Ver Ploeg & Lumpkin, P.A. - Insurance Dispute
Call Us - 305-577-3996
Main Menu
August 2015 Archives

Flood insurance changes afoot in Florida and, with luck, the US

The Tampa Tribune published an op-ed recently that ties in nicely with the Weather Channel's warnings about the remnants of Tropical Storm Erika. Tampa was beset by heavy rainstorms earlier this month, and the flooding and increased risk of flooding are clearly still on the community's mind. While Erika is no longer a tropical storm, the system is expected to drop a lot of rain on Florida early this week. It makes sense, then, that the subject of flood insurance would come up.

Is the idea of workers' comp as the 'sole remedy' on its way out? p4

We are finishing up our discussion of a workers' compensation lawsuit that could change the way Florida and every other state approach workers' comp as an injured workers' sole remedy. As we explained in our last post, the Court of Appeal focused on procedural issues. The appellate panel found that the complaining parties had no real argument with the state, had suffered no actual losses as a result of the workers' comp statute. As a result, the court was not required to give a second thought to the constitutionality issue.

Is the idea of workers' comp as the 'sole remedy' on its way out? p3

The Florida Court of Appeal decision we have been talking about skirts an important question, and the appellees have asked the state Supreme Court not only to review the decision but to address the central issue. The court has asked for revised filings, but it is still not clear whether the case will be added to the docket.

Is the idea of workers' comp as the 'sole remedy' on its way out? p2

We are continuing our discussion of workers' compensation. Policymakers are beginning to wonder if the system in general or just pieces of it are perhaps past their prime. But, if just some parts are no longer relevant, can the system survive without them?

Is the idea of workers' comp as the 'sole remedy' on its way out?

One of the complaints about personal injury lawsuits has been that the results are so inconsistent. A woman who loses her husband, the father of their three young children, in a drunk driving accident could be awarded millions in damages by one jury and less then $1 million by another. State laws try to control damage awards, especially for pain and suffering, but with mixed success. The dollar amounts may be lower, but, opponents argue, what if the plaintiff deserves more? What if making a plaintiff whole will really cost twice the amount the state has decided is quite enough, thank you?