 Florida counties

by Michael Carroll | Jun. 23, 2017, 10:11am

TALLAHASSEE — Some Florida counties are seeing a major spike in auto glass litigation, generating fears that auto insurance premiums may follow the trajectory of rising property insurance rates in the state.

A recent study by the Florida Justice Reform Institute found an exponential rise in auto glass litigation in the state over the past several years. The study concludes that collusion between some auto glass companies and a small number of attorneys is largely responsible for the trend. And it’s being done through an exploitation of a provision known as assignment of benefits, the study says.

“This litigation-for-profit scheme permeates the property insurance, auto glass and (personal injury protection, or PIP) marketplaces,” according to the January study. “While this scheme has been prevalent for many years in PIP, contributing significantly to the problems with that coverage over the years, it has recently been exported to the property and auto glass marketplaces.”

The institute’s numbers indicate that legal cases involving auto glass stood at only 92 from 2000 to 2005. But in the from 2010 to 2014, 13,100 such cases were filed in Florida courts, and the cases approached 20,000 last year.

“Our study notes that there has been an extraordinary increase in auto glass claims,” William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, told the Florida Record.

No geological or meteorological event during this period can explain such a spike in damaged auto glass or windshields, leaving litigation as the likely culprit, he said.

Typically, third-party vendors might stake out a big box store looking for cars with hairline cracks in the windshield, Large said. They try to persuade the owners of such vehicles to sign over their insurance benefits in exchange for replacing the windshield at no charge, possibly with a gift certificate thrown in, he said.

The glass vendor could then charge the customer’s insurer an inflated fee, according to Large. The vendor could take the insurer to court if the insurance company refuses to pay, and under Florida law, the vender has the right to have attorney fees paid by the insurer if the vendor prevails in court.

“You shouldn’t have a situation in which there’s a third-party vendor praying on people in retail parking lots,” Large said.

In response to a query by the Florida Record, the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation did not comment specifically on auto glass litigation. But the agency did say that similar lawsuits involving assignment of benefits by property owners who were victims of water damage during hurricanes and other weather-related events have been driving up homeowner insurance costs.

Most of the property insurance companies’ rate filings to the Office of Insurance Regulation in 2014 were for rate decreases or no changes, but by 2016, nearly three-quarters of the rate filings dealt with proposed rate increases.

“We have already begun to work on how to best mitigate this cost driver going forward, including preparing proposals for the 2018 legislative session,” Amy Bogner, spokeswoman for the Office of Insurance Regulation, told the Florida Record in an email.

But Don Munro, president of Tampa-based Auto Glass Appraisal Services, challenged the idea that insurers are being forced to increase premiums due to a few bad apples in the auto services industry. Insurers may have begun taking a harder line in recent years by not paying auto shops a fair price for the work they do, Munro said, causing the shops to simply fight back via the legal system.

In addition, many insurance policies have provisions that allow appraisals and arbitration as alternatives to litigation, he said.

“That is an avenue insurance companies can utilize to avoid litigation,” Munro told the Florida Record.

The assignment of benefits provisions are beneficial because the person who’s insured can have his problem addressed quickly and does not have to lay out money up front, he said.

Both Large and the state’s insurance commissioner, David Altmaier, favor a legislative reform that would reserve the one-way attorney fee provision only for the policyholder, not third-party vendors. That would potentially keep premiums down and reduce litigation, they say.

The Florida Justice Reform Institute’s research also found that 75 percent of the auto glass litigation in Florida is now concentrated in five counties: Pinellas, Orange, Hillsborough, Broward and Miami-Dade. Moreover, a relatively small number of vendors and law firms are behind these types of lawsuits, the institute’s research says.

The assignment of benefits issue began to be seen in water-damage claims after a series of hurricanes struck the state, Large said, and then it “metastasized” to auto glass.

“Something has become perverted…” Large said. “That’s why we need the legislature to act and fix this problem.”

http://flarecord.com/stories/511123048-litigation-scheme-seen-as-driving-auto-glass-claims-in-5-florida-counties

Reinsurers in Florida advised caution over AOB epidemic: Hiscox Re

June 15, 2017/in Reinsurance News

Reinsurers in Florida advised caution over AOB epidemic: Hiscox Re

15th June 2017 – Author: Marianne Lehnis

If the Assignment of Benefits (AOB) epidemic sweeping Florida continues unchecked, insurers with weaker capitalisation could see rating downgrades or be put out of business entirely, while reinsurers’ credit risk skyrockets, Bevis Tetlow, Chair of Hiscox Re’s North America business warned.

Florida insurers have been struggling to keep their head above water as attritional loss ratios deteriorate faster than insurers can adjust their premium rates.

And the 13 law firms responsible for driving AOB activity in the region are said to be gearing up operations by opening new offices in Orlando and Pinellas – to survive the increased AOB onslaught, re/insurers will need to step up their proactive game.

Last year’s average third-quarter combined ratios for Floridian homeowner insurers came to over 100% due to loss ratio deterioration resulting from fraudulent water claims, Tetlow explained; “At the same time, net incomes decreased by 64%, with 20 Florida domestic carriers experiencing surplus reductions. Fourth quarter combined ratios, including Hurricane Matthew losses, are expected to deteriorate further.

“This has the potential to affect reinsurers by increasing credit risk from third and fourth quarter premium payments and hurricane claims inflation. Whether or not AOB has the ability to inflate hurricane claims remains open to debate.”

Floridian Reinsurers are advised to take measures to self-protect by selecting carriers who have already undertaken measures to reduce their risk of AOB fraud.

Some such measures include setting up claims teams who can close claims quickly through a well-resourced internal team instead of using third-party adjusters, policy language can be adjusted to require insureds to sign an AOB waiver, carriers can also choose to only work with qualified contractors to undertake repairs.

Insurers could also raise awareness with educational campaigns for customers, highlighting pitfalls of assigning away rights, Tetlow suggested.

The Consumer Protection Coalition said payouts for water claims received by Citizens Property Insurance Corporation over the last three and a half years, where litigation was involved, has doubled from $10,000 to $20,000 and The Florida Justice Reform Institute added that from 2010-2016, “the number of AOB lawsuits rose by 300%.”

These figures demonstrate the severity of the problem, which re/insurers in the region need to tackle head on, if they hope to maintain profitable Floridian business.

Assignment of benefits (AOB) is when a homeowner signs over the representation of their insurance claim, typically to contractors who receive a fee from lawyers to sign people up. The lawyers then file an inflated claim along with an inflated legal bill.

This sets up an expensive trap for insurers, who are left with sky-high payouts whether they chose to settle the claim immediately, or fight the fraud in court.

https://www.reinsurancene.ws/reinsurers-florida-advised-caution-aob-epidemic-hiscox-re/

Insurance Commissioner Calls for Assignment of Benefits Changes

June 15, 2017/in wfsu.org

Insurance Commissioner Calls For Assignment Of Benefits Changes

By NICK EVANS • JUN 15, 2017

David Altmaier.

Florida Insurance Commissioner David Altmaier.
CREDIT FLORIDA CHANNEL

Florida’s insurance officials are considering moves to rein in assignments after the Legislature again failed to take action. The procedure allows service providers to work directly with an insurer, but some say they’re taking advantage of the system.

Insurance companies are complaining that a procedure called assignment of benefits is going to force them to raise premiums, and a number of state officials have been sympathetic.

“It’s just flying off the chart,” CFO Jeff Atwater says. “And there’s nothing about the age of the home that seems to be involved, nothing about anything other than a few law firms have found a way to make the most of this opportunity with a few contractors.”

The outgoing cabinet member is joining insurance commissioner David Altmaier in urging state lawmakers to take action on the issue. But for a number of years legislation has faltered. 2017 was no exception.

Meanwhile Atwater says the problem—which began with ballooning water claims in South Florida—is only growing.

“It was localized, but it’s not anymore,” he says. “And there are both issues of water, fire—and now windshield.”

“And if you were to look at the data, Seminole County, a particular windshield repair player has done thousands all of the sudden,” he goes on.

“I mean, it’s as if how did every windshield in Seminole County all of the sudden go bad?”

The spike in windshield claims is actually centered in Hillsborough County, which according to the Florida Justice Reform Institute, accounted for more than a third of the state’s windshield litigation last year.

Commissioner Altmaier is weighing changes to claims forms—things like narrowing the definition of emergency mitigation or imposing requirements for notifying an insurer—that he believes could discourage fraud.

“So when we say policy form changes we’re going to continue to look at situations like that that can be clarified or shored up that can address this issue,” Altmaier says, “but at the same time make sure that we don’t unintentionally impact the ability for a consumer to get their claim paid or have the coverage that they need to have.”

State backed property insurer Citizens insurance recently established similar requirements.

Altmaier is quick to point out he wants legislative direction, but he says some abuses are out of control.

“You know, ‘Call this number and get a free roof. Call this number and get a free windshield. Here’s a free steak dinner if you call us and have your windshield repaired,’” he rattles off.

“I think that it’s clear to me based on that information as well as the data we have seen that there are individuals that have recognized that they are in an advantageous position if they get into litigation with an insurance company.”

Altmaier is still working on what his policy changes might look like and he doesn’t have a timeline yet for enacting them.

http://news.wfsu.org/post/insurance-commissioner-calls-assignment-benefits-changes

Consumers Paying for Florida Legislature’s Inaction on Assignment of Benefits (AOB) ‘Scams’

June 7, 2017/in Florida Record

Consumers paying for Florida legislature’s inaction on Assignment of Benefits (AOB) ‘scams’

by W.J. Kennedy | Jun. 7, 2017, 12:23pm

TALLAHASSEE – Regular session for the Florida Legislature ended in early May without approval of legislation that would have squashed a new rash of insurance scams involving car windshield replacements, and help reverse a rapid increase in insurance rates stemming from these and related fraudulent activity.

In fact, the legislation, SB 1038, sponsored by Sen. Dorothy Hukill (R-Port Orange) was never even seriously considered by the Florida Senate.

The legislation would have left the state’s one-way attorney fee provision in the hands of the consumer, and not transfer it to a third party, where the consumer signs over insurance policy benefits (AOB) to a vendor, or attorney. Transference of the attorney fee provision is all the force that some vendors need to bill the insurance company three or four times the actual cost of windshield replacements, business and insurance officials say. Typically, an insurer -whose first notification of the damage and repair is when it receives the bill – usually pays up rather than incur the costs to fight the bill in court.

“To fight, they have to pay a lawyer to defend and then pay the other party’s lawyer if they lose,” said William Large, president, Florida Justice Reform Institute. “It’s usually not worth it to them.”

Large said the AOB abuse began in south Florida with vendors sometimes repairing water damage in a home caused by a leaky pipe with brand new bathrooms and kitchens, and then billing the carrier directly. Again, the insurance company is first notified of the damage when it receives the bill; the repairs are already complete so sending an adjuster to assess the actual damage would be pointless.

The Florida Department of Financial Services reports that lawsuits brought by auto glass companies against insurance companies skyrocketed from 1,389 in 2012 to 19,695 in 2016.

The trouble is insurance rates for everyone are on the rise because of abusive practices.

Edie Ousely, vice president for public affairs at the Florida Chamber of Commerce, said that legislative inaction on AOB abuse has caused an 18 percent increase in property insurance rates for some Floridians.

“Auto owners are feeling the pinch too,” she said. “In fact, auto glass related lawsuits make up 70 percent of all AOB lawsuits. Just last year, there were 28,000 auto glass AOB lawsuits filed.”

Citizens Property Insurance Corp., the residual market mechanism in Florida, is feeling the pressure. Earlier this spring, the insurer announced a $27.1 million loss, its first since 2005. Citizens expects an $86 million loss by 2018.

The insurer attributes the losses to AOB abuse.

Liz Reynolds, director of state affairs – Southeast Region, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, said the practice is beginning to drive away private insurance carriers.

“The one-way attorney fee was established as a David vs. Goliath type of scenario,” she said. “It gives the consumer the power to stand up against an insurance company. This practice has nothing to do with the consumer. In fact, most times they don’t even know that their insurance company is being sued by the third party they assigned the benefits to.”

http://flarecord.com/stories/511124568-consumers-paying-for-florida-legislature-s-inaction-on-assignment-of-benefits-aob-scams?t=9pC4R8XYpyQnr_sBM0bW

Scott Signs Bill to Reduce ‘Frivolous’ Public Records Lawsuits

June 6, 2017/in Florida Record

Scott signs bill to reduce ‘frivolous’ public records lawsuits

By Glenn Minnis | Jun 6, 2017

TALLAHASSEE — Gov. Rick Scott has signed a bill passed by the Florida Senate aimed at rooting out “gotcha” public records requests that have long been a part of the state’s legal landscape.

Introduced by Sen. Greg Steube (R-Sarasota), Senate Bill 80 is designed to penalize what he calls serial records abusers who work to snare public officials into scenarios in which the violation of public records laws can be argued, to gain a monetary settlement in any subsequent legal action.

The plan would also grant judges more discretion in determining whether any attorney’s fees should stem from the ongoing litigation.

The legislation also stipulates that judges award attorney fees if they uncover that an agency violated public records law and a “requestor” gave five days’ notice before filing suit.

The judge would also have the discretion of ruling on the burning question of if a requestor was guided by an “improper purpose” or “frivolous” reason in making the filing.

For years, local governments in Florida have insisted they have been dogged by requests that later turn into baseless legal actions. Current law mandates that state and local agencies cover the cost of attorney fees in public records cases.

“Senate Bill 80 is an important piece of legislation,” William W. Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute told the Florida Record. “For too long, public records requests were being made for the purposes of obtaining attorneys’ fees. Now, this new law clarifies there cannot be an improper purpose behind the public records request.”

In Florida, the law on public records is the only form of legal enforcement regarding such matters short of prosecution.

Steube originally proposed removing the requirement that the legal fees be paid by agencies by altering the stipulation that judges “shall” award attorney’s fees to they “may” bestow them.

“Gov. Scott was correct to sign this bill,” Large said. “Hopefully, it will put an end to frivolous public records requests and the large attorneys’ fee awards associated with them.”

https://flarecord.com/stories/511123159-scott-signs-bill-to-reduce-frivolous-public-records-lawsuits

Florida Court Throws Out Cap on Medical Malpractice Damages

June 6, 2017/in Bloomberg BNA

Professional Liability
Florida Court Throws Out Cap on Medical Malpractice Damages

By Mary Anne Pazanowski – June 6, 2017

Noneconomic damages are no longer limited for medical malpractice personal injury plaintiffs in Florida (N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Kalitan, Fla., No. SC15-1858, 6/8/17).

A split Florida Supreme Court June 8 said the $500,000 per claimant cap ($1 million for an injury resulting in a permanent vegetative state, catastrophic injury, or death) violated the state constitution’s equal protection clause under the rational basis test. The court said the “arbitrary reduction of compensation without regard to the severity of the injury does not bear a rational relationship to the Legislature’s stated interest in addressing the medical malpractice crisis.”

Noneconomic damages compensate people for injuries that can’t be quantified easily, like pain and suffering. Most states have limits on these types of damages in medical malpractice cases, so the court’s decision could have some influence outside Florida.

Additionally, congressional Republicans have been trying to enact medical malpractice tort reform measures, including damages caps, through their Obamacare repeal and replacement bill.

‘No Brainer’

The court issued a per curiam, or unsigned, opinion, which Robert S. Peck told Bloomberg BNA he took as a sign the majority considered the issue to be a “no brainer.” Peck is the founder and president of the Center for Constitutional Litigation in Washington and regularly litigates on behalf of plaintiffs seeking to overturn tort reform laws.

Peck said challenges to noneconomic damages caps are filtering up through the courts in other states, in addition to one currently before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Florida court’s decision, though based on state law, could have an impact on those cases, he said. Peck noted that the court cited opinions from Illinois, Wisconsin, and Texas when explaining its reasoning.

William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute in Tallahassee, “respectfully disagreed” with the majority decision. Large told Bloomberg BNA the court “improperly injected the judicial branch into the legislative process” when it decided there was no rational basis for the cap.

The FJRI’s mission is to “fight wasteful civil litigation through legislation, promote fair and equitable legal practices, and provide information about the state of civil justice in Florida,” according to its website. The group filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, arguing the caps should be upheld.

Prior Rationale Applied

The majority’s opinion applied the analysis from an earlier case argued by Peck, Estate of McCall v. United States, in which the Florida Supreme Court, on a question certified from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, said the statutory cap on wrongful death economic damages violated the state constitution’s equal protection clause.

In McCall, the court said the statute in question—the same provision at issue in the present case, though as applied to wrongful death actions as opposed to personal injury claims—imposed unfair burdens on injured parties and didn’t bear a reasonable relationship to the purpose the cap was intended to address, namely reducing an alleged medical malpractice crisis in the state.

The present court said the same rationale applied in the personal injury arena. The statutory cap, Fla. Stat. § 766.118(2) and (3), provides a $500,000 cap for personal injuries arising from a health-care provider’s medical negligence, and a $1 million cap when the provider’s negligence resulted in death, a permanent vegetative state, or catastrophic injury. For an injury caused by a nonprovider’s negligence, the caps are $750,000 and $1.5 million, respectively.

The court said the varying caps were arbitrary and could result in a patient with a less severe injury receiving full compensation, while a catastrophically injured person “has utterly no chance of being fully compensated.” The caps discriminated between classes of medical malpractice victims, the court said.

No Crisis

The court also questioned the need for the caps as a way to address the perceived medical malpractice insurance crisis. The Florida Legislature, in enacting the law, said Florida was “in the midst of a medical malpractice insurance crisis of unprecedented magnitude.”

But the court in McCall found no evidence demonstrating how the cap alleviated the crisis, the per curiam opinion said. Moreover, there was no evidence, according to the McCall opinion, that a crisis still existed, or even if it ever had existed.

The present court agreed there was “no evidence of a continuing medical malpractice insurance crisis justifying” the cap.

Chief Justice Jorge Labarga and Justices Barbara J. Pariente, R. Fred Lewis, and Peggy A. Quince formed the majority.

Justice Ricky L. Polston dissented in a separate opinion joined by Justices Charles T. Canady and C. Alan Lawson.

Rational Basis Test

Large told Bloomberg BNA the court went outside the traditional rational basis test and, by doing so, supplanted the Legislature’s role. The Florida Legislature explained its reasons for enacting the caps, namely, to curb the high cost of medical malpractice actions and to promote the high quality of medical care, when it adopted the legislation, he said.

“Under the rational basis test, the court is supposed to defer to the Legislature if there is any ‘rational basis’ in the record,” Large said. “Here, the court, in effect, found there was no conceivable rational basis for the Legislature’s action.”

Moreover, in deciding there was no current medical malpractice insurance crisis, the court “improperly injected the judicial branch into the legislative process,” Large said. It is the role of the Legislature, not the judiciary, to decide if a crisis exists.

“Legislative bodies are rarely on the losing side of a rational basis analysis, except in Florida,” Large said.

Large added that “any future medical malpractice reform needs to focus on the frequency and severity of medical malpractice claims.”

Perception of Crisis

Peck, however, said the Florida cap was enacted in 2003, when a “perception of a crisis” existed. Studies conducted since then have indicated that tort reform measures like damages caps didn’t solve the perceived problem of increasing medical malpractice insurance premiums, he said.

States that haven’t had damages caps have done just as well as states that have caps, Peck said. Additionally, if there ever was a crisis, it wasn’t permanent, Peck said.

Peck told Bloomberg BNA he doesn’t believe any proposals for federal medical malpractice damages caps will succeed. There are constitutional impediments to these caps, he said.

These include the 10th Amendment’s directive that certain issues be left to the states, and the Seventh Amendment’s right-to-jury trial clause, which has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court as providing that a jury must decide damages, and any law removing that function from the jury interferes with the right to a jury trial.

Mark Hicks and Dinah Stein, of Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein PA, Miami; and Thomas A. Valdez and Jeffrey R. Creasman, of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer PA, Tampa, Fla., represented the defendants. Crane A. Johnstone and Scott P. Schlesinger, of Schlesinger Law Offices PA, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; and Philip M. Burlington and Nichole J. Segal, of Burlington & Rockenbach PA, West Palm Beach, Fla., represented the plaintiff.

To contact the reporter on this story: Mary Anne Pazanowski in Washington at [email protected]

Commentary: Florida High Court Med Mal Award Cap Ruling Ignores Market History

Litigation scheme seen as driving auto glass claims in 5 Florida counties

Reinsurers in Florida advised caution over AOB epidemic: Hiscox Re

Insurance Commissioner Calls For Assignment Of Benefits Changes

Consumers paying for Florida legislature’s inaction on Assignment of Benefits (AOB) ‘scams’

Scott signs bill to reduce ‘frivolous’ public records lawsuits

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Site Links