State Farm Cases
State Farm Settlements in Florida:
Below are just a few of the car accident cases that Alan has settled and won against State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company. These cases were either resolved pre-suit or won in a lawsuit.
We believe the settlement values shown here are a fair representation of the median value of most State Farm car accident cases in South Florida. To see some of Alan's larger verdicts and settlements, click on the link below.
Sample of Alan's Settlements with State Farm:
See More of Alan Sackrin's Verdicts and Settlements
State Farm Case Law (Florida)
Below are State Farm Automobile Insurance cases related to car accident claims. We believe an experienced and knowledgeable car accident lawyer will analyze cases involving their defendant to give them a view into how the defendant approaches car and other motor vehicle accident claims.
95 So.3d 303 (2012)
The circuit court’s final summary judgment in favor of the insurer is appealed by the insured. The insurer did not validate the insurers property damage claim because the insured failed to comply with their policy of giving immediate notice as well as submitting a sworn proof of loss within 60 days after the alleged loss. The appellants alleged that their failure to comply with the policy did not bar them from recovery. The noncompliance created a presumption of prejudice to the insurer that the insured failed to rebut. The court disagrees with that insureds notion and affirms.
The insured appealed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the insurer. Insured’s property was damaged from an internal explosion of a decomposed body. The insured claims that the insurer waived the sworn proof of loss requirement and her personal property was covered because an “explosion”, caused the damage. The court found that the insurer did not waive the sworn proof of loss by tendering payment because engaging in negotiations for a possible settlement is not a waiver. Furthermore, the trial court’s definition of “explosion” did not encompass the internal explosion from a decomposing body. The court affirms.
The insured appeals the circuit court’s final judgment in favor of the insurer. The insured was denied uninsured motorist coverage because of failure to comply with a policy provision that stated the insured had to sue the owner or driver of the uninsured motor vehicle. The court of appeals found that the provision violated the public policy of the uninsured motorist statue and places an undue burden on the insured. Additionally the court stated that the provision in question more likely benefits the insurer and not the insured. Judgment is reversed and remanded.
The insured appealed the trial court’s decision in granting the insurer a motion to stay because of the inability of the two parties to agree on the extent of the damages and cost of repairs. The insured argues that the insurer did not comply with the Florida statute 627.7015(9) that states the insured is to be notified of her right to participate in mediation. The insurer counters by stating there was never a dispute relating to a material issue of fact. After analyzing the context of the statue, the court states that the trial court erred in granting the motion.
The Court of appeals grants the insurer’s petition for a writ of certiorari requesting a review of the trial court’s decision to allow certain discovery in the insurer’s claim file. The underlying case involved the insured bringing action against the insurer to recover for property damage. The insured states that allowing these documents constitutes improper, bad faith discovery. The court concluded that because the coverage issue had not been resolved, the trial court erred in compelling disclosure of the insured’s file materials.
The court of appeals affirms a summary judgment in favor of the insurer. The insured sought the defense of the insurer in a bodily injury where a third party brought action against the insured for injuries sustained through the exposure of a sexually transmitted disease. The insurer brought declaratory action seeking relief from any obligation to defend or indemnify the insured in the underlying action because the term “bodily” injury in their policy does not include disease, exposure to disease, or emotional distress. Based on the language of the policy the court affirms.
The court of appeals grants the insurers’ petitions to void two orders from the trial court. The order to deny a motion to abate a cause of action was quashed because determination of the underlying coverage and damages action must precede a bad faith action. The order to compel the insurer to respond to requests for admissions in regards to their procedures and business practices has also been quashed because a party is not entitled to the discovery mentioned until coverage and damages has been determined.
The insurer appeals from a $100,000 judgment entered in favor of the insured. The insurer provided that if the court applied the proper credits against the judgment then the total would have been a little over $72,000. The court turns to the statute that underlines what the insured is entitled to credit against damages for various expenses. However, the court found that when the total amount of damages is subtracted from the judgment, the insurer is left with the proper $100,000, which he is entitled to under his uninsured motorist policy.
The court of appeals reverses the trial courts decision to not limit a judgment on an uninsured motorist’s claim as directed by the policy limits. The insured contended that damages that exceed the limit of $100,000 were available because of the reference to an umbrella or excess policy number mentioned in the insurer’s response to information requested by the insured. The court found that there was no basis pleaded or litigated in the cases for damages that was greater than the coverage already afforded by the insurer.
The insured originally brought suit to the insurer to recover additional damages from injuries sustained from an automobile accident. The insurer concluded her injuries were nominal and the suit did not result in recovery of damages from the insurer. The insurer subsequently filed suit to recover for attorney fees and costs pursuant to Florida statute 768.79. The court of appeals reverses the trial courts decision in denying their motion finding that the insurer’s exposure to liability for additional claimed damages were minimal.
The appellant appeals a final judgment in favor of the insurer. At trial the insurer asserted a subrogation claim against the appellant who was involved in an accident with an insured third party. However, the appellate court found that the insurer failed to prove that the entire claim for personal injuries was satisfied. The insurer failed to satisfy all the elements that would grant subrogation by not proving that all damages were paid or that it obtained a release of the appellant for the third party injury.
901 So.2d 329 (2005)
The insurer appeals a judgment for attorney’s fees and costs stemming from a previous trial for damages. The appellate court affirms the lower courts decision because the judgment reflected work performed subsequent to the entry of the jury’s verdict. The insured was on notice that there was a motion for attorney’s fees and the number of hours that were reasonably expended at a reasonable hourly rate, in which the insured made no objections to at the time of the hearing.
The appellant was involved in an automobile collision, which subsequently resulted in bringing suit against her insurer for damages. The appellant requested to file a second amended complaint and was denied in the lower court. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to amend the complaint because the amendment would merely add the existence of a new fact that introduced an alternative theory. The amendment was not a new cause of action and the insurer was aware of the new possible theory.
The appellate court reversed the decision of the lower court that required the insurer to pay replacements costs to its insureds. The appellate court looked at the Florida statute 627.707(5)(b) in order to determine their verdict. This statute gave the insurer the authority to withhold payment for the replacement costs until the insured contracted for those repairs. The insured incorporated the statute into its policy. In addition, the court stated that the policy is not ambiguous and to rule otherwise would render the provision meaningless.
The insured appeals the trial court’s decision where she issued an action seeking a declaration of her rights and obligations under the uninsured motorist policy with her insurer. In addition the insured amended her complaint to waive any claim for economic damages. The insured stated that she is covered under her uninsured motorist policy with the insurer for damages. The lower court entered a final summary judgment, in which dismissed her action and denied her motion. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the insurer due to equitable estoppel.
The insured seeks coverage from her insurer for injuries sustained in an accident. The insured alleges that she requested her insurer to pay her medical bills from her coverage and her insurer refused to do so. The insured brought suit for the PIP benefits as well as punitive damages. The appellate court reverses and remands the decision of the lower court on the grounds that not paying benefits an insurance company is clearly required to do would be the type of conduct where the insured can recover under punitive damages.
Appellants attempted to recover for the loss of stolen goods from their insurance company. The insureds were paid only $200 because of the special limitation in their insurance policy that did not allow them to recover over a certain limit. The appellants filed a suit for breach of contract stating their stolen goods were rare and fell outside the limitation. The appellate court affirms the trial courts decision in granting the insurers summary judgment by declaring the limiting language in the policy as clear and unambiguous.
The insureds sought recovery for damages sustained to their property. The insurers had a strict policy that stated the insureds had to give immediate notice of the damage. The insureds did not comply with the policy and reported the incident roughly three years later. The insurer did not grant recovery and the insureds sued for breach of contract. The appellate court reversed and remanded the trial courts decision to grant the insurers motion for summary judgment due to the fact that there were many issues of material fact left to question regarding the insureds’ ability to overcome the policy provision.
The appellants appeal two trial court orders granting final summary judgment for the insurers. After a motor-vehicle collision, the appellants filed a complaint for damages against the insurer on the count that the three lead drivers in the accident were negligent. The insurer filed for motion for summary judgment claiming that based on the undisputed and uncontroverted facts, the insured was negligent in the accident. The court agreed that but for the negligence of the insured, no vehicles would have came into contact with one another. The appellate court affirms.
The appellant was injured in a motor-vehicle accident and sued two drivers as well as the insurer. She entered trial for damages and was awarded in the amount of $85,000 as well attorney’s fees. The trial court wrongly used the jury verdict figure to determine entitlement to attorney fees mandated by section 768.79 of the Florida statutes. The statue states that damages that trigger attorney’s fees are measured by the judgment and not the jury verdict. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial courts decision.
Want to Know More?
To learn more about Alan, see:
Get A Free Case Evaluation
Call (954) 458-8655
Contact Alan to find out how he can help you. You can contact him by phone at 954-458-8655 or by e-mail through this web site to schedule an appointment and learn more about your rights from a Florida car accident lawyer. He offers a free initial consultation.
Do You Have a Question?
Please fill out the “Talk With An Attorney” form above to ask a question or you can call us at 954-458-8655. We promise to get back to you promptly. Ask now.