Taylor, Warren & Weidner, P.A. took Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company to court for refusing to pay a claim it had promised to do so in the policy it sold to the homeowners.  Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company refused to pay for a home that burnt down after a fire which left a family of six out on the street.  The jury agreed with the family and ordered Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company to pay for the damages as it had promised to do when the homeowners purchased the policy of coverage.

The verdict justly compensated the family for the losses.  However, this justice took over eight years of costly litigation.  Based on this delay and the costs of the litigation, which the family needlessly had to endure, Taylor, Warren & Weidner, P.A. asked the Court for additional compensation.  The Court agreed and awarded the family $132,793.07 in attorney’s fees and costs and $73,540.82 as compensation for the delays.  These funds were in addition to the money the family was awarded by the jury to rebuild their house.

This family is a perfect example of how resolve and determination can help level the playing field between a big insurance company and an individual. Some people choose to forego legal representation because they do not believe they can afford a lawyer.  This is not always the case.   In these economic times, you cannot afford not to hire a lawyer.  The best chance you have of receiving full and fair compensation is to consult with a lawyer as soon as possible.  Contact us today to discuss your rights without any obligation, fee, or cost unless you retain us and we make a recovery on your behalf.

Interesting article in the Huffington Post last month.  This article exposes what most of us already know.  Insurance companies are putting profits ahead of people.  They are able to get away with this because the laws which regulate this industry are weak and one-sided.  According to a prominent business professor from Northwestern University, claims have become a money-making process for the insurance industry.  What this means is that insurance companies actually make money when you have a loss.

According to the Huffington Post, the insurance company makes money off of their clients by purposefully low-balling their customers. According to the article, if a customer refused a low ball offer, their claim would be delayed and the customer would be intentionally forced to bring expensive litigation.  According to a former Allstate Insurance Company claims agent, their strategy was to make enforcing your rights so expensive and time-consuming that lawyers could not afford to help policy holders.  This former Allstate employee states that this policy was nick named, “From Good Hands to Boxing Gloves.”

The Huffington Post cites to an article which identifies Allstate Insurance Company as the worst insurance company in the country.  Behind Allstate are Unum, AIG, State Farm, Conseco, WellPoint, Farmers, UnitedHealth, Torchmark, and Liberty Mutual.   To read more about how insurance companies are purposefully delaying your claims read the article here. Link

 What is an Examination Under Oath? 

If you make a claim for benefits under your own insurance policy, you could be subject to an Examination under Oath.  An Examination under Oath, or EUO, is a sworn statement given by someone who has made a claim due to fire, lightning, hurricane, or car accident–just to name a few.  According to the group, United Policy Holders, insurance companies use this procedure if they suspect a fraudulent claim or if they are considering disputing coverage before going into litigation. The insurance company will hire a lawyer to ask you questions. You will be forced to swear an oath before you answer any question.  Your statements are recorded by a court reporter.  The insurance company will use your statement against you if it servers the insurance company’s purpose. 

Who has to give an EUO? 

In the insurance policy, your insurance company has given itself the right to question you “under oath” about the details of the loss, the claim, as well very personal matters.  Usually, the policy requires the named insured to appear; and sometimes any insured must appear.  At the EUO, they can ask you about almost any matter they wish.  They typically interrogate you about: your background; family history; educational history; employment history; claim history (other insurance claims); financial history; criminal arrests; and your credit history.  This is all before they ask you one question about your claim.  Most EUOs take several hours; some take several days.  

What if you don’t cooperate? 

If you fail to attend an EUO, your claim will be denied.  The courts have ruled that the failure to cooperate with your insurance company will defeat your claim for benefits forever.  If you refuse to answer a question posed during an EUO, or terminate the EUO because the questions are unfair or overly personal, then the insurance company will likely deny the claim for failure to fully cooperate.  The insurance company can also force you to produce documents at an EUO.  Some of the documents they may ask you to produce include: tax returns; checking and savings accounts; loan documentation; credit card statements; utility bills; cell phone records; business income and expense records; and invoices and receipts.  Again, the insurance company can deny your claim if they feel that you refused to cooperate by not producing the documents they requested.  

Should You be worried? 

Yes, you should worry if your insurance company asks you for an EUO..  The insurance company is not going to hire a lawyer to interrogate you because they want to help you substantiate your claim.  They suspect fraud or are collecting information, from you, in order to deny your claim.  You have the right to have your own lawyer at an EUO.  However, you are not required to have your own attorney.  In fact, the insurance company will be delighted if you appear without a lawyer.  If you do not have an attorney, we recommend you consult with an attorney before attending any EUO.

On June 29, 2011, an Escambia County Jury told Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company that it could not get out of a deal it made with a Pensacola family of 6.  A Pensacola family purchased homeowner’s insurance from the company with the red elephant, Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company.  Universal promised to insure the family home in case of disaster if the family agreed to pay insurance premiums.  The family agreed to the deal and paid Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company over $2,000.00 for insurance to protect their home.

In 2007, the family home experienced an accidental fire.  The fire burned the home to the ground and consumed almost every possession they owned.  Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company had no problem accepting this family’s money for premiums –until they needed to make a claim that is. When Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company found out about the accidental fire, they decided they no longer wanted to be the family’s insurance company—they wanted to “take-back” the deal.

Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company did not claim the fire was not covered under the policy.  Accidental fire is clearly covered by this policy.  The insurance company argued that it did not have to honor the policy because one of the family members answered a question on the application incorrectly.  Instead of scouring through the debris and helping the family evaluate the extent of the damage, Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company went scouring the public records to see if they could find a mistake on the application.  When Universal found a mistake involving a mathematical error dealing with the length of time since an event, 8 /12 years earlier, they simply refused to pay any money to help this family.  Universal essentially ripped up the policy in the face of the family.

The family hired Taylor, Warren & Weidner, P.A. to handle their insurance dispute with Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company.  Taylor, Warren & Weidner, P.A. filed a law suit against Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company for breach of contract because it refused to honor its promise to provide this family with benefits after their property was damaged by fire.  Partner, J. Phillip Warren, with the assistance of paralegal, Tracy Hendrix, FRP, presented this family’s case to an Escambia County Jury.  After a three day trial, the jury quickly came back with a verdict finding that Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company had breached their contract with the family.  The jury’s verdict requires Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company to honor the policy and provide the benefits it promised nearly 4 years earlier.

During the last few weeks we have had to tell too many people that there is no insurance to compensate them for their injuries caused by careless drivers.  Inevitably, they say “but my insurance agent told me I had full coverage.”  These people have become victims twice.  Not only are they the victim of another driver’s carelessness, but also they will never have the opportunity to make a fair recovery because they did not have the correct insurance coverage to protect themselves.

Florida law does not require an owner of a vehicle to carry Bodily Injury (BI) insurance.  BI insurance pays to compensate other people hurt in a crash if you are found to be the at-fault driver.  If you are injured by a careless driver who does not have enough BI or any BI insurance, there will not be enough money to compensate you for your medical bills or lost wages if the crash is a serious one.  The only way to protect yourself from being financially devastated due to the fault of a careless driver is to purchase UM Coverage which stands for Underinsured/Uninsured Motorist Coverage.

UM Coverage protects an injured person and their family when a careless driver either doesn’t have enough BI insurance or has no BI insurance at all.  UM Coverage is the flipside to BI insurance.  BI insurance protects the other driver.  UM Coverage protects you.

This firm has focused on personal injury insurance claims in Florida over the years.  We have learned that when a driver thinks they have “Full Coverage,” what they actually have is legal coverage, or the minimum required by law.  The State of Florida does not require drivers to carry insurance to protect innocent people they may hurt.  The State of Florida only requires automobile owners to have very limited medical and disability coverage for the auto owner, NOT the innocent people they may hurt, and property damage coverage for damage to other people’s property.  You can drive on the roads in Florida with legal coverage and yet have no protection for severe injuries caused by someone else’s carelessness.

Contact your insurance agent and ask whether you have UM Coverage on your car to protect you and your family.  If you do not have UM, ask for it immediately.  Purchase as much as you can afford so that YOU are protected.  Once you have been involved in a car crash it is too late.

In an effort to better reach out to the community and let them know what we do at Taylor, Warren & Weidner, P.A., we have launched three new television commercials.  See them here:

Stephanie Taylor on Disability Insurance

Click here to view the embedded video.

Keith Weidner on Insurance Claim Denials

Click here to view the embedded video.

Stephanie Taylor on Social Security Disability

Click here to view the embedded video.

Taylor, Warren & Weidner, P.A. is excited to sponsor the annual (8th year), Chocolate Festival at the Cordova Mall.  This is an annual fundraiser benefiting the Gulf Coast Kid’s House.  As you walk through the corridors of Cordova Mall, you fill up your “to-go” box with mouth-watering chocolate treats donated by popular local restaurants. A special area for children, the “Chocolate Factory”, features activities, games, and prizes.  The event will take place at Noon on April 30, 2011.  For information or to buy tickets see  http://pensacolachocolatefest.com/event.php

Law enforcement officers have a difficult and challenging job.  They deserve to be treated with respect.  Law enforcement officers deserve respect because they are human beings with emotions and feelings like the rest of us.  However, the law does not demand that respect be given.  Some officers appear not to understand that lack of respect does not warrant an arrest.

The First Amendment prohibits law enforcement officials from arresting people for how they talk to, or yell at the police.  Even speech that is loud, disrespectful, profane, and insulting is protected in most circumstances.  Only words that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace (“Fighting Words”) are unprotected.  Unless your words amount to Fighting Words, the First Amendment protects the speech that is directed at a police officer from a civilian.

The Supreme Court stated in City of Houston v. Hill that freedom of individuals to verbally oppose police action without risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.  Speech keeps the wheels of democracy running smoothly.  The right of the individual to speak out directly, openly, and immediately against his government is perhaps the purest and messiest form of democratic axle grease.  The ability to oppose or challenge police action is not only a principal characteristic distinguishing a free nation from a police state, it is one of the central benefits of living in a free nation.  In a country where people are unable or afraid to challenge their government’s authority for fear that they will be beaten or arrested, that country has no meaningful way to check and balance their government power.

Despite First Amendment Protection, some law enforcement officers are arresting people for voicing their dissent or even videoing police. The police are generally arresting people for violating laws such as disorderly conduct, refusing to obey an officer, obstructing or delaying an officer, or resisting arrest.  When an officer arrests a citizen because they do not like what they said, this is an invalid arrest.  This type of arrest is called “contempt of cop arrest” or a “cover arrest.”  This type of arrest is by definition police abuse and against the law. They are made with no valid legal reason.

”Cover arrests” are arrests made to help justify or explain an officer’s use of force or other exercise of authority where there may have been no legitimate justification for that exercise of authority.  Some apparent “contempt of cop” or “cover arrests” have been captured on video.  These recordings provide an instructive glimpse of the type of behavior associated with such arrests.  Compared to an officer’s written documentation of the incident, these videos show how the police sometimes twist facts or even fabricate a story to support an invalid arrest and accompanying force.

There are several different harms caused by a “contempt of cop” or “cover arrest.”  These arrests turn lives upside down by subjecting an innocent person to unwarranted police force, intimidation, and being subject to an exercise or level of control that are at odds with a democratic society.  There is sometimes a misunderstanding that for the individual arrested, an arrest for disorderly conduct or resisting arrest or similar minor infraction will mean nothing more than a night in jail and a fine.  However this is not the case.  Abusive arrests are a policing issue that can have a long-term negative impact.  An invalid arrest for a misdemeanor can cost an innocent person thousands of dollars to get dismissed.  Further, the arrest, even if dropped for being seen as invalid, will remain on a person’s national and state criminal record.  Very few people are immune from the adverse consequences of a criminal arrest record.

Officers maintain a widely held perspective that they are frustrated at being seen as the bad guy and feel that they do not get the respect they deserve.  However, when police engage in “cover arrests” or “contempt of cop” arrests they add fuel to the fire of poor community relations.  “Contempt of cop” and “cover arrests” are sometimes an officer’s response to perceived disrespect or are meant to discourage observing, documenting, or challenging officer conduct.  These arrests damage police community relationships which are necessary for effective crime fighting.  Perhaps unfairly, but understandably, even law enforcement officers who have never made“contempt of cop” or “cover arrest” are painted with the same brush by community members who are subjected to or have witnessed abusive actions.  The level of mistrust, stereotyping, and anger on both sides increases between citizens and the police making it more difficult for police officers to safely and effectively protect communities.

When a community sees police officers abuse their authority, that trust is undermined and the relationship between police and the community suffers.  Abusive arrests also waste our taxes and or legal resources.  Resources are diverted from other law enforcement functions to process the arrests of individuals who have offended the arresting officer only to have these charges dropped by the state attorney’s office.  They usually consume resources that could be used by the police department in more productive and constructive ways.  Abusive arrests also have a drain on resources because they often result in civil suits and/or criminal prosecutions that absorb an extraordinary amount of time and money to defend, settle, prosecute, and take to trial.

No one will disagree that “contempt of cop” and “cover arrests” are inappropriate, destructive, and costly.  What can be done to avoid this type of police abuse?  Don’t arrest for “contempt of cop.”  Officers must be thick-skinned and not unduly influenced by the attitudes of persons they contact.  Flunking the attitude test is not a bookable offense.  Officers need to be taught that, contrary to the belief of many, the law says that their jobs do require that they take verbal abuse occasionally.  Furthermore, people are legally allowed to document what police are doing when they are interacting with the public. Officers need to be taught how to protect their own safety and the safety of their fellow officers, as well as how to convey the authority they need to effectively do their jobs in the face of rude or irate individuals.  They need to perform their duties without being the provocateur or instigator.

The most important factor in creating a culture that does not tolerate improper arrests is the leadership within a law enforcement agency.  Police culture must be changed from the top down.  If abusive arrests are occurring routinely in a law enforcement agency, or if “contempt of cop” or “cover arrests” are not viewed as abusive by the command, stopping such arrests will require more than a reiteration of a policy.  The leadership of the agency usually a chief, sheriff, or commissioner creates and enforces the expectation that abusive arrests will or will not occur.  Whether the sheriff or chief follows and enforces the rules running the department is closely watched by his or her subordinates.  Who the sheriff hires, promotes, and disciplines is a critical signal of the type of behavior that is sought after and rewarded.

Sheriff’s Office settles lawsuit alleging police brutality during Hurricane Ivan