Insurance Litigation – Insurance Bad Faith

Insurance Litigation – Insurance Bad Faith

The Law Firm of Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman is experienced in insurance bad faith litigation. We have successfully litigated cases involving insurance coverage and insurance bad faith with results ranging from $300,000 to $28 million. The Firm is both well-known and respected by the insurance industry. While it can often feel daunting fighting against the powerful insurance companies, a trusted and experience advocate can help you through this difficult process.

Please take a look at some of our successful cases in the area of insurance bad faith litigation below. If you have a question or comment, feel free to contact us directly.

John Doe v. Operator of Semi Truck

Our client was operating a delivery truck on I-95 when he was rear-ended by an eighteen wheeler (semi truck). Our client had to be removed from the vehicle by stretcher. As a result of the accident, physicians determined that he sustained severe cervical herniations. He underwent a surgical fusion of the cervical spine at two separate levels. Our client was out of work for several months and incurred substantial medical costs in excess of $300,000.00. Our client, through attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. and Michael Pike, demanded that the defendant settle the case fifteen days before mediation or the defendant’s insurance carrier would be held in bad faith. The case ultimately settled upon submission of a demand letter prior to mediation for in excess of $1 million.

John and Jane Doe v. Insured

Our client, the plaintiff, was driving his motorcycle on a local Dade County road when a young man crossed the double yellow lines striking our client's motorcycle with his vehicle. Our client was transported to Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami where he was diagnosed with a fractured back and several compression fractures to the spine. The defendant's vehicle was insured for low limits relative to our client's injuries. A demand was made for the policy limits. The insurance carrier refused to tender policy limits in a timely manner. The firm filed a lawsuit for negligence. Our attorney, Michael Pike, negotiated a settlement in excess of ten times the amount of coverage carried by the defendant as a result of a global resolution of the underlying personal injury and bad faith claims.

Luke Korzeniowski, et. al. v. The Medical Protective Company

This case involved catastrophic brain damage sustained by Luke Korzeniowski during his birth.  Counsel for the Korzeniowski family, in the underlying case, obtained a $60,000.000.00 verdict against the physician who delivered Luke, as well as the hospital where he was born. J. Michael Burman assisted the Plaintiff's counsel in recovering $20,000,000.00 (policy limits close) from the hospital after the jury rendered its verdict and the court entered it final judgment against the hospital. The physician in question had coverage of $250,000.00 by the defendant, the Medical Protective Company. During the course of litigation, Med-Pro failed to tender their policy limits to protect their insured in a timely basis which led to a second lawsuit against Med-Pro for insurance bad faith. The Firm litigated the case, and obtained a multi-million dollar settlement for the plaintiff's family prior to trial.

Recent Posts

Blog: Valuation of Assets in a Divorce

Valuation of Assets in a Divorce

Law Firm of Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman Blog

By Stephen Walker, Associate Attorney

Of critical importance in complex divorce cases is the valuation of assets. In a divorce, marital assets will be divided up between the parties through a process called “equitable distribution.” In doing so, the trial court generally begins with the premise that the distribution should be equal.  See § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). In order to equitably distribute the marital assets, the judge must identify the marital assets and “the individual valuation of significant assets.” See § 61.075(3)(b), Fla. Stat. A fundamental step in the process of valuing and equitably distributing the parties’ assets is choosing a date on which the value of those assets will be fairly and properly measured. Rarely will the value of significant assets remain static during the pendency of a divorce proceeding. The date for determining the value of marital assets and liabilities is governed by § 61.075(7), Fla. Stat.:

The date for determining value of assets and the amount of liabilities identified or classified as marital is the date or dates as the judge determines is just and equitable under the circumstances. Different assets may be valued as of different dates, as, in the judge's discretion, the circumstances require.

Thus, under the current statute, there is no bright-line rule, let alone a presumption, regarding the determination of the dates for valuation of marital assets.  The decision is, in large part, left to the judge’s discretion. However, over the years, certain standards have been established and followed with fairness and equity being of paramount consideration. When possible, most trial courts will endeavor to value marital assets and liabilities on a day as close as practicable to the trial if their fluctuation is passive (i.e., not due to the efforts of either party). Certain facts, though, may lead the court to choose an earlier date, such as when the increase (or decrease) in marital assets is directly caused by the actions of one spouse.

In essence, the judge will likely choose among three options for dates in valuing marital assets and liabilities: (1) the date of separation, (2) the date of filing the petition, and (3) the date of trial.  Historically, in deciding between these three options, trial courts have endeavored to choose the date that results in the most fair and equitable valuation for each asset by evaluating whether the actions of one party directly affected the increase and decrease in value of the asset at issue after the date of separation or date of petition.  In such cases, using the earlier of the date of separation or the date of filing the petition is deemed appropriate because the increase or decrease in value is a direct result of one spouse’s actions.  Consequently, the valuation date will ensure that the spouse who directly caused the increase or decrease in value receives the benefit or detriment of his or her actions, by attributing the difference in value of the subject asset or liability between the earlier date and the trial date solely to that party. On the other hand, when a long period of time passes between the date of filing the petition and the date of trial, and the change in value of an asset or liability is the result of passive forces, such market conditions or fluctuation, as opposed to the direct actions of one spouse, the increase or decrease in value of that asset or liability should be allocated between the parties equally, thus, militating towards use of the date of trial as the valuation date.

The attorneys at Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman are experienced in handling complex divorce cases.  Should you have questions regarding your case, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at SWalker@bclclaw.com.

  1. Changes to Florida’s Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Law Leave a reply
  2. When it Comes to a Child’s Booster Seat, Proper Fit is Key, According to New Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Rankings Leave a reply
  3. about one Leave a reply
  4. home three Leave a reply
  5. home two Leave a reply
  6. home one Leave a reply
  7. New Risks Associated with Portable and Inflatable Pools (from Yahoo Health, Licensed from Health Day News) Leave a reply
  8. Stopping Fraud Against the Elderly Why it happens here and what to do about it Leave a reply
  9. What a Change in Florida’s Insurance Bad Faith Law Can Mean for You: Greater Exposure to Liability Leave a reply
  10. New Guidelines for Children’s Car Safety Seat Use Leave a reply
  11. Florida’s Alimony Statute Undergoes Facelift Leave a reply
  12. Electronics Leading to Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities Leave a reply
  13. Parking Lot Safety and Negligent Security Leave a reply
  14. Tis’ the season – to be careful. Leave a reply
  15. Tips To Being An Effective Juror Leave a reply
  16. Halloween Safety Tips – Protect Your Children Leave a reply
  17. The Unexpected Danger of Picking Fruit: ELECTROCUTION! Leave a reply
  18. Motorcycle Safety Is An Important Issue Leave a reply
  19. Texting While Driving: More Dangerous Than DUI? Leave a reply
  20. Monitoring Children’s Cell Phones Leave a reply
  21. Commercial Arbitration Agreements…The Pitfalls & Practicalities Leave a reply
  22. Slip and Fall…New Legislation Leave a reply
  23. Tire Safety 101 Leave a reply
  24. Anatomy of An Insurance Policy Leave a reply
  25. To Send or Not to Send – What Are Proper Office and Business E-mails, or Text Messaging? Leave a reply
  26. Working For the Old School Guys Leave a reply
  27. 1-year-old Drowns in Apartment Complex Retention Pond Leave a reply
  28. Are television advertisements an indication of consumer behavior? Leave a reply