May 18, 2022 | Legal Alerts

DeFi Insurance: What It Is and How It Works

The decentralized finance (DeFi) market is a new one with limitless possibilities. Along with the excitement come a number of risks in this nascent field. A lack of regulation, bad actors, and unstable systems have the potential to cause large losses. However, a new industry has emerged to meet the needs of people who want to participate in DeFi while protecting themselves against some of the potential risks. Now, people can purchase insurance against many of the losses they might encounter. However, like DeFi itself, this fledgling insurance market also has its own risks and challenges.

 

May 17, 2022 | Verdicts and Settlements

Fort Myers Attorneys Obtain Defense Verdict in a First Party Property Case

Cristobal Casal, managing partner, and Elliott Tubbs, an associate, in the firm’s Fort Myers office, obtained a defense verdict in a first party property case tried over 2 days in Lee County, Florida. Plaintiff was a roofing company and claimed that the insured home was damaged as a result of Hurricane Irma and that the insurance carrier breached the subject policy of insurance by not providing coverage for the alleged roof damage. The plaintiff demanded the full amount of an entire roof replacement for a roof that was built in 2003. The jury found that the Plaintiff had not met its burden of proving that the roof was damaged within the policy period and returned a defense verdict after deliberating for less than 15 minutes. 

May 16, 2022 | Legal Alerts

Supreme Court puts to rest any dispute as to the admissibility of gross medical bills at trial where the bills were settled by Medicare

On April 28, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dial v. Calusa Palms Master Assoc., Inc., in which the Court put to rest, once and for all, the Plaintiffs’ bar’s argument that the Court’s prior opinion in Joerg v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 176 So. 3d 1247 (Fla. 2015) had no application to the question of whether the Plaintiff may introduce the gross amount of his/her past medical bills into evidence. In Joerg, the Supreme Court held that the defense was not entitled to introduce evidence that the Plaintiff would be receiving Medicare or other benefits in the future and therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to introduce evidence of anticipated future medical expenses without reduction for anticipated future Medicare of other benefits. The Plaintiffs’ bar has been arguing for years that Joerg impliedly overruled the substantial District Court of Appeal precedent holding that a Plaintiff may only introduce into evidence the amount of his/her past medical expenses to the extent that those expenses had been paid by Medicare and not the gross amount of the bills before Medicare reduced them. 

May 13, 2022 | Verdicts and Settlements

Hollywood Attorneys Obtained a Favorable Verdict in an Auto Negligence Case with Admitted Liability

Tom McCausland and Josh Nathanson, both partners in the Hollywood office, tried an admitted liability auto negligence case where Plaintiff sustained significant fractures to both wrists with surgery and hardware secured to both wrists. Plaintiff had additional claims of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and PTSD, which would require treatment for over 50 years following the accident. The defense was Plaintiff sustained a permanent injury from an orthopedic standpoint, but received a good result and did not need any future treatment and that she did not suffer from Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. The defense stipulated to past medical bills of $126,439.51. The plaintiff’s attorney asked the Jury to award $20 million for her injuries and the Defense suggested the jury award $650,000. After deliberating for 3 hours, the jury returned a verdict of $1,465,439.51. There was over $5 million in coverage and there was never a demand of less than the policy limits. 

May 11, 2022 | Verdicts and Settlements

Conroy Simberg Attorneys Obtain Defense Verdict in Products Liability Case

Hollywood Partners Seth R. Goldberg, Joshua E. Nathanson, Michael J. Paris and appellate partner Hinda Klein recently obtained a defense verdict. This was a products liability case based upon a claim that the product, a portable generator was defective as it caused severe burns to the plaintiff. The defense was that there was no defect as several hundred of the same generators were sold by the defendant, our client without incident. Despite the fact that the plaintiff told the ER Doctor he was putting gasoline in the generator when it exploded, the plaintiff's attorney asked the jury to ignore this fact and argued that the generator was defective and that is what caused the injuries.