Robert Luck’s Florida Supreme Court appointment garners reaction

January 14, 2019/in Florida Politics

Ron DeSantis is naming Robert J. Luck of the
Third District Court of Appeal as his second
appointment the Florida Supreme Court.

(Image via J. Albert Diaz)

Robert Luck’s Florida Supreme Court appointment garners reaction
By Staff Reports on January 14, 2019

Leaders in law, politics and business chimed in after news that Gov. Ron DeSantis had appointed appellate judge Robert Luck to fill a vacancy on the state’s Supreme Court:

— Republican Attorney General Ashley Moody: “Judge Luck has distinguished himself in his service as a federal prosecutor, circuit court judge, and a judge on the Third District Court of Appeal. He will be a great addition to the Florida Supreme Court.

“As a former judge and prosecutor, it is important that we have well-qualified justices who are committed to the rule of law. Personally, I am excited about Justice Luck’s appointment. We served as circuit judges at the same time and we taught judges together constitutional principles and fundamental rights against unlawful governmental intrusions.

“I know he will be a vigilant guardian of freedom and separation of powers. My office looks forward to appearing in front of the full Florida Supreme Court, including Justice Luck.”

— Senate President Bill Galvano, a Bradenton Republican: “I was pleased to read that Justice Luck commented during the announcement of his appointment that the Constitution, not the Judiciary, is supreme. I certainly agree.

“Governor DeSantis has demonstrated again today that he is committed to appointing judges who have the utmost respect for the separation of powers defined in our Constitution. I wish Justice Luck well as he begins his service on our state’s highest court.”

— U.S. Sen. and former Gov. Rick Scott, a Naples Republican, in a tweet: “Another strong choice from @GovRonDeSantis! Congratulations to Robert Luck on his appointment to the Florida Supreme Court. I was proud to appoint him to the District Court in 2017 and I know he will always uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.”

— House Speaker Jose Oliva, a Miami Lakes Republican: “… a welcome development for all who believe in judicial restraint. Justice Luck’s vocal repudiation of judicial activism and opposition to legislating from the bench is both a refreshing and reassuring judicial philosophy.

“With each nomination the Governor is solidifying Florida’s place amongst those who cherish freedom and the rule of law. I congratulate Justice Luck and his family and welcome another Miami native to the Florida Supreme Court.”

— Sen. Perry Thurston Jr., a Fort Lauderdale Democrat: “With his last appointment to Florida’s Supreme Court imminent, we are again urging Governor Ron DeSantis to maintain diversity on our highest court. We know there are candidates not being considered that are highly qualified and represent Florida’s diversity.”

— Florida Family Policy Council President John Stemberger: “Robert Luck is a brilliant jurist. To speak with, or listen to Judge Luck, is to realize you are in the presence of a truly unique and Scalia-like intellect.

“Luck fully understands that the role of a judge is a limited one of restraint. He has demonstrated over the years through his written decisions and public statements, that the job of a judge is to interpret law as it is written and not make law or engage in result-oriented decision making.

As an observant Jew, Luck is also grounded in ethical and moral principles that will surely guide and inform his service to the state of Florida. Once again, Ron DeSantis has made a very solid appointment that will help to define his legacy as Governor for years to come.”

— William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute: “Governor DeSantis’ appointment of Justice Luck … continues an impressive record of accomplishment in only the first few days of his administration. DeSantis’ actions are the mark of a leader determined to exert the executive’s constitutionally lawful check on the judicial branch of government.

“Justice Luck’s broad experience and legal acumen will serve the Court well. The Florida Justice Reform Institute applauds Governor DeSantis’ for his continued commitment to setting a new course for our Florida Supreme Court.”

— Fred Karlinsky, Greenberg Traurig shareholder and member of the Florida Supreme Court Judicial Nominating Commission: “Governor DeSantis made another excellent and very thoughtful Supreme Court selection. Robert Luck has a good record on the bench and a reputation as someone who is going to uphold the law. Like newly appointed Justice Lagoa, he has been dedicated to public service.”

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/285408-robert-luck-supreme-court-reaction

Newsmakers react to Barbara Lagoa’s Florida Supreme Court appointment

January 9, 2019/in Florida Politics

HEADLINES
Newsmakers react to Barbara Lagoa’s Florida Supreme Court appointment

By Staff Reports on January 9, 2019

With Gov. Ron DeSantis on Wednesday appointing appellate judge Barbara Lagoa to fill a vacancy on the state’s Supreme Court, leaders in law, politics and business reacted:

— Attorney General Ashley Moody: “As the first Cuban-American woman to serve on the 3rd District Court of Appeals and the author of more than 300 majority opinions, her elevation is well deserved.

“As a former judge and prosecutor, I know the importance of having well qualified justices who are committed to the rule of law on Florida’s high court. Like Gov. DeSantis, I believe judges should enforce the law as written and intended by our elected lawmakers.

“… Gov. DeSantis has fulfilled one of his most important campaign promises, and he should be applauded for doing so, quickly and purposefully. My office looks forward to appearing in front of the full Florida Supreme Court, including newly selected Justice Lagoa.”

— Lt. Gov. Jeanette Nuñez: “I am excited that the Governor has appointed such an extraordinarily well qualified candidate to the Florida Supreme Court. Justice Barbara Lagoa embodies the work ethic and values of the South Florida community. She will be an outstanding jurist who will uphold our constitution and the rule of law.”

— Senate President Bill Galvano, a Bradenton Republican: “I appreciated the Governor’s comments during his inauguration yesterday in which he stressed the proper role of the judiciary, and I am confident today’s appointment of Justice Lagoa is in line with the standards the Governor laid out during his remarks.

“I share the Governor’s concern that in recent years the power of the judicial branch has extended beyond its limited constitutional responsibility, in many cases eroding the authority of the legislative branch. I believe democracy is at its best when each branch of government exercises both authority and restraint at the appropriate time.

“That concept was certainly at the heart of the many of the comments we heard from the Governor yesterday and echoed again this morning with the appointment of Justice Lagoa. I offer my congratulations to Justice Lagoa and wish her well as she begins this exciting new role serving our state on the Florida Supreme Court. I also congratulate Governor DeSantis on his first Supreme Court appointment.”

— House Speaker Jose Oliva, a Miami Lakes Republican: “Justice Barbara Lagoa is eminently qualified to serve the state of Florida on the Supreme Court. Whether it was graduating from Columbia Law School, serving as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, or as a judge on the 3rd District Court of Appeal, (her) commitment to this country and our Constitution should serve as an example for all Floridians.

“Today, one of Hialeah’s own sits on the Florida Supreme Court. And freedom is more secure because of it.”

— Maria D. Garcia, President-Elect of the Cuban American Bar Association (CABA): “For the past 12 years, Judge Lagoa has served our community and judiciary as the first Cuban-American woman on the 3rd District Court of Appeal. CABA is very proud of all her accomplishments and her new role in the Florida Supreme Court.

“… As a fellow daughter of Cuban exiles, I am excited that Governor DeSantis made such a wise choice for the Florida Supreme Court. Judge Lagoa has always set a bright example for the legal community and has an impeccable record as a jurist.”

— Florida Family Policy Council President John Stemberger: DeSantis “has made a simply outstanding choice … She is smart, thoughtful, and has a conservative judicial philosophy that appreciates the limited role of the court.

“She is also deeply committed to her faith, her family and her community. In the world of judicial appointments, Barbara Lagoa is a home run. Governor DeSantis should be highly commended for a very thorough vetting process and a commitment to appoint such highly principled Justices as Barbara Lagoa.”

— William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, called Lagoa’s appointment “the first step towards fulfilling his promise to appoint judges who will interpret the law and not legislate from the bench.”

His organization, which advocates for tort reform, has “long called for judges who are textualists – who will say what the law is, and not what they think it should be – and who show deference to the legislature as the rightful policymaking branch of government.”

— Tallahassee lawyer Daniel Nordby, who was general counsel to former Gov. Rick Scott, added it was “a home run for Gov. DeSantis. She’s a brilliant and principled judge with a proven track record on the appellate bench. Promise kept.”

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/284997-react-barbara-lagoa-appointment

Tort reform group slams Florida for ‘excessive’ litigation

October 22, 2018/in Florida Politics

Tort reform group slams Florida for ‘excessive’ litigation

STAFF REPORTS
October 22, 2018

Florida loses more than $11.8 billion and 126,000 jobs each year to “excessive” litigation, according to an analysis released Monday by the Florida Justice Reform Institute.

The trend most hurts the retail sector, at a cost of more than 39,413 jobs, followed by business services, at 20,237, and health services, at 17,452, according to research conducted for Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, another tort reform organization.

The analysis claims more than $7.5 billion in lost personal income, including wages, interest and rents — more than $357 for every person in Florida.

Additionally, such litigation trims almost $615 million from annual state revenues and $516 million for local government.

“These findings detail how Florida’s lawsuit abuse climate is holding back our economy and costing every person real money,” institute president William Large said in a statement.

“The Florida Justice Reform Institute’s entire mission is focused on fighting wasteful civil litigation. Now, this landmark report reveals just how much work we have to do in Florida.”

The Perryman Group, an economic forecasting firm, drew on surveys, industry information, and other sources to produce the report.

Tort lawsuits seek redress for wrongdoing that cause loss or harm, and include actions for personal injury and products liability. Tort reforms have included legislated limits on damages and mandatory arbitration of workplace and business disputes.

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/278422-tort-reform-excessive-litigation

No-fault insurer prevails in attempted class action over Medicare reimbursement

September 26, 2018/in Capitol News Service, CQ Roll Call, Daily Commerical, FlaNewsOnline, Florida Politics, Florida Trend, Florida Watchdog, Orlando Political Observer, Roundtable Politics, Tallahasssee Reports, wctv.tv

No-fault insurer prevails in attempted class action over Medicare reimbursement

Michael Moline – September 26, 2018

A state appeals court has rejected a class action filed by a Medicare Advantage organization seeking double reimbursements for its costs of providing care that should have been covered by a no-fault auto insurer.

In a unanimous ruling, the 3rd District Court of Appeal said such organizations would have to establish each claim separately against Ocean Harbor Casualty Insurance.

The court overruled Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Samantha Ruiz-Cohen, who had certified a class potentially including 37 Florida Medicare Advantage organizations, or MROs.

The lead plaintiff was an entity called MSPA, an assignee of the defunct MRO Florida Healthcare Plus Inc.

“Proof that certain medical bills paid by MSPA’s alleged assignor should have been paid by Ocean Harbor as a primary payer will not establish that other medical bills paid by a different MAO should also have been paid by Ocean Harbor as a primary payer,” Judge Thomas Logue wrote.

“To the contrary, proof to establish liability will necessarily devolve into a series of mini-trials under Florida no-fault law … which precludes a finding of predominance and renders this case inappropriate for class action treatment,” Logue wrote.

“Accordingly, we reverse the provisions of the certification order under review in conflict with this opinion.”

MAOs are private companies that contract with Medicare to provide coverage at a flat rate per enrollee. They profit to the degree they provide the required coverage for less than the flat rate.

The coverage is meant to be secondary to other, primary, coverage, including personal injury protection policies.

Miami plaintiffs’ attorney John Ruiz argued that he could establish the common claims necessary to sustain a class action using an algorithm that analyzes police reports of accidents and other records that Ocean Harbor must report under state and federal law.

He argued that Ocean Harbor’s obligation to pay was automatic once his client established that it had made payments reimbursable by the insurer.

The 3rd DCA disagreed.

“We reject the notion that MSPA claims reimbursement rights are not governed by Florida law relating to the recovery of benefits under a PIP policy, and are therefore automatic,” Logue wrote.

“Instead, MSPA must demonstrate that, in addition to any requirements of federal law, Ocean Harbor was required to make the payment in the first instance under Florida no-fault law for each reimbursement it claims.”

William Large, president of the tort-reformer Florida Justice Reform Institute, praised the outcome.

“The plaintiff has filed dozens of copycat cases against Florida insurers raising the same claims — this case was simply the first to reach the class certification stage,” Large said in a written statement.

“In certifying the class, the trial court failed to rigorously apply Florida’s class action certification requirements, which are necessary to protect defendants’ due process rights. The 3rd DCA recognized this overreach and ruled appropriately.”

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/275876-no-fault-insurer-prevails-in-attempted-class-action-over-medicare-reimbursement

Supreme Court reinstates $8.5M verdict against Geico

September 20, 2018/in Florida Politics

State Supreme Court building in Tallahassee, Florida.

Supreme Court reinstates $8.5M verdict against Geico

By Michael Moline on September 20, 2018

A closely divided Florida Supreme Court on Thursday reinstated a bad faith judgment against Geico Insurance, concluding in a 4-3 decision that the insurer had improperly exposed a policyholder to an $8.5 million judgment in a wrongful death action.

Writing for the majority, Justice Peggy A. Quince emphasized insurers’ duty to zealously represent customers against potential lawsuits. That obligation is “not a mere checklist,” Quince wrote.

“An insurer is not absolved of liability simply because it advises its insured of settlement opportunities, the probable outcome of the litigation, and the possibility of an excess judgment,” she said.

“Rather, the critical inquiry in a bad faith is whether the insurer diligently, and with the same haste and precision as if it were in the insured’s shoes, worked on the insured’s behalf to avoid an excess judgment.”

Quince rejected arguments that the insured in the case, James Harvey, who ran his vehicle into motorcyclist James Potts in Palm Beach County in 2006, failed to turn over a statement of his assets.

“The focus in a bad faith case is not on the actions of the claimant but rather on those of the insurer in fulfilling its obligations to the insured,” she wrote.

Chief Justice Charles Canady penned a strongly worded dissent.

“By adopting a negligence standard in all but name, ignoring the controlling conduct of the insured and the third-party claimant, and relying on unsupported assumptions, the majority incentivizes a rush to the courthouse steps by third-party claimants whenever they see what they think is an opportunity to convert an insured’s inadequate policy limits into a limitless policy,” he wrote.

Justices Jorge Larbarga, Fred Lewis, and Barbara Pariente concurred with Quince’s opinion. Alan Lawsonand Ricky Polston joined the dissent.

The majority cited evidence that a Geico claims adjuster — cited twice internally for organizational problems — failed to timely pass information back and forth between the Potts estate and her client and his lawyer. Geico did offer to settle up to Harvey’s $100,000 policy limit, but the Potts estate turned that down and went to trial, winning the big jury verdict.

A jury sided with Harvey in his subsequent bad-faith claim against Geico. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeal overturned the verdict, saying the evidence hadn’t established bad faith, even if Geico had mishandled the claim.

In her opinion, Quince said the 4th DCA misread the high court’s precedents and improperly cited an 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that also got Florida law wrong.

The fact that Harvey never turned over the assets statement didn’t matter, Quince argued.

“Nothing in our precedent can be read to suggest that an insurer cannot be found liable for bad faith merely because the insured could have attempted on his own to avoid the excess judgment,” she wrote.

“In fact, our precedent states just the opposite, as it is the insurer who owes a fiduciary obligation to the insured to exercise such control and make such decisions in good faith and with due regard for the interests of the insured.”

To rule otherwise would allow insurance companies to “put forth any evidence that the insured acted imperfectly during the claims process” to absolve themselves of bad faith.

“This would essentially create a contributory negligence defense for insurers in bad faith cases where concurring and intervening causes are not at issue,” she wrote. “We decline to create such a defense that is so inconsistent with our well-established bad faith jurisprudence, which places the focus on the actions on the insurer — not the insured.”

Canady emphasized that Harvey and his attorney knew about the request for the asset information and never offered to provide it.

“It is not that the 4th District erroneously blamed Harvey for failing to do more to avoid the excess judgment. Rather, it is that Harvey and his attorney — not Geico — controlled the only relevant decision that needed to be made,” he wrote.

“Although Geico’s agent handled the claim less than perfectly, negligent claims handling does not equate to bad faith … The majority’s decision to reinstate the jury verdict muddies the waters between negligence and bad faith and bolsters contrived bad faith claims,” he added.

“The result of the majority’s decision is that an insured who caused damages that exceeded his policy limits by over 8,000 percent, who had assets that greatly exceeded his policy limits, and who at no time ever offered to provide his financial information to the third-party claimant despite knowing that the information was being requested even after the policy limits were tendered, has his $100,000 policy converted into an $8.47 million policy, while other insurance customers eventually foot the bill,” Canady concluded.

“Our case law does not support this result.”

In a separate dissent, Polston argued the high court never should have taken the appeal, because the 4th DCA hadn’t got the precedents wrong.

Florida Justice Reform Institute President William Large issued a written statement condemning the outcome.

The ruling, “once again confirms that the legislature must set clear, objective standards in statute for avoiding bad faith while settling insurance claims,” he said.

“In this case, Geico tendered its policy limits in nine days, and the 4th District Court of Appeal concluded that Geico had fulfilled every obligation it owed its insured. Yet, the Supreme Court still found room under precedent to allow a jury to turn a $100,000 insurance policy into an $8.47 million judgment.”

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/275323-supreme-court-verdict-geico

Tort reformer William Large keeps plugging away for PIP bad-faith revamp

February 12, 2018/in Florida Politics

Tort reformer William Large keeps plugging away for PIP bad-faith revamp

MICHAEL MOLINE
February 12, 2018, 8:37 am

One argument in the debate over repeal of Florida’s no-fault auto insurance system isn’t finding much love in the Legislature — that the real key to lower premiums is reform of the legal rules governing coverage disputes that do land in court.

People injured by covered motorists can resort to the tort system if carriers treat them in bad faith — say, by refusing legitimate claims or dallying in replying to demands. Carriers and other advocates argue plaintiffs’ attorneys abuse the system to win recoveries above stated policy limits.

Neither HB 19 by Vero Beach Republican Erin Grall nor SB 150 by Brandon Republican Tom Lee would do that. This story summarizes the legislation.

We sat down with William Large, president of the Justice Reform Institute, which advocates for tort reform, to discuss the situation. The remarks below have been edited for length and clarity.

FP: PIP reform — good idea? Bad idea?

Large: It’s a bad idea in its current form. You cannot reform PIP without doing something essential. And that is reforming our third-party bad-faith litigation regime. Since both the House bill and the Senate bill don’t have third-party bad faith reforms, it’s currently a bad idea. In addition, the Senate version has a medical pay provision, which is basically PIP 2.0. So when you combine those two factors, you have really bad idea.

FP: Define PIP 2.0.

Large: PIP was developed back in the 1970s here in Florida. It was a no-fault system, whereby, if there were an accident, there would be coverage provided to those individuals. The founder of the PIP system later realized there was a mistake, because you saw litigation over low-dollar amounts while an attorney was making a fee fighting over these low-dollar amounts. It was akin to the problems you see with workers’ compensation litigation.

If we were to remove PIP completely and replace it with a mandatory medical payment system, it’s going to be very similar to the old PIP regime. You’ll see litigation over low-dollar amounts, and you’ll see high attorney fee awards fighting over those low-dollar amounts.

In Florida, there’s been a plethora of third-party bad-faith cases. There are two types of attorneys in these cases. There are the attorneys who handle PIP cases, and they fight over the PIP policy, usually in county court. They’re making an hourly rate. And there are many practitioners who practice in circuit court who look down on county court practitioners. Even though the PIP practitioners do very well litigating those cases.

FP: They’re in county court because of the dollar amounts?

Large: Yes, the jurisdictional limits. There’s a rift in the Florida Justice Association — the trial lawyers — between the traditional PIP attorneys and those attorneys who want to go to mandatory bodily injury coverage. They really want to bring third-party bad-faith cases. And that’s exactly what they’ll do if this law passes without third-party bad-faith reform. What they have done is thrown the PIP county court practitioners under the bus.

FP: Are you concerned about the medical coverage mandate?

Large: Yes, because med pay brings both bad things together. It’s basically PIP all over again, without the 30-some-odd years’ case law. It’s going to be fighting over low-dollar amounts on an hourly rate. You’ll have PIP 2.0, no bad-faith reform, and you’ll see a plethora of lawsuits. Any reform can’t have med pay in it, and you need to have third-party bad-faith reform to be successful.

FP: The one-way fee provision (under which insurers are obliged to pay policyholders’ costs of litigating coverage disputes) applies in this instance?

Large: Right.

FP: So what does third-party bad-faith reform look like?

Large: One is an objective measure of time, such as 45 days, before a insurer can be held in bad faith. Two, a mandate that the third-party plaintiffs and their attorneys act in good faith in handling the claim. And No. 3 is interpleader reform (clarifying apportionment of payments between, say, four people, with diverging injuries and medical costs, hurt by a covered driver). Any PIP repeal bill has to have those three elements, and can’t include a med pay provision.

FP: What are you hearing about the likelihood that the reforms you’re talking about are going to happen?

Large: It’s a difficult road ahead of us. We’ve made our position known at every committee stop and we’ve asked the sponsors to include that. As of this date, that hasn’t happened.

FP: What’s the reluctance?

Large: Seemingly that the trial bar does not want third-party bad-faith reform, and they have advocated against it. It’s a powerful stakeholder group.

FP: What’s next?

Large: What’s next is continuing to advocate. I think it’s also important to point out that the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America came out with a study that shows if you go to a mandatory bodily injury system, it’s going to be a cost driver for a lot of individuals. (Details of that study here.)

FP: Do you consider that report credible?

Large: I consider it very credible. It’s well documented, the analysis is solid, and a lot of time was spent analyzing the issues concerned with both PIP and third-party bad-faith language. There would be a 5.3 percent or $67 dollar increase for the average driver who purchases many but not all of the available auto insurance coverage, a 7.2 percent or $105 dollar increase to drivers who purchase all coverages, and a 50.1 percent or $230 increase to drivers who purchase minimum mandatory limits post HB 19. For a working family of four trying to get by, this is going to be a cost driver.

FP: Did the report have much effect on what the Legislature seems likely to do?

Large: The report just came out. I hope it does cause the policymakers in the Legislative branch to see that this will be a cost driver for insurance premiums for all Floridians — and in particular for Floridians who buy the minimum coverage requirements.

I’ve spoken to Rep. Grall and Sen. Lee about this subject. Their thinking is that these are two separate and distinct concepts that are unrelated. They think third-party bad-faith reform is a separate subject that they want to leave for another day.

FP: That would be a mistake?

Large: Yes. They are completely interrelated. If you’re going to get rid of PIP, you need third-party bad-faith reform and you can’t include a medical payments provision.

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/255961-tort-reformer-william-large-keeps-plugging-away-pip-bad-faith-revamp

Takeaways from Tallahassee — Legislative misses

February 3, 2018/in Florida Politics

Takeaways from Tallahassee — Legislative misses

PETER SCHORSCH
February 3, 2018, 5:35 am

PIP quibbles

The Legislature is barking up the wrong tree on PIP repeal, according to Florida Justice Reform President William Large. Fixing Florida’s bad-faith laws would do more to lower premiums, he said in a written statement.

“This landmark PCI report on HB 19 proves it — repealing no-fault and mandating bodily injury insurance will cost every driver in Florida more money,” Large said. “And mandating medical payments coverage, as proposed in SB 150, will just cost drivers even more.”

He referred to an analysis released by the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America.

“Meanwhile, the legislature has yet to show interest in fixing Florida’s bad faith laws, which the PCI report shows could deliver real savings estimated at 6.7 percent,” Large said.

“The bottom line is, more insurance costs more money. HB 19 and SB 150 won’t deliver for Florida’s drivers. The Legislature should start over and commit to an auto insurance system that delivers only the coverages Florida’s drivers need at the lowest cost.”

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/255006-takeaways-tallahassee-legislative-misses-week

Florida Chamber Insurance Summit Tackles Industry’s Hottest Topic; AOB Abuse

November 2, 2017/in Florida Politics

Florida Chamber Insurance Summit tackles industry’s hottest topic, AOB abuse

PETER SCHORSCH – November 2, 2017, 2:54 pm

One of the hottest topics in Florida’s insurance market today is assignment of benefits, its use — and abuse — throughout the state.

Beginning Thursday in Orlando, Florida Chamber of Commerce’s Insurance Summit features industry leaders who hope 2018 will be the year the state Legislature will finally address the issue of AOB abuse.

Florida Chamber of Commerce

The event brings together legislators, insurance executives and political insiders who will tackle some of the most pressing issues facing the state’s insurance industry, business and consumers: workers’ compensation, AOB, CAT Fund and more. This year’s theme of the two-day summit is “Weathering the Storms: Irma, AOB, Workers’ Comp, and the Work That Lies Ahead.”

On the summit’s opening day is “AOB: The problem — and the solutions — are clear!” a panel of insurance experts to examine the topic, its effect on the insurance market, and possible solutions to protect the state and policyholders throughout Florida.

Assignment of Benefits is a document allowing third-party contractors — such as water extraction company, roofers, plumbers and the like — to “stand in the shoes” of the insured to receive payment directly from the insurance company for work performed.

Moderated by Liz Reynolds, State Affairs Director of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, panelists include:

— Arthur Randolph, principal and consulting actuary of Pinnacle Actuarial Resources;

— Jon Ritchie, senior vice president of operations for the American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida;

— Wesley Todd, chief executive officer of CaseGlide and

— William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute.

AOB, which has been part of the state’s insurance market for more than a century, is a widespread practice in water and roof claims throughout Florida and is once again coming under scrutiny after Hurricane Irma.

The clash over AOB puts insurers facing repair contractors and attorneys. Insurance companies blame contractors for inflating repair bills; contractors blame insurers for lowballing payouts. The problem has been most acute in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties.

According to the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR), loopholes in the way AOB is used in the marketplace drives up costs to homeowners, mostly through “unnecessary litigation” associated with specific claims.

In 2006, Florida produced 405 AOB lawsuits across all 67 counties in the state; in 2016, that number jumped to nearly 28,200. OIR’s 2016 Data Call Study found claims with an AOB have a “much higher severity” than applications without one. The frequency and severity of water claims have also risen sharply by 46 percent since 2010, with a jump in severity by 28 percent.

The Chamber Insurance Summit is through Friday at the Ritz-Carlton Grande Lakes, 4040 Central Florida Pkwy. in Orlando. For information and full agenda visit FLChamber.com.

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/248539-florida-chamber-insurance-summit-tackles-industrys-hottest-topic-aob-abuse

Takeaways from Tallahassee — When lawyers break bad

October 21, 2017/in Florida Politics

Takeaways from Tallahassee — When lawyers break bad

PETER SCHORSCH
October 21, 2017, 6:00 am

A panel of U.S. district judges this week hit two Jacksonville law firms with $9.1 million in sanctions for filing “non-viable” tobacco lawsuits.

“On the rare occasion when attorneys undermine that integrity and trust, there must be consequences,” their 148-page opinion begins. “This is one of those rare occasions.”

It singled out The Wilner Firm and Farah & Farah, though the judges noted that though the firms “are responsible for the monetary sanctions, it is primarily the conduct of (principals Norwood) Wilner and (Charlie) Farah, and not the other lawyers in the respective firms, that has caused the Court to impose sanctions.”

The opinion went on to call over 1,000 suits they brought an “immense waste of judicial resources (that showed) contempt for the judicial process.”

Eddie and Chuck Farah of the Farah & Farah Law Firm in Jacksonville.

“Counsel evinced a conscious disregard of their professional obligation to properly investigate such claims,” it said. “As it turns out, many of the plaintiffs never authorized Wilner and Farah to file a suit. Some had barely heard of them.”

Such suits are known as “Engle progeny” cases, after a monumental 1994 class action and landmark Florida Supreme Court decision, in which individual smokers with claims against tobacco companies each sue for their own damages but don’t have to prove causation.

“Although a settlement of the cases in federal court was announced, the state court (lawsuits) are slated to go on for decades,” according to the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium.

On a related note, a bill died last Legislative Session that would have repealed the state’s cap on the amount of money tobacco companies have to put up as appellate bonds.

The state’s trial lawyers, who backed the change, said it would have forced settlements and end litigation over plaintiffs’ claims of irreversible illness or early death from smoking. The repeal has again been filed for the next session beginning in January.

William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, a tort reform group in Tallahassee, said the lawyers “clogged” the courts with “baseless lawsuits.”

“As (the judges) said in their decision, ‘frivolous litigation diverts the time and attention of [the courts] away from meritorious lawsuits,’ ” Large said in a statement. “This irresponsible behavior by plaintiffs lawyers has a cost, delaying justice for the truly injured who they profess to represent.”

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/247480-takeaways-tallahassee-lawyers-break-bad

Term Limits for Supreme Court, Appeals Judges Clear the House, if Barely

March 29, 2017/in Florida Politics

MICHAEL MOLINE March 29, 2017, 4:23 pm

A proposed constitutional amendment to impose term limits on justices of the Florida Supreme Court and state appellate judges squeaked through the Florida House Wednesday after a majority defeated a series of unfriendly — even sarcastic — amendments.

HJR 1, by Eustis Republican Jennifer Sullivan, won 73 “Yes” votes — one more than the three-fifths support it needed. Forty-six members voted “No.”

The measure would limit judges of the district courts of appeal and justices of the Supreme Court to 12 years in office.

Sullivan argued Florida’s merit-retention system for appellate judges isn’t accountable because the voters have never tossed out a judge.

A number of Democrats argued the real motivation was to rein in a judiciary that has thwarted legislative initiatives.

The measure is “short-sighted and punitive, an “assault on a co-equal branch of government,” Democrat Evan Jenne said.

“And the only sin of that co-equal branch is providing a check and balance when the Legislature runs afoul of the Constitution — which, unfortunately, happens more than even I would like to admit,” Jenne said.

Following the vote, Jenne said he learned the House leadership would move for a final vote only when he arrived on the floor. Democrats opted not to try to block the move, reasoning the measure won’t pass the Senate. A companion measure, SJR 482, has yet to be heard in committee.

“It’s a dead bill,” Jenne said. “We’ve wasted enough time on a dead bill that isn’t going anywhere.”

Tampa Democrat Sean Shaw described the abuse directed at his father, the late Supreme Court Justice Leander Shaw, while running for retention following an abortion ruling. The family received racist material in the mail, and pictures of dead babies.

“I’m being told on this floor. ‘That’s not accountable.’ That doesn’t make any sense to me.”

Republicans defended the proposal. Larry Metz, an attorney from Yalaha, argued that appellate judges set policy and need to be held accountable.

“That tells you we are doing what is right. And neither special interest hand-wringing nor political influence will stop the House from doing what is right. It boils down to this — we believe that no government job should be for life.”

The Florida Justice Reform Institute issued its own statement.

“Term limits are not going to ensure the best judges are on the bench,” said William Large, the group’s president.

“Instead they will only ensure that the best and brightest Florida lawyers rarely apply, and even when good judges manage to end up on the bench, they will be kicked off just as they are gaining the institutional knowledge and experience that make for great judges.”

Sullivan warded off 13 of amendments by Jared Moskowitz, a Democratic attorney from Coral Springs, that frankly made a mockery of her proposal.

Moskowitz proposed extending Supreme Court terms to 28, then 24, then 20 years, then 16, then eight.

To extend term limits to trial judges. To require ex-judges to publicly disclose their clients. To bar them from appearing before their old jurisdiction for two years.

He ended up withdrawing the amendments he didn’t withdraw Moskowitiz’s point, he said, was that the proposal would be a mistake and the 12-year limit aribitrary.

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/234982-term-limits

No-fault insurer prevails in attempted class action over Medicare reimbursement

Tort reformer William Large keeps plugging away for PIP bad-faith revamp

Takeaways from Tallahassee — Legislative misses

Florida Chamber Insurance Summit tackles industry’s hottest topic, AOB abuse

Takeaways from Tallahassee — When lawyers break bad

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Site Links