A limited liability company (LLC) provides a flexible mechanism for one or more people to form a business with protection from personal liability for business debts. Unlike a corporation, where shareholders often play no role in the day-to-day management of the business, an LLC may be structured so as to give the individual owners (known as “members”) direct control over management.

Of course, this can pose some challenges as well. For example, what if you have four members in an LLC and there is a 2-2 deadlock over an important business decision? Every LLC should have an operating agreement, which is a contract between the members, to detail how issues of governance should be handled. But even then, if the operating agreement requires a majority vote of the membership, what is the remedy for a deadlock?

Options for Resolving a Deadlock (Without Going to Court)

Again, a well-drafted operating agreement should anticipate and provide for such contingencies. Here are a few examples of mechanisms for breaking a deadlock between LLC members:

• Tie-breaking vote – Perhaps the most direct way of resolving a deadlock is to give one member a tie-breaking vote. This is often more complicated than it sounds, however, as that can create a great deal of friction among the members. It can also be difficult to determine when a deadlock is so entrenched as to justify using a tie-breaking vote.
• Third-party tie-breakers – Another approach is to designate some outside group or body to resolve a membership deadlock. For example, the LLC could agree to retain an outside professional adviser to act as a tie-breaker should the need arise. Or to go a more formal route, the operating agreement could require third-party mediation or arbitration in the event of a deadlock.
• Buy-sell provision – The operating agreement may also contain language permitting resolution of a deadlock by allowing one member (or perhaps a group of members) to offer to buy out the other side. The other party can then either sell their membership interest or purchase the offeror’s interest for the same terms. Alternatively, the agreement can require the parties to hire an outside appraiser to value the business as a first step towards a buyout.

What If Nothing Else Works?

If for whatever reason there is no practical way to resolve a membership deadlock, any of the members can file a lawsuit seeking a judicial dissolution of the LLC on the grounds that the members are deadlocked to the point where the business is suffering. The court can take a number of actions, including forcing the dissolution of the LLC, appointing a receiver for the business, or even forcing the expulsion of a member to break the deadlock.

If you are involved in such a situation and need legal advice from a qualified Tampa business disputes lawyer, contact HD Law Partners today to schedule a consultation with a member of our team. Call us at 813-964-7878 or visit us online at https://www.hdlawpartners.com/contact-us/

Source:

https://leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0600-0699/0605/Sections/0605.0702.html

Posted in Business Corporate | No Comments »

If you own your own home and a car, you likely have insurance on both. There is a critical difference between the two types of insurance. Florida law requires drivers to carry a minimum amount of auto insurance known as personal injury protection (PIP) coverage. As far as your home goes, however, state law imposes no similar requirement. If you have a mortgage, the lender will usually require homeowners’ insurance to protect their interests. The State of Florida won’t punish the homeowner if the owner decides not to insure the house. 

Contractor Battles Insurer Over Water Damage Repairs 

Since homeowners’ insurance is not mandatory, it is purely a matter of contract between the policyholder and the insurer. As such, legal concepts that may apply to homeowners’ policies may not apply to auto insurance, and vice versa. This came up in a recent decision from the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals, People’s Trust Insurance Company v. Restoration Genie Inc., which involved the interpretation of a homeowners’ policy. 

This particular case involved a claim for water damage. The homeowner experienced a leak and sought coverage. The policy had what is known as a “preferred contractor” clause. Basically, the insurer gave the homeowner a $75 annual credit against his premiums, and in exchange he agreed that the insurer could use its own “rapid response team” (RRT) as its preferred contractor to make repairs. 

In this case, however, the homeowner decided to use his own contractor to repair the water damage. Under the policy, if the homeowner failed to notify the insurer of a loss and let its RRT team perform the work, then the insurer’s coverage obligation was limited to either the “reasonable cost incurred for mitigation” or the amount the insurer would have paid the RRT to perform the emergency repairs, whichever was less. 

The homeowner assigned his coverage rights to his contractor. The contractor, in turn, billed the insurer $5,327.10 for the repairs. The insurer said it would only pay $2,000, as it did not receive prior notice and that was the limit it would have paid its own RRT for the work. The contractor subsequently sued the insurer for the difference. 

A Florida circuit court judge granted summary judgment to the contractor. But the Fourth District reversed, holding there were still disputed factual issues requiring trial. The appellate court specifically rejected the contractor’s argument that the insurance company’s service agreement with its RRT, which limited payments to $2,000 in these cases, effectively amended the homeowner’s insurance policy and created a new coverage limit. Under Florida law, insurers typically need to provide notice in cases involving auto insurance when attempting to limit reimbursements for covered expenses. 

But as the Fourth District explained, this was not an auto insurance case. Homeowner’s coverage is not mandated by state law and, as such, is not subject to the same restrictions as PIP coverage. So the contractor in this case could not rely on case law related to auto coverage to prevail in its claim. 

Speak with Our Team at HD Law Partners Today 

Insurance companies often must litigate to enforce their clearly stated rights under a given policy. If you are involved in a disputed mold and water damage claim and need legal representation from a qualified Tampa insurance attorney, contact HD Law Partners today to schedule a consultation. 

Source: 

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6388200679958168745

Posted in Mold Water Damage | No Comments »

Filing a personal injury lawsuit means understanding and following a number of procedural rules. Many of these rules are strictly enforced. This means that failure to comply can result in dismissal of your case regardless of the merits. 

One rule that fits within this strict-compliance description is the statute of limitations. This is basically the deadline to initiate a lawsuit under Florida law. In other words, if you do not file and serve a complaint within the limitations period, the court is legally barred from hearing your lawsuit. 

Four Years Is the Statute of Limitations in (Most) Negligence Cases 

The statute of limitations is determined by the Florida legislature, and different types of cases may be subject to different limitations periods. For personal injury claims–i.e., an “action founded on negligence”–the statute of limitations is normally four (4) years. But to give a contrasting example, if you file a lawsuit based on a breach of contract–say you want to sue your insurance company for not paying a claim–then the statute of limitations is five (5) years. 

When we say the limitation period is four years, when does that clock actually start to run? In most personal injury cases, the limitations period begins on the day the plaintiff suffered their injury. To give a simple example, you get into a car accident on April 1, 2018. If you decide to sue the other driver for damages, you would need to file your lawsuit by April 1, 2022, in order to comply with the statute of limitations. 

Now, there are situations where a court may extend the limitations period for cause. Normally this involves a scenario where the defendant has taken some action to avoid Florida jurisdiction. For example, if the defendant leaves the state before you could file your lawsuit, the court can toll (suspend) the limitations period until they return. 

Personal Injury vs. Wrongful Death 

It is important to note that when we talk about a “personal injury” claim, that is a lawsuit filed by a living person who has suffered a legally compensable injury. If a person is killed as the result of negligence, then that is the proper subject of a wrongful death lawsuit, which is subject to a separate statute of limitations in Florida. 

Specifically, the limitations period for Florida wrongful death claims is two years. And here, that means two years from the date of the victim’s death. This may not be the same as the date of injury. So let’s say a person was in a car accident on March 15, 2022. They were hospitalized and ultimately died from their injuries on May 15, 2022. Under Florida law, the statute of limitations for the estate to file a wrongful death lawsuit would be May 15, 2024. 

Speak with a Florida Personal Injury Lawyer from HD Law Partners Today 

The statute of limitations is just one of many legal minefields that victims need to navigate in bringing a successful personal injury claim. An experienced Tampa auto accidents attorney can provide you with skilled legal advice and representation. Contact HD Law Partners today to schedule a consultation. 

Posted in Auto Accidents | No Comments »

Insurance companies often take a proactive stance when asserting they do not have a “duty to defend” or cover a particular policyholder. This normally takes the form of asking a judge to issue a declaratory judgment stating as such. Obviously, the insured party may not be happy with such a judgment. But what about a third-party victim seeking to recover compensation? Do they have legal standing to appeal a declaratory judgment issued in favor of an insurer? 

11th Circuit Dismisses Sexual Abuse Victim’s Appeal for Lack of Legal Standing 

The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals–which has federal appellate jurisdiction over Florida, Alabama, and Georgia–recently addressed this issue. The case, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Barrow, involved an especially heinous criminal act. But the underlying insurance dispute proved rather simple for the court to resolve. 

Here is what happened, a young girl was sexually abused by her mother and her employer. More precisely, the victim’s mother “arranged” for the employer, a man named Barrow, to take sexually explicit photographs of her. This eventually led to Barrow molesting the victim at his house and at a local hotel. 

Alabama police eventually arrested Barrow. He pleaded guilty to human trafficking charges and is now serving 30 years in prison. Separately, the victim filed a civil lawsuit against Barrow. This led to a dispute over whether Barrow’s homeowner’s insurance policy would cover any potential judgment obtained by the victim. 

The insurer filed a lawsuit in federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend Barrow. The victim opposed the lawsuit, but Barrow did not. A U.S. district judge ultimately granted the insurer its declaratory judgment. 

The victim then appealed to the 11th Circuit. But that Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The 11th Circuit explained that a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit does have the right to appeal a declaratory judgment that holds an insurer has no duty to provide coverage for an accident. But that does not apply to cases, such as this one, where the declaratory judgment holds that the insurer has no duty to defend the policyholder. 

The 11th Circuit noted that one of its sister courts, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, addressed a similar situation back in 1995. In that case, the Seventh Circuit said that if a court found there was no duty to defend, that actually “helped” the plaintiff, since the insurer would not be paying for the policyholder’s defense. The 11th Circuit adopted similar reasoning here, noting that the victim “suffered no injury from the judgment in favor” of the insurance company. 

Contact HD Law Partners Today for How We Can Help 

Disputes over insurance coverage for a personal injury lawsuit are often more legally complex than the underlying lawsuit itself. That is why it is important to work with an experienced Tampa insurance attorney who understands these areas of the law. Contact HD Law Partners today if you need to speak with an attorney right away. 

Source

Posted in Insurance Litigation | No Comments »

The Difference Between an Insurer’s Contractual and Statutory Duties Under Florida Law

Insurance companies have two independent duties when it comes to paying a claim filed by a policyholder. The first duty is contractual, i.e., the insurer’s responsibilities under the policy itself. This contractual duty extends to any requirements regarding the evaluation and payment of benefits.

The second legal duty is that imposed by statute, i.e., by the Florida legislature. State law requires all insurers to “act reasonably and in good faith” when evaluating a policyholder’s claim. Even if the insurer ultimately pays the claim–that is, fulfills its contractual duty–it can still be held liable for acting in bad faith with respect to its statutory duty.

Insurer Still Faces Bad Faith Claim Despite Paying Appraisal Award to Homeowner

The Florida Second District Court of Appeals recently addressed the interaction of these two duties in a first-party bad faith insurance lawsuit. In Williams v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, a homeowner filed a claim with his insurer over lightning damage to his property.

The insurer acknowledged coverage and made payments to the homeowner over a period of several years. But the homeowner eventually disputed the amount of the loss. This prompted the insurer to invoke an appraisal clause in the insurance policy.

While the appraisal was pending, the homeowner filed a Civil Remedy Notice (CRN), which is a necessary precondition to filing a bad faith lawsuit under Florida law. The homeowner ultimately filed such a lawsuit. Before he did, however, but after it received the CRN, the appraiser issued an award and the insurer paid the full amount of that award.

Nevertheless, the homeowner still pursued his bad faith lawsuit. A dispute arose before the trial court over whether or not the insurer’s payment of the final appraisal award actually “cured” the CRN. In other words, did the fact that the insurer paid the award after it received the CRN justify dismissing the homeowner’s lawsuit?

The trial court said “yes.” The Second District said “no.” The appellate court explained that both the insurer and the trial court had conflated contractual and statutory duties. The appraisal award addressed contractual duty. But under Florida’s bad faith insurance statute, once the homeowner filed his CRN, the insurer had 60 days to respond–i.e., to cure the notice by fulfilling its obligations. But the insurer waited past the 60 days until the arbitration process was completed.

The insurer argued that the 60-day period should have been “tolled” until the date of the arbitration award. The Second District disagreed. Again, whether or not the insurer met its contractual duty was a separate question of whether it met its statutory duty. As such, the homeowner could proceed with his bad faith claim.

Contact Us to Help You Today

Insurance companies and policyholders alike need to be aware of how different aspects of Florida law may affect their rights in the event of a dispute. An experienced Tampa bad faith insurance attorney can provide guidance and legal representation. Contact HD Law Partners today to schedule a consultation.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2816399245345514889

Posted in Insurance Bad Faith | No Comments »

If you own a car in Florida, you should know that you are required to carry a certain minimum amount of auto insurance. Florida is a “no-fault” state, your insurance is expected to pay for any personal injury that you sustain in an accident. But this personal injury protection (PIP) coverage is often insufficient to fully cover your medical expenses and other accident-related losses. PIP coverage does not address situations where your accident was caused by the negligence of another driver.

This brings up another issue. Even when you can prove that the other driver was responsible for the accident, they may have little (if any) insurance coverage of their own. So what do you do then? In many cases, your own insurance company may still be responsible assuming you purchased uninsured motorist (UM) coverage as part of your auto policy.

How UM Coverage Works And Why You Need It

UM coverage kicks in when you, or someone else covered by your policy, is injured by a driver with either no insurance or insufficient insurance to fully compensate the injured party for their legal damages. Keep in mind, an uninsured driver can also include an unknown party, such as a hit-and-run driver who flees the scene of an accident and is never identified by the police.

Now, you are not required to purchase or maintain UM coverage under Florida law. However, your insurance company is legally required to offer such coverage when you purchase your policy. It is then up to you to reject UM coverage in writing. In most cases, it is a good idea to carry at least some UM coverage.

Normally, your insurance company will offer you UM coverage with the same basic limits as your required PIP coverage. You can also elect to purchase a higher limit of coverage. One thing to note, is that UM coverage is often sold as either “stacking” or “non-stacking.” The basic difference between the two is that while stacked coverage is typically more expensive, it also allows you to combine the limits on multiple insured vehicles. In other words, say you have two insured vehicles, each with a UM limit of $50,000 per person. Should an accident occur, the maximum coverage on a stacked UM policy would be $100,000 per person.

Not to mention that UM coverage only covers personal injury. It does not cover any damage to your car. For this reason, you should not avoid UM coverage simply because you have an older vehicle. Remember, UM coverage is designed to protect you and other household members in the event of a serious accident.

Protect Yourself And Speak With Us Today

Even if you have UM coverage, your insurance company may still put up a fight when it comes time to actually pay out the policy. That is why it is a good idea to consult with an experienced Tampa auto accident attorney who will look out for your best interests. Contact HD Law Partners today to schedule a free consultation with a member of our Florida personal injury team.

Posted in Auto Accidents, Auto Insurance | No Comments »

Historically, Florida common law has allowed parties to assign their contractual rights to third parties. There are some exceptions–such as agreements involving personal service obligations or that otherwise violate public policy–but generally speaking, one party cannot prohibit the other from assigning their rights under a contract. And although Florida statutes state that a contract for insurance “may be assignable, or not assignable, as provided by its terms,” courts have long held that an insurer cannot demand consent before allowing a policyholder to assign insurance benefits to a third party.

Judge: Insurer Cannot Require Consent for Assignment of Post-Loss Claims

A recent decision by a federal judge in Fort Myers, Florida, Sabran v. Rockhill Insurance Company, illustrates the difficulties faced by insurance companies in attempting to enforce restrictions on assigning policy benefits. This case revolved around a Florida property damaged by Hurricane Irma in 2017. The property owner, a limited liability company (LLC), filed a claim with its insurance carrier. The insurer denied the claim in 2019.

Over a year later, in 2020, the LLC sold the property to a couple, who are the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. At the time of the sale, the LLC also assigned its disputed insurance claim related to Hurricane Irma to the plaintiffs. After the sale closed, the plaintiffs then filed a second claim, which the insurer again denied.

The plaintiffs ultimately sued the insurance company for breach of contract. The insurance company moved to dismiss the case. The insurer argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing as they had not suffered any injury–and more to the point, the policy contained an “anti-transfer clause” that barred the LLC from assigning its rights to a third party.

A federal judge rejected the insurance company’s defenses on this issue. The judge acknowledged that the language of the policy stated the LLC’s “rights and duties under this policy may not be transferred” without the insurance company’s “written consent.” But this clause was unenforceable under Florida law. As noted above, Florida common law has long protected the rights of insured parties to assign their benefits after a loss without first seeking the insurer’s consent.

And even if the anti-transfer clause was enforceable, the judge went on to explain that the language used in the policy only forbade “the transfer of the entire insurance policy, not a post-loss benefit under the policy,” or for that matter the transfer of the LLC’s rights without obtaining the insurer’s consent. Here, the LLC did not, in fact, assign the entire policy. It only assigned its post-loss rights, i.e., the right to file a claim related to the Hurricane Irma damage.

Speak with a Florida Insurance Lawyer Today

Insurance companies have every right to hold policyholders to the strict language of a policy. But the same is true for insurers, who must also be aware of any statutory or common law restrictions imposed upon their policies. So if you are involved in a coverage-related dispute and need legal representation from a qualified Tampa insurance litigation attorney, contact HD Law Partners today.

Source

Posted in Insurance Litigation | No Comments »

Even when an insurance company is required to cover some damages arising from a specific event, such as water damage, that does not necessarily mean the policy covers all damages incidental to the event. Of course, an insurer is required to pay a valid claim in good faith. But they are not under any legal obligation to go beyond the scope of the policy’s coverage.

Florida Appeals Court: Insurer Only Liable for Overflowed Toilet, Not the Damaged Pipe That Fed It

Take this recent decision from the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, State Farm Insurance Company v. Shotwell. This case involved a dispute over water damage to a private residence. The homeowner’s toilet overflowed, causing substantial water damage to his master bathroom, master bedroom, and adjoining parts of the house.

The homeowner held an “all-risk” policy with State Farm. The insurer acknowledged coverage for some of the water damage and issued an initial payment of $888.72, which accounted for the homeowner’s deductible and depreciation.

The homeowner then hired a public adjuster to assess the total amount of the property damage. Working with a construction company, the adjuster determined the toilet overflowed “due to a blockage in a sagging and corroded pipe” located underneath the kitchen cabinets. This pipe serviced the master bathroom. To access and fix that pipe, the construction company therefore needed to tear out and replace part of the kitchen cabinets.

An appraiser ultimately determined the total amount of the homeowner’s damages came to around $139,000. State Farm said it would only pay some of that amount. Of note here, the insurance company argued it was not responsible for the costs of tearing out part of the kitchen to access the defective pipe.

Dissatisfied, the homeowner sued State Farm for breach of contract. A trial judge sided with the homeowner and ordered State Farm to pay the full amount of damages. On appeal, however, the Third District partially reversed. It agreed with State Farm that the policy language did in fact exclude the costs of tearing out the kitchen cabinets.

The key provision of the insurance policy stated that when property loss was caused by water “escaping” from a system, State Farm would pay to tear out and replace “only that particular part … necessary to gain access to the specific point of that system … from which the water” escaped. In other words, State Farm was liable for damages to the toilet–since that was the point where water actually escaped into the house–and not the pipe in the kitchen. It might sound pedantic, but the Third District said that was how the policy was worded.

Contact a Florida Insurance Lawyer Today

Insurance disputes often turn on highly specific policy language. Insurers and insured parties alike need to carefully review and understand their policies before heading into court. An experienced Tampa mold and water damage attorney can help. Contact HD Law Partners today if you are involved in a potential insurance dispute and need legal representation.

Source:

https://3dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/793820/opinion/210356_DC08_10062021_103741_i.pdf

Posted in Mold Water Damage | No Comments »

Homeowner’s insurance policies often contain appraisal clauses. Appraisal is a form of alternative dispute resolution similar to arbitration. In its simplest form, an appraisal clause states that if the parties disagree as to the amount of an insured loss, each side will appoint an independent appraiser. If the appraisers cannot agree on a value, they will jointly appoint an umpire to act as a tie-breaker. The final decision is then binding on the insurance company and the policyholder.

Florida Court: Roofing Contractor Must Submit Insurance Claim to Appraisal

When an insurance policy provides for binding appraisal, then either party may initiate the process and the other party must comply. But what happens if the homeowner assigns their claim to a third party, such as a company hired to perform repairs? Does the appraisal process bind the third party as well?

Earlier this year, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal addressed just such a case, Webb Roofing & Construction v. FedNat Insurance Company. Here, the insurance company sought to compel appraisal over the objections of the third-party contractor.

The case itself arose from damage to a home sustained during Hurricane Irma in 2017. The homeowners hired a contractor to repair damage to their roof. The contractor insisted on an assignment of insurance benefits to secure payment.

The contractor subsequently sued the insurance company for damages. The insurance company replied by stating it had the right to compel an appraisal under the policy. The contractor argued it could not be compelled to submit to an appraisal.

A Florida circuit court judge sided with the insurance company. It held that the mandatory appraisal provision in the policy was enforceable against the contractor. The contractor persisted and filed an appeal, but the Second District agreed with the circuit court’s decision.

As the Court of Appeals explained, the general rule in Florida is that absent certain limited exceptions, “[a] All contractual rights are assignable” unless the contract itself prohibits assignment. This includes “post-loss insurance claims.” In this case, the homeowners assigned their post-loss claims to the contractor. That assignment did not, however, eliminate the “duty of compliance with contract conditions.” At the same time, a third party cannot be held liable for performance of any duty under the contract.

But compliance with the appraisal provision is not a matter of “performance,” the Second District held. Rather, it is a condition precedent to receiving benefits under the insurance policy. That condition was “not eliminated by a post-loss assignment of the contract.” The contractor therefore had to submit their dispute over the amount of coverage to binding appraisal.

Speak with a Florida Insurance Lawyer Today

Appraisal and alternative dispute resolution generally play an important role in resolving insurance claims. Insurance companies certainly have every right to enforce their own contracts providing for such methods of dispute resolution. If you are involved in such a dispute and need representation from an experienced Tampa insurance litigation attorney, contact the offices of HD Law Partners today to schedule a consultation with a member of our team.

Source

Posted in Insurance Litigation | No Comments »

Insurance disputes often involve complex questions of law and contract interpretation. Yet many cases boil down to a single question: Does the insurance policy actually cover the claim at issue? Sometimes this question proves relatively easy to answer.

For example, there is this recent decision from a federal judge in Tampa, Ditech Financial LLC v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company. The plaintiff in this case was a mortgage loan servicing company. The plaintiff ran into trouble with regulators in 2014 over purported “deficiencies” in its business practices. As relevant to this case, the plaintiff had failed to conduct annual escrow analysis for borrowers involved in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases.

Basically, Ditech was supposed to analyze any changes to a borrowers’ property tax and insurance payments while they were in bankruptcy. The failure to conduct this analysis meant that there were shortages in the borrowers’ escrow accounts, which they remained liable for under their mortgages. Ditech made up for these shortfalls and then tried to get its money back from the borrowers after they exited bankruptcy.

The Executive Office of the United States Trustee (EOUST), which oversees bankruptcy estates, raised concerns about this practice with the plaintiff in 2014. In October 2015, an EOUST lawyer sent an email notifying the plaintiff’s attorney that the Trustee Program would “move forward” with settlement discussions over this and other deficiencies with respect to the plaintiff’s business practices.

The final settlement included approximately $24 million related to the escrow accounts. The plaintiff then tried to recover these losses under two of its business liability insurance policies. The insurers refused to provide coverage, prompting the plaintiff to file its federal lawsuit.

The judge overseeing the case decided to grant summary judgment to the defendant insurance companies. The judge’s reasoning was straightforward: Coverage under both insurance policies here were “triggered only if a claim is first made against the insured during the policy period.” In this case, the applicable policy period began on September 1, 2016, and ended on September 1, 2017.

But as noted above, the EOUST initially notified the plaintiff of its claim–i.e., its intent to seek a settlement related to the escrow accounts–in October 2015, nearly a year before the policy period. The judge noted this email “not a simple request for more information or a mere inquiry into some untoward event.” It was, in fact, a “specific demand for [the plaintiff] to rectify the legally cognizable damage created by its escrow analysis deficiencies.” As such, the clear language of the insurance policies barred the plaintiff from seeking coverage of its losses.

Contact a Tampa Insurance Lawyer Today

In any insurance dispute, both sides have certain rights and responsibilities. That is why it is important to work with an experienced Tampa insurance bad faith attorney who can sit down and review the specific language of a policy with you and offer advice regarding the applicability and scope of its coverage. If you need to speak with someone today, contact HD Law Partners to schedule an initial consultation.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3128397450302785689

Posted in Insurance Bad Faith, Insurance Defense | No Comments »