Matthew Scarborough

Case Law Updates

  • By: Scarborough Attorneys at Law
  • Published: January 15, 2011

Alert:  The First District Court of Appeal in Nationwide Mutual v. Harrell has created yet another conflict in the ongoing saga as to whether or not a Plaintiff is allowed to “blackboard” his or her outstanding medical bills when those same bills have been paid by a collateral source as outlined by Florida Statute Section 768.76. The Harrell court determined…Read More

  • By: Scarborough Attorneys at Law
  • Published: January 4, 2011

In Citizens vs. European Wood Craft, the 4th District Court of Appeal held the trial court erred in ruling.  An insured was not placed on notice of the limitations of the insurance agent.  In this case, the insured did not receive page two of the application, which was the page disclosing the Notice.  According to the 4th District Court of…Read More

  • By: Scarborough Attorneys at Law
  • Published: September 10, 2010

In Attorney’s Title Insurance Fund, Inc. vs. Gorka, the Florida Supreme Court finally resolved the issue of whether a joint offer or proposal for settlement which is conditioned on the mutual acceptance of all joint offerees is invalid and unenforceable.  According to the Florida Supreme Court, such an offer or proposal for settlement is invalid because neither offeree can independently…Read More

  • By: Scarborough Attorneys at Law
  • Published: September 3, 2010

Recently I mistakenly received a request to attend a Plaintiff’s bad faith seminar entitled “Bad Faith Insurance Summit”. As I represent insurers in these matters I could not go. To all my friends in the insurance industry, take a second to look at the link (www.360advocacy.com) describing the seminars at the summit presentation. The topics include: Recognize, preserve and strategize…Read More

  • By: Scarborough Attorneys at Law
  • Published: August 16, 2010

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal recently ruled in United Automobile Insurance Company vs. Ontero, an insured who assigns his personal injury protection (PIP) benefits to a provider does not have standing to later sue his or her insurer for those benefits. In Ontero, the plaintiff, Angel Ontero, suffered injury in an automobile accident. He subsequently sought treatment from…Read More

  • By: Scarborough Attorneys at Law
  • Published: August 4, 2010

On April 14, 2010, the Governor signed into law Section 768.0755, Florida Statutes, which places the burden of proof on a plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case to prove actual or constructive knowledge by the premises owner or operator of the existence of the transitory foreign substance that caused the fall.  Under the new law the plaintiff may prove constructive knowledge…Read More

  • By: Scarborough Attorneys at Law
  • Published: June 2, 2010

While researching  “reported” jury verdicts on bad faith matters I ran across a  striking statistic: roughly 87% of the reported decisions were favorable to Plaintiff’s. Any kind of bad faith trial, especially an insurer’s defense verdict seems to be a rare commodity these days. With increased training for claims staff over the last several years (see SHM’s list of Florida…Read More

  • By: Scarborough Attorneys at Law
  • Published: June 1, 2010

In the case of Wolf vs. Progressive, 35Fla. L. Weekly D733(Fla. 1st DCA 2010), the District Court held that a Plaintiff who sued for UM Benefits was not entitled to them simply because he did not receive notice of the availability of UM Benefits on a six month notice of renewal.  According to the 1st District, “We do not read…Read More

  • By: Scarborough Attorneys at Law
  • Published: May 30, 2010

The Supreme Court of Florida addressed an important bad faith issue in the Perrara v. United States Fidelity and Guarantee Company, matter on May 6, 2010.  The case came to the Supreme Court after the Eleventh Circuit certified the following question to the Supreme Court: “May a cause of action for third-party bad faith against an indemnity insurer be maintained…Read More

  • By: Scarborough Attorneys at Law
  • Published: May 26, 2010

Though Florida courts regularly deny summary judgment motions in bad faith cases on the basis that such claims present questions of fact appropriate only for jurors, the court in Shin Crest Pte, Ltd. v. AIU Ins. Co.¸605 F. Supp. 2d 1234 (M.D. Fla. 2009), boldly granted such a motion filed by AIU in a case involving a stipulated judgment of…Read More

Page 5 of 6:«1... 23456»