Joe Longfellow and Craig Knox obtained a defense verdict for a deputy sheriff
On July 27, 2018, Joe Longfellow and Craig Knox obtained a defense verdict following a week-long trial in the Pensacola Division of the Northern District of Florida in the U.S. District Court. They defended a deputy sheriff in an excessive force claim. Prior to trial, a summary judgment was obtained on the false arrest claim in favor of the deputy sheriff.
Craig Knox and Craig Richards obtained defense verdict for FDLE
On September 21, 2018, Craig Knox and Craig Richards obtained a defense verdict in favor of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in a state law whistle blower retaliation claim after a week-long trial. This case dealt with various complex issues, including, but not limited to the application of the causation standard and deduction of unemployment benefits from any lost wage calculation.
Ramsey Revell joins Andrews, Crabtree, Knox & Longfellow, LLP
Please help us in congratulating our new attorney Ramsey Revell. She is an associate practicing in the areas of administrative law, automotive liability, commercial and tort litigation, construction defect litigation, medical malpractice defense and premises liability. Ramsey has served as deputy chief administrative prosecuting attorney before the Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB), handling depositions, hearings, settlement negotiations, and disciplinary proceedings. She has litigated cases before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) and is experienced in handling appellate matters before the First District Court of Appeal.
Joe Longfellow obtains a Partial Summary Judgment in federal civil rights case
On April 19, 2017, the Northern District granted partial summary judgment in a state and federal civil rights case, wherein the Plaintiff was alleging claims for false arrest, excessive force and battery. The Court found the deputy sheriff was entitled to qualified and sovereign immunity on the false arrest claims. The Court denied summary judgment on the excessive force claim because there was an alleged disputed issue of material fact.
Insurance Agent E & O Claims: Where is the Duty?
Insurance Agents and Brokers: Is there a duty to advise or recommend coverage in Florida?
“My home was destroyed in a fire, and I did not receive enough money from my property insurer to rebuild it as I wanted. My agent should have suggested I obtain more coverage.”
“My flood insurance was not sufficient to fully rebuild my house after a devastating flood. My agent should have recommended additional flood insurance.”
“I had minimal UM coverage on my vehicle, which was inadequate for the injuries I suffered in an automobile accident. My agent should have told me to get higher UM limits on my policy.”
Similar assertions are made throughout Florida, and often times result in a lawsuit against an insurance agent for failing to recommend what is alleged to be “sufficient” coverage. So what is an Agent's duty in this regard, and how can an Agent best fulfil that duty and protect himself/herself to prevent such a claim being made?
Generally speaking, an insurance agent has no duty to advise the insured as to the insured's insurance coverage needs. Tiara Condominium Association v. Marsh USA, Inc., 991 F.Supp.2d. 1271, 1281 (S.D.Fla. 2014). An insurance agent is required to use reasonable skill and diligence, and liability may result from a negligent failure to obtain coverage which is specifically requested or clearly warranted by the insured's expressed needs. Warehouse Foods, Inc. v. Corporate Risk Management Services, Inc., 530 So.2d. 422, 423 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Additionally, an insurance broker is under no duty to detail every term of every policy he offers to his customer, particularly where the policy plainly covers all of the risk for which the customer specifically requested coverage. The primary duty of the insurance broker is to provide insurance as agreed. Gust K. Newberg Construction Co. v. E.H. Crump & Co., 818 F.2d 1363 (7th 1987).
The agent's primary duty is to provide the coverage requested (or advise that such coverage could not be obtained) and to correctly and fully provide information specifically requested by the insured or clearly warranted by the insured's expressed needs.
The duty to advise or recommend additional or other coverage may be created, however, where certain special circumstances or a special relationship with the insured exists. This exception is factually specific and looks at the nature of the relationship between the agent (broker) and insured. Some of the factors the courts will look at to determine if a special relationship exists included:
The existence of relationships described above between the insured and agent create an argument, and ultimately a jury question, as to whether a special circumstance existed such that the agent was under a duty to advise or recommend additional or other coverages. In order to avoid such an argument, or to protect one's self against the inevitable, follow some basic guidelines:
These recommendations should help to minimize any exposure you may create for failing to recommend additional limits or other coverages. However, when an insured is without sufficient coverage to pay a loss sustained, it is more likely they will seek to hold the agent responsible unless the failure to obtain the additional coverage was their fault. Meaning they rejected a suggestion or opportunity to request more coverage, failed to provide more facts to give the agent a better understanding of the insurance picture, or rejected a quote for higher limits.
Jeannette Andrews and Joe Longfellow secure a defense verdict for a local sheriff's office
On February 26, 2016, Joe Longfellow and Jeannette Andrews obtained a defense verdict in a federal civil rights case against a local sheriff's department after a 1 week trial. The claim involved inmates who alleged they were forced to have sexual relations with an officer of another agency outside of the jail while incarcerated. The inmates were from another county and were checked out by an officer of that county various times for appointments. The Plaintiffs argued that the local sheriff's department should have known that a former officer from another county was having sexual relations with inmates and that one of the Plaintiffs told the sheriff. On behalf of the agency, Mr. Longfellow and Ms. Andrews argued that there was no reasonable basis for the agency to know and that no one with supervisory authority at the agency was told about this by an inmate. They also argued that there had never been a similar situation prior to this case. No appeals were taken after the verdict and they obtained a cost judgment against the Plaintiffs.
Case Update: Sink v. Emerald Hill Owners Association, Inc.
Appellants challenged an award of attorneys' fees and costs against them, which was based on a proposal for settlement. The District Court of Appeal reversed, because the terms of the proposal were not clear. A proposal for settlement must be as specific as possible. This will allow the receiving party to fully evaluate its terms and conditions. The terms of the release upon which the settlement offer is conditioned must be stated with sufficient particularity in the proposal to allow full appraisal of the offer.
Summary Judgment in Deliberate Indifference Claims
A federal claim for deliberate indifference is unlike a state law claim for negligence. The distinction is one of great importance because the standard is much higher in a deliberate indifference claim. A claim for deliberate indifference has three components: (1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2) disregard of that risk; and (3) by conduct that is more mere negligence. This is a claim that is very difficult for a plaintiff to prevail on and often leads to the granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in these types of cases.
However, the preparation of your case varies if the allegations are against an officer or employee in his or her individual capacity versus an agency or agency head in his or her official capacity. There are also various defenses that must be asserted at the onset of a case and affect how the case is defended. Hence, it is important when choosing counsel to represent you, your company, your employees or agency that you have an attorney who understands not only the current case law, issues and defenses, but also who knows what will be needed to obtain a successful result for you. Andrews, Crabtree, Knox & Andrews, LLP has attorneys who routinely handle these types of claims and obtain summary judgment in their client's favor.
Case Update: Ramirez v. M.L. Management Co. , et al.
Plaintiff's child was bitten by a dog at a park adjacent to an apartment complex where she was a tenant. As a result, plaintiff sued the apartment management company and others. The dog was owned by another tenant. The apartment complex did not own the park but advertised the park, as a feature of the apartment complex. The apartment complex's rules prohibited the type of dog that bit Plaintiff's child. The tenant dog owner had two dogs, which were prohibited by the rules. There were reports that the dogs had menaced other tenants, and one tenant claimed to have reported the dogs to the apartment's management company; however, the apartment manager never asked the owner to remove the dogs from the premises. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the apartment management company. The court reasoned that a landowner, in this case the apartment management company, could be liable to a business invitee (the victim tenant and her child), for injuries occurring off the premises where the apartment management company knew that the invitees were using adjacent lands for purposes connected with the business invitation. Distinguishing other cases where there was no relationship between the victim and the landowner, the court concluded that the landlord owed a duty to its tenants to protect them from dangerous dogs on adjacent property where the landlord utilized the adjacent property to promote his business interests.
Summary Judgment obtained in a civil rights action on behalf of regional Airport District
The Firm recently obtained a summary judgment dismissing all claims on behalf of a regional Airport District and several law enforcement officers working for the Airport District in a federal court action, where the plaintiffs claimed the Airport and law enforcement officers conspired to deprive them and their company of certain constitutional due process protections related to their use of the Airport property and access to the Airport grounds. Plaintiffs claimed the Airport and officers conspired to deprive plaintiffs of access to their hangar and to secured areas of the Airport grounds, which precluded them from doing business and caused their business to shut down. They also claimed certain of their office and hangar space was unconstitutionally searched and seized, and that their badge access to the secured portion of the Airport grounds was unconstitutionally taken away. The Federal Judge ruled against plaintiff on all constitutional grounds, granting summary judgment that no unconstitutional deprivation of rights occurred. The Appeal of the Judge's ruling was Dismissed by the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.