News & Resources

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.

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?

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?

After discussing market considerations in setting insurance rates, we turn to recent activity in Congress. As you recall from our last two posts, insurance companies are required to set rates based on risk and loss expectations, not on supply or demand issues. Florida regulators maintain that insurance companies are increasing premiums because they can, not because they have to: Insurers realize that there is very little competition in some parts of the state and that they have, pardon the insurance pun, a captive audience.

In December 2014, the Consumer Federation of America raised some questions about how Allstate was calculating auto insurance premiums. The CFA alleged that Allstate was basing those premiums on “marketplace considerations.” These marketplace considerations focus on competition and supply and demand — factors that in most industries would certainly influence price.

Florida consumers may not realize it, but a heated discussion is brewing between their property/casualty insurance companies and the state’s Office of Insurance Regulation. The subject is price optimization, and the OIR recently reminded p/c insurers that state law prohibits its use.

After an accident, no one wants to spend time fighting an insurance company. If you are injured, you want to focus on getting better. If your property is damaged, you just want it fixed so you can move on with your life. If you have lost a loved one, you need time to mourn and to adjust to the abrupt change in your life.

Our firm has been representing home insurance policy-holders in disputes with their insurers for more than two decades, and we have seen far too many examples of insurers that try to get away with paying homeowners less than they are entitled to.

There are few things you can really count on these days, but one of them is that Florida will rank among the most expensive states for insurance. We ranked third overall in a report recently released by financial analysis website NerdWallet.com. The researchers looked at the average costs of homeowners, health, life and auto insurance in each state and the District of Columbia and then determined what portion of the state’s median household income was spent on insurance.