If you happened to watch the television news program 60 Minutes this past weekend, there’s a good chance you caught the eye-opening segment detailing how many insurance companies are wrongfully failing to pay out life insurance benefits to beneficiaries and how Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty is leading the national charge to rectify this.
From auto and health to home and life, one of the unspoken benefits of insurance coverage is the peace of mind it grants the policyholder. Indeed, people rest a bit easier believing that even though the premiums they are paying are by no means cheap, they will nevertheless be okay from a financial perspective when it really matters.
It may seem hard to believe, but we are now less than two months away from the start of the 2016 hurricane season. While everyone is naturally keeping their fingers crossed for another quiet year here in the Sunshine State, they will nevertheless want to ensure that they are ready in the event the now decade-long streak of good luck runs out.
Auto insurance is a critical resource to have after an auto accident, as anybody who has been in a serious crash understands. Florida, unlike some other states, has a no-fault insurance system in which motorists are required to carry minimum levels of personal injury protection (PIP) to cover medical costs when an accident occurs.
We are continuing our discussion of life insurance policies and different ways the policy owner can take advantage of a policy’s value. Our focus here is on one particular option: the life settlement.
In July 2014, we wrote a series of posts about stranger-originated life insurance policies and the efforts of various states, including Florida, to regulate, even to eliminate STOLIs. With STOLIs taking so much of the spotlight, though, life insurance companies found it difficult to explain legitimate ways to turn a policy into cash.
We are talking about a lawsuit two taxi companies and an Uber customer filed against the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. As we said in our last post, the plaintiffs do not want money damages; they are requesting that the court order the FDHSMV to answer a question about the state’s insurance requirements for for-hire passenger vehicles.
It’s safe to say that taxi and limousine companies are wary of Uber and its transportation network company kin. It’s also safe to say that Florida’s taxi companies are not alone in their misgivings.
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.
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.
