Ending a marriage is extremely stressful. While emotions can be a large part of the upset, there are also times when a pending divorce brings financial stress as well. If one spouse has been earning a lot more than the other, the spouse who does not have access to financial resources may worry about how they will be able to afford daily expenses on their own. Spousal maintenance payments could be an option, for either the husband or the wife. Many more women are breadwinners, and maintenance payments are possible regardless of gender.

If you are a husband who relies on his wife’s income, you are not alone. One report finds women earn more than their husbands in 4 out of 10 two-income families. It is not always easy to untangle the finances of a Florida union, particularly if the couple owns and operates a business or is high-net worth. To have your questions answered, connect with a Tampa family law attorney.

An Array of Factors Will Be Analyzed

There are a range of elements that will be assessed to decide how assets and debts will be divided and if either party is eligible for support once the divorce is finalized. While one or both individuals may have personal options about which gender should be responsible for financial security, financial documents are assessed assuming all assets and debts are gender neutral. Some of the factors that will be considered when it comes to financial awards include the following.

• How long has the couple been married?
• Did one individual give up an income to support the career goals of the other person?
• How much does each spouse currently earn?
• Is there future earning potential to consider?

When these and other questions have been fully answered, spousal support could be part of the divorce negotiation process. This is particularly true if one spouse is earning substantially more and the other spouse left the workforce years ago to support the earning spouse’s ambitions and take care of household obligations and care for children.

Talk to a Seasoned Florida Divorce Lawyer

Instead of worrying about your financial future and guessing what your budget will look like once your divorce is finalized, connect with a Tampa family law attorney to get the facts. Knowing what is possible will allow you to plan and navigate your divorce with confidence.

Do you believe you should be receiving spousal support after your divorce is finalized? Maintenance payments could be part of your divorce agreement when there is a large gap between incomes or resources. To learn what is possible given the details of your situation, talk to the legal team at HD Law Partners. Our experienced attorneys will review the documentation you have and will strategize a path forward. The skills and knowledge to guide you through the divorce process is available, simply connect with a legal expert. Whether you need advice on spousal payments or child support, we can help.  Call 813-964-7878 to schedule a free consultation.

Posted in Divorce | No Comments »

Your need for compensation may be clear to you. After all, if you were hurt in a Florida accident, it is natural to rely on insurance coverage to help you handle medical expenses and other fees. But, there are situations in which an injured party is surprised when their claim is reduced or denied.

It is important to know that there could still be a path to the resolution you are seeking. While you likely feel frustrated and defeated, talk to a Tampa personal injury attorney before taking the opinion of an insurance claims adjuster as the final word on the matter. If you were hurt because another party was negligent and you are now juggling medical fees and loss of income, an experienced lawyer can help.

Reasons for FL Claim Denials

Legal professionals are able to review your claim and the insurance policy in question. Depending on the injury sustained, there could be multiple parties involved. For instance, you may have filed for workers’ compensation benefits and the company is asserting the injury was due to the negligence of a third party, which could prompt a personal injury claim.

Objections, reductions, and denials can happen for a range of reasons. Any or all of the following factors could be pointed to by an insurance company that is trying to avoid paying out on a claim.

• Late filings. Many insurers deny claims because they are not filed within a set timeframe. There are deadlines that need to be followed to smooth the process and secure the best outcome for the injured individual.
• Injury sustained is not covered. Stating that an injury is not covered could be an insurance company suggesting the injury happened in a way other than the claim assets. For example, that your injury did not occur during a car accident and is therefore not covered under your vehicular insurance plan.
• Incorrect or insufficient information. Documentation is an essential part of a strong claim. If there is not the information required, such as medical records and police reports, a claim could be denied.

Lawyers are able to look over policies and identify any exclusions or exceptions. From there, a solution can be strategized.

Bring Your Questions to a Florida Attorney

Insurance negotiations can be complicated, bring your Florida injury questions to a Tampa personal injury attorney. A skilled lawyer will inform you of the value of your claim and share next steps with you, including if an appeal is possible after a claim is denied.

Were you shocked when your claim in connection with a Sarasota, Tampa, or Orlando accident was denied? Don’t worry, an appeal could result in the financial recovery you are seeking. To learn what is possible for you and your family, discuss your case with a seasoned attorney. The aggressive legal team at HD Law Partners is committed to fighting for your rights, from an initial filing through an appeal process, if needed. Our lawyers understand the value of claims and will fight to secure the maximum compensation. To access the legal support you need, call 813-964-7878 to schedule a free consultation.

Posted in Personal Injury | No Comments »

Private property owners typically have a legal responsibility to keep their premises “reasonably safe” for invited guests. This means that the owner must take reasonable steps to protect their guests from foreseeable hazards, including possible criminal activity. At the same time, however, the owner is not required to absolutely “insure” guest safety.

Federal Appeals Court Rejects Negligent Security Claim Against Cruise Ship Operator

A recent decision from the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Fuentes v. Classica Cruise Operator Ltd., Inc., illustrates the limits of such “negligent security” claims. This particular case arose on a cruise ship. Specifically, one passenger assaulted another passenger.

The plaintiff in this case took a cruise with his wife on the defendant’s ship. One night, there was a verbal altercation between the plaintiff and another passenger. This encounter did not lead to any physical confrontation.

The next morning, however, as the passengers disembarked the ship, the plaintiff again encountered the other passenger. The plaintiff said the other passenger was trying to cut the line to disembark. This led to another verbal altercation. One of the ship’s security officers noticed this exchange, radioed for backup, and approached the two men. The security guard advised both parties to “calm down.” But the other passenger quickly turned and punched the plaintiff in the face. A fight ensued and the plaintiff was knocked to the ground.

The plaintiff subsequently filed a negligent security lawsuit against the defendant. A federal court in Florida granted summary judgment to the defense after finding there was no evidence that the cruise ship company could have reasonably foreseen this incident. On appeal, the 11th Circuit agreed.

The appellate court explained this case was governed by federal maritime law as opposed to state personal injury law, although the principles governing these types of claims are largely the same. Essentially, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s employees could have reasonably foreseen a passenger-on-passenger attack.

Typically, a cruise line is on notice of such risks based on prior incidents. For example, the 11th Circuit cited a prior case where a cruise operator was “on notice” that passengers could be injured in a port of call with a well-known reputation for criminal activity. In that case, the passenger could sue the cruise line after being shot by a local criminal gang. In this case, however, the defendant had neither actual or constructive notice that the plaintiff could be attacked by another passenger. For that matter, a security guard did intervene during the second verbal altercation but the attacker acted too quickly and without warning for ship security to respond. Under these circumstances, the 11th Circuit said the cruise operator could not be held legally responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries.

Speak with a Florida Negligent Security Lawyer Today

If you have been injured on someone else’s property and you believe the owner took insufficient action to prevent your damages, it is best to speak with a qualified Florida private security attorney as soon as possible. Contact HD Law Partners today to schedule a free consultation.

Source:

media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202014639.pdf

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

In Florida insurance law, an appraisal provides a means of resolving a dispute between the insurer and the policyholder regarding the amount of a covered loss. Appraisal is not meant to resolve whether a claim is insurable to begin with. Rather, it provides a way to arbitrate the question of how much the insurer owes to the policyholder.

Florida Court Rules Appraisal “Premature” Since Condo Association Failed to Document Its Claims

The key to appraisal is that it requires a genuine disagreement between the parties. This might seem obvious, but there have been a number of Florida cases where courts have found that appraisal is “premature” as the parties have not engaged in a “meaningful exchange of information” to demonstrate that a dispute exists.

Just recently, the Florida Third District Court of Appeals addressed this subject. In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, et al. v. Lago Grande 5-D Condominium Association, Inc., a condominium association filed a claim with its insurer for damages sustained to the association’s buildings during Hurricane Irma in September 2017. The insurer acknowledged coverage for a portion of the claim and paid the association approximately $137,000.

Several months later, the association sued the insurer for alleged underpayment. The association also moved to compel appraisal, as required by the terms of the insurance policy. A judge granted the appraisal motion, prompting the insurer’s appeal.

The Third District sided with the insurer, agreeing that appraisal was premature. The appellate court noted the association had been “silent” following the initial partial payment of its claim. The association simply waited 10 months and then filed a lawsuit. At no point, however, did the association make any attempt to present its own estimates of the hurricane damage or the costs of making repairs to its property. Indeed, even after filing its lawsuit, the association failed to present any such evidence to the trial judge.

As the Third District explained, appraisal is only triggered under Florida law after there has been a “meaningful exchange sufficient to establish a disagreement regarding the value of property or the amount of the loss.” The association’s decision to remain silent for months after receiving the insurer’s payment did not, in and of itself, establish a “genuine disagreement” existed. Put another way, a policyholder cannot simply complain the insurer did not pay them enough. The policyholder must show its work and actually present proof establishing what they think they are owed. As such, the association here was not entitled to demand an appraisal at this time.

Speak with a Florida Insurance Lawyer Today

Insurance policies are legal contracts that impose duties and responsibilities on both parties. So if you are involved in a potential insurance dispute, it is important that you understand these duties and comply with all of your legal obligations. Otherwise, you might find yourself in trouble should litigation arise.

If you need advice or representation from an experienced Tampa insurance litigation attorney, contact HD Law Partners today to schedule a consultation.

Source: https://3dca.flcourts.org/content/download/836598/opinion/210636_DC13_05042022_101351_i.pdf

Posted in Insurance Litigation | No Comments »

When interpreting an insurance policy, the choice of law will often determine how a court will enforce that policy’s terms. In this context, choice of law refers to which state’s laws govern the policy. Or in some cases, whether federal law may also apply.

A recent decision from a federal judge here in Florida, Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Lassiter, provides a case in point. This insurance dispute involved both federal and state choice-of-law questions–specifically, what laws to apply to a boating accident.

A man named Lassiter leased a boat called Shmily from a corporate owner. Lassiter hired another named Russick to captain the boat. Russick, acting as Lassiter’s intermediary, applied for an insurance policy for the boat. In that application, Russick failed to disclose the fact Lassiter had a 15-year-old misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. This will become relevant later.

The insurance policy included a “Named Operator Warranty.” This basically meant that the insurer would only cover a loss if the boat was “operated only by covered persons,” which in this case meant Captain Russick.

One day, Russick and Lassiter took the boat out for a test run. Russick remained on the vessel’s bridge but his first mate was actually at the helm. The boat “abruptly ran aground,” according to court records as it hit a sandbar. Russick retook the helm but he could not dislodge the boat.

Lassiter subsequently filed a claim with his insurance company. After an investigation, the insurer denied the claim. Lassiter filed a lawsuit.

The judge had to first determine what law to apply. Marine insurance contracts typically fall under admiralty law, which is a type of federal jurisdiction. This means that federal law trumps state law. But where there are any “gaps” in federal law, the relevant state law still applies.

Lassiter argued that Florida law should fill in the gaps. The insurer argued that under the terms of the insurance policy, New York law must apply. The judge agreed with the insurer.

Under New York law, Lassiter was out of luck. The main problem was that as noted above, the captain was not actually at the helm when the accident occurred. The Named Operator Warranty said that only listed persons could “operate” the boat. That included taking the helm. Indeed, as the first mate had helmed the boat on at least two occasions prior to the accident, the insurance policy was technically void the first time someone other than the captain was at the controls.

The judge said there still remained a disputed question over how long the policy was in effect. This question centered on the failure to mention Lassiter’s prior misdemeanor conviction on the insurance application. The insurer said this voided the policy from the outset based on its internal procedures. The judge said it was not clear at this stage of the litigation whether the omission was actually “material to the underwriting process.”

Speak with a Florida Insurance Lawyer Today

Insurance policies often involve complicated legal questions that can only be sorted out in court. If you need advice or representation from a qualified Tampa insurance attorney, contact HD Law Partners today to schedule a consultation.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9742863025931108841

Posted in Insurance Defense | No Comments »

Employment is usually “at-will” in Florida. In other words, an employer is free to fire an employee, or an employee is free to quit and seek employment elsewhere. In many cases, a former employee will find work with another firm that is a direct competitor with the former employer.

Some employers want to protect themselves from this situation by having their key employees sign employment contracts with restrictive covenants. Common examples of such covenants include non-compete, non-solicitation, and nondisclosure clauses. But are such restrictive covenants actually enforceable in Florida?

The short answer is “yes.” Section 542.335 of the Florida Statutes does expressly state that a contract containing one or more restrictive covenants may be enforceable provided they are “reasonable in time, area, and line of business.” So what exactly does that mean?

The Rules Governing Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Agreements

First things first. Any restrictive covenant must be in writing. You cannot enforce an “oral” or “implied” noncompete agreement. There must be a signed agreement between the employer and the employee who is the subject of the covenant.

Next, Section 542.335 requires that an employer establish a “legitimate business interest” before enforcing a restrictive covenant. Such interests can include protecting trade secrets or other valuable confidential information, such as customer lists. It may also include customer goodwill associated with the employer’s existing trade or service marks within a specified area.

Once the employer establishes a legitimate business interest, it must then show that the restrictive covenant is reasonably related to protecting that interest. As noted above, this standard applies to the “time, area, and line of business.” Breaking this down further:

• A restrictive covenant against a former employee or independent contractor that lasts less than six months is presumed to be reasonable under Section 542.335. Conversely, a covenant that purports to last more than 2 years is presumed to be unreasonable.
• The reasonable “area” for a restrictive covenant will largely depend on the scope or the business. An employer who only does business in Miami-Dade, for example, likely cannot use a noncompete clause to prevent someone from taking a similar job in Tampa. But if a company does business throughout the State of Florida, such a restriction could be considered reasonable.
• Likewise, an employer generally cannot restrict a former employee from taking a job outside the employer’s existing line of business. For instance, if Company A exclusively develops and sells iPhone apps, it probably cannot prevent a former employee from taking a job making Microsoft Windows apps.

Speak with a Florida Business Lawyer Today

Florida employers often seek restrictive covenants as a form of insurance against an employee turning around and undermining their business. But such agreements are legally complex in nature and are often more difficult to enforce than you might realize. That is why it is important to work with an experienced Tampa business and corporate attorney who can advise you in this area. Contact HD Law Partners today to schedule a consultation.

Source:

leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0500-0599/0542/Sections/0542.335.html

Posted in Business Corporate | No Comments »

Policyholders are understandably upset when an insurance company denies their claim for coverage. This can lead to litigation, typically for breach of contract. But what about other equitable legal remedies? For instance, can you sue an insurer in Florida for unfair trade practices or “unjust enrichment”?

Federal Court Rejects Lawsuit Over Travel Insurance Policy for Canceled Flight

This issue came up in a recent decision from the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Arencibia v. AGA Service Company, which was asked to apply Florida law to a dispute arising from a travel insurance policy. The plaintiff in this case purchased a plane ticket from Miami to Bogota, Colombia. At the time he booked his ticket, he was offered optional travel insurance, which was issued by the defendant. The plaintiff elected to purchase the insurance.

The plaintiff later canceled his plane trip because a work commitment overlapped with his planned Colombia trip. The plaintiff believed his insurance was a “no fault” policy, so he could cancel his trip for any reason and still receive coverage. But the defendant later informed the plaintiff that the policy he purchased was “a named perils travel insurance program, which means it covers only the specific situations, events and losses included in” the policy. As the plaintiff’s reason for canceling his ticket–being required to work–was not covered, he was not entitled to coverage.

Dissatisfied with this response, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in Miami federal court, alleging the defendant violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the federal RICO statute. A judge ended up dismissing all of these claims. On appeal, the 11th Circuit upheld that dismissal.

The plaintiff’s state law claims focused on what he viewed as the “unjust enrichment” of the defendant. As the 11th Circuit explained, unjust enrichment requires proof that the plaintiff conferred a “benefit” on the defendant, and the defendant’s acceptance and retention of said benefit “would make it inequitable for him to retain it without paying the value thereof.” In other words, unjust enrichment is a claim based in equity.

The problem here was that Florida law does not allow for equitable remedies when “an express contract exists.” And an insurance policy is an “express contract.” The plaintiff did not dispute this, although he insisted the insurance policy was “void and unenforceable” because the defendant somehow misrepresented its travel insurance as “no fault.” The 11th Circuit rejected that, however, noting the policy itself clearly stated, “Not every loss is covered, even if it is due to something sudden, unexpected, or out of your control.”

Speak with a Florida Insurance Litigation Attorney Today

If an insurance company has denied your claim and you wish to take further action, your first step should be to seek out qualified legal advice. A Tampa insurance litigation lawyer can review your case and advise you of your options. Contact HD Law Partners today to schedule a free consultation.

Source

Posted in Insurance Litigation | No Comments »

When you purchase a deeded timeshare, you are actually buying an interest in real property. As with any real estate purchase, many buyers finance their timeshares by taking out a mortgage loan. Additionally, many timeshare contracts require residents to pay certain maintenance fees and assessments, just as you would with any homeowners’ association.

So if you fail to pay your mortgage or maintenance fees on time, can your timeshare interest actually be subject to foreclosure? The short answer is “yes.” And under Florida law, timeshare holders may be subject to a quicker legal process than a normal residential foreclosure.

Judicial vs. Non-Judicial Foreclosure

When it comes to residential homeowners, Florida law requires a judicial foreclosure process. This means that the mortgage lender or homeowners’ association (HOA) must go to court and file a lawsuit against the homeowner. The homeowner has the right to contest the action in a formal court hearing. But if the homeowner does not contest the proceeding, or the judge decides the lender or HOA’s case has merit, the court can order the property sold at a foreclosure auction.

In the case of timeshares, Florida also permits non-judicial foreclosures. What this means is that instead of going to court and filing a lawsuit, the mortgage lender or HOA simply appoints a trustee to oversee the foreclosure process. The trustee will then send a letter to the timeshare holder warning them to “cure the deficiency”–i.e., get current on mortgage payments or maintenance fees–or face foreclosure.

If you as the timeshare holder do not take action within a specified time period, the trustee can then proceed to complete the foreclosure and auction off your interest in the timeshare, without the need for a court order.

Could You Still Be on the Hook After the Foreclosure?

What are your options in the event of a non-judicial foreclosure of your deeded timeshare interest? Obviously, you can simply pay the money that you owe to cure the defect. But if that is not an option, you can also attempt to negotiate a repayment plan with the lender or HOA. You may also wish to simply sell your timeshare interest.

A common question we get with respect to the latter option is, “What if the money I get from the sale is not enough to pay back my mortgage loan? Can the lender sue me for the rest?” Under Florida law, if a timeshare owner does not contest a non-judicial foreclosure, then the lender is barred from seeking a deficiency judgment–i.e., collecting the difference between what the property sells for and what is owed on the original mortgage.

Of course, before you take any action, it is in your best interest to first speak with a qualified Tampa timeshare attorney who can review your case and advise you of your options. Contact HD Law Partners today to schedule a free consultation with a member of our team.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Last year, the Florida legislature adopted significant changes to the state’s property insurance laws. Among these amendments are a new requirement that commercial or residential policyholders file a notice with the state before suing an insurance company over its denial of a claim. This pre-suit notice must be given “at least 10 business days” before filing a lawsuit, but not before the expiration of a 90-day period during which the insurer has the right to review and either pay or deny the claim.

The purpose of the new pre-suit notice is to give the insurer additional time to investigate and review the claim and decide whether to either accept coverage, continue to deny coverage, or reinspect the property. Only if the insurer continues to deny the claim can the policyholder then file a lawsuit. If the insurer failed to file the pre-suit notice beforehand, however, the court is required to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.

Federal Judge Applied 2010 Florida Supreme Court Decision to Interpreting 2021 Statute

One question that is likely to arise in the Florida courts is whether this new pre-suit notice requirement is retroactive, that is whether it applies to insurance policies issued before the law took effect on July 1, 2021. At least one federal judge has already considered this question and ruled the law should not be applied retroactively.

The case in question, Dozois v. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, involves a couple whose Florida home sustained wind damage. They filed a claim with their insurance carrier. The policy in question took effect on January 31, 2021, six five months before the new Florida pre-suit notice law took effect.

The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in August 2021 alleging the insurance company failed to fully indemnify them for the wind damage to their property. In response, the insurer argued the lawsuit should be dismissed as the plaintiffs never filed a pre-suit notice. The insurer said that since the lawsuit was filed after the new law took effect, it should be applied retroactively to this case.

The judge disagreed. The court pointed to a 2010 decision from the Florida Supreme Court, Menendez v. Progressive Express Insurance Co., which involved a similar Florida law requiring pre-suit notice before suing under the state’s no-fault law governing auto accident benefits. The Menendez court held that statutes that included provisions “that impose additional penalties for noncompliance … do not apply retroactively.” The judge here said the same principle should apply. Since there was now a penalty for failure to comply with the pre-suit notice requirement–dismissal of the plaintiff’s case–the 2021 law could not be applied retroactively.

Speak with an HD Law Partners Attorney Today

The 2021 legislation represented a substantial change to the state’s insurance laws. As courts continue to sort out the implications of these new rules, it is even more critical that you work with an experienced Tampa insurance litigation attorney if you are involved in a coverage dispute. Contact HD Law Partners today to schedule a consultation with a member of our staff.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1233780609830323576

Posted in Insurance Litigation | No Comments »

Each year, thousands of people set sail on cruise ships out of Florida. Most of these cruisers enjoy a wonderful vacation. Unfortunately, some people sustain serious injuries on their trip, often due to the negligence of the cruise line.

Now, you can file a personal injury lawsuit against a cruise ship operator just as you would any other negligent property owner. But such cases are often handicapped by the terms of the ticket that was issued before the cruise even began. If you have ever taken a cruise, you know what we are talking about. Most cruise tickets include, or refer to, a lengthy “ticket contract” that you must agree to beforehand, similar to a terms of service on a commercial website. These contracts often contain language that can restrict or even prevent you from bringing a personal injury claim should the need arise.

Florida Judge Dismisses Slip and Fall Case Due to One-Year Limitations Period in Contract

A recent decision from a federal judge in Miami provides a case in point. In Roberts v. Carnival Corporation, the plaintiff was a passenger on the defendant’s cruise ship. During the cruise, the plaintiff slipped and fell on the ship’s pool deck. She called the ship’s infirmary and was told someone would come attend to her at the pool. But nobody ever came, the plaintiff said, and she then had to walk to the infirmary herself, only further aggravating her injuries.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence about two years after the accident. The defense moved for summary judgment based on the terms of the plaintiff’s ticket contract, which reduced the applicable statute of limitations to just one year. (For point of reference, Florida’s statute of limitations for personal injury cases is normally four years.)

The plaintiff replied that she never personally accepted the ticket contract or the one-year limitations period. She said that she did not “personally book the cruise.” The plaintiff’s sister had booked the cruise and simply given the plaintiff her boarding pass just before the trip began. As such, the plaintiff said she never had a meaningful opportunity to review, much less agree to, the contract.

The judge said none of that mattered. The court noted that the defendant was only required to give the plaintiff a “reasonable opportunity to become meaningfully informed of the contract term.” This can be accomplished by giving notice to the person “who books travel arrangements on the passenger’s behalf.” And even if the plaintiff did not have a chance to review the terms of the contract before the cruise, she certainly did in the year following the cruise, and thus could have complied with the one-year limitations period. For that reason, the judge granted summary judgment to the defense and dismissed the case.

Speak with an HD Law Partners Attorney Today

Anytime that you sustain an injury on someone else’s property, it is a good idea to seek out legal advice as soon as possible in order to preserve all of your potential options for seeking compensation. If you need to consult with a qualified Tampa slip and fall attorney, contact HD Law Partners today.

Source:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15815546255282337305

Posted in Slip Fall | No Comments »