Archive: February 2017

Many of us may know someone, or perhaps you have yourself, performed a side job to earn a little extra income. You have probably never considered what the insurance implications are if you were involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving for Uber or delivering pizza. But what many people do not know is that their side job could cost them more in the end if they are not properly insured.

Am I covered by my personal insurance policy?

There is a standard clause in most personal automobile insurance policies that most people are not aware of. Personal auto insurance policies provide coverage for one’s personal needs only. Generally, personal automobile policies exclude coverage if the automobile is being used for commercial purposes, such as carrying property or persons in exchange for a fee or compensation. This would include using your personal vehicle for the following services:

The same may apply if the car was borrowed and used for commercial purposes. If you are a parent that allows your child to borrow the family car for delivering pizza, you should review your policy.

On January 13th, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could have national, broad implications for all employers and businesses, especially those who utilize employment contracts to mandate that any disputes be raised via arbitration rather than in court, and on a one-by-one basis (i.e. the opposite of class action). The decision will also affect countless other businesses, as not only are arbitration clauses present in many employment contracts, but also in many service- and various consumer-based contracts, such as those for nursing homes, cell phones, credit cards, and others.

Some experts predict that the Court will uphold the ability for private companies to establish this kind of requirement in employment contracts, not only because that is in accordance with the general freedom to contract, but also because the Court already ruled (in 2011) that the Federal Arbitration Act favors arbitration and allows companies to set these types of limits (see AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion).

As is the case in general when it comes to family law, courts are always concerned about what is in the best interest of the child when it comes to making custody and parenting/time-sharing arrangements. At the same time, courts, in general, also have to respect the Parental Rights Doctrine, which historically upheld parents’ fundamental right to raise children as they see fit.

Although a decision in 2000 opened the door for states to become more involved in what, exactly, that parental right entails, it is the public policy of Florida that each minor child has frequent and continuing contact with both parents after they separate, and encourage parents to share in their rights and responsibilities.

That being said, there are some circumstances under which a child’s biological father can be denied parental rights. It is crucial, therefore, that if you have a child born out of wedlock or are going through a divorce, you understand how Florida is different when it comes to the concepts of child custody.

Divorce and child custody issues are already difficult enough without also having to address the issue of relocation after divorce. Depending upon the specific circumstances surrounding the relocation, it could very well affect the amount of time a parent spends with their child. For these reasons, it is important to understand what Florida law dictates when it comes to parental relocation after timesharing and parenting plans have already been finalized.

When one parent plans to relocate, parents often find themselves in court in order to find some resolution, as, especially when that relocation involves long distance, it can be very difficult to come to some consensus on what is best for both the child and the parents. This warrants working with an experienced family law attorney if you are dealing with this issue, as states have different laws in place when it comes to the issue.

Florida law defines relocation as a change in the location of the principal residence of a parent or other person from their principal place of residence at the time of the last order establishing or modifying time-sharing, or at the time any action to establish or modify time-sharing was filed. In order for it to technically be considered relocating, the change of location must be at least 50 miles from the principal residence of a parent (for at least 60 days; in other words, this does not include a simple vacation).