Florida Supreme Court addresses scope of "Coverage B", Employers' Liability Coverage, finding it mutually exclusive of Workers' Compensation coverage

Posted in Newsletters - 2014 on December 4, 2014

On December 4, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in Morales v. Zenith Ins. Co., Case No. SC13-696, a case certified to the Court by the federal Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  In Morales, Santana Morales, Jr. was crushed to death by a palm tree while working for his employer Lawns Nursery.  His widow settled his workers' compensation claim with Lawns and its workers' compensation/employers’ liability insurance carrier, Zenith.  The settlement contained a release expressly electing workers' compensation as Morales' sole remedy under the Zenith policy.

Read More

Defense Verdict obtained in Georgia case alleging that defendant driver was negligent per se for hitting pedestrians

Posted in Newsletters - 2014 on August 28, 2014

Joshua C. Canton, Partner in our Tallahassee office, obtained a Defense Verdict on behalf of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Harold L. Lindsey in a pedestrian versus vehicle/underinsured motorist case.  Plaintiffs were a retired couple on vacation in Savannah, GA for a month.  The accident occurred on the Plaintiffs' first evening in Savannah as they were crossing the street at a crosswalk in a historic downtown neighborhood.  The tortfeasor, Mr. Lindsey, driving to a gas station from his nearby home.  Plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Lindsey was negligent for pulling into the crosswalk and colliding with them, after he stopped at the stop bar.  They alleged that Mr. Lindsey was negligent for failing to watch where he was driving and that he was negligent per se for violating Georgia Statutes requiring a driver to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk.  Mr. Lindsey alleged that the Plaintiffs suddenly stepped in front of his vehicle from behind a large bush on the corner that obstructed his vision, after they observed that Mr. Lindsey was looking away from them.  Nationwide alleged that the damages did not exceed the underlying limits of $50,000/$100,000.

E-Alert 08-28-14.pdf

Read More