https://www.facebook.com/412987669343257/

Chandler Trial Law, P.A., Plantation, FL (2026)

04/05/2023

Florida enacted "tort reform" legislation last month that dramatically alters the rights of Floridians and visitors. One thing Florida didn't do is mandate certain types of automobile coverage, including Bodily Injury Liability coverage, the coverage that indemnifies a negligent driver's victim for the negligence. The fact that Florida doesn't mandate Bodily Injury Liability coverage is shocking.

Last week, clients were involved in a serious car crash in which they were rear-ended while waiting at a stop light by a driver who didn't possess Bodily Injury Liability coverage and only $10,000.00 of Property Damage coverage. The clients were seriously injured and their car was declared a total loss as well as another car that was involved in the crash.

The document I posted is the insurance disclosure from GEICO, the negligent driver's insurance company. Based on the coverages the negligent driver selected, he protected himself to some extent, but doesn't have adequate coverage to protect his victims for either the injuries they sustained of their automobile he destroyed.

It is imperative in Florida that you purchase insurance to protect yourself because there are too many drivers driving with insurance policies like the one this negligent driver possessed.

04/02/2023

Every case I am entrusted with is of equal value to me. When a client has been in an accident, there is a significant disruption in her/his life. Obviously, some people are hurt more than others and some cases resolve for more than others, but what may seem trivial to one person is monumental to another person. My clients come to me to help them put their lives back together. I am going to do the best I can to achieve that goal for them.

03/31/2023

I've read posts by lawyers who have expressed dismay and consternation over a plaintiff's law firm's memo/email indicating that they will not agree to an extension of time made by defense counsel to answer/file responsive pleadings in a lawsuit based upon the recent enactment of "tort reform" legislation in Florida. I find the revulsion over the plaintiff's firm's policy by defense attorneys amusing because defense attorneys almost never agree to reasonable requests and blame the carriers for the refusal to agree to reasonable requests.

I recently filed a lawsuit for uninsured/underinsured benefits against a carrier. Prior to filing the lawsuit, my clients cooperated with the carrier (as is their obligation under the terms of the policy), and were model policy holders. As the parties were not able to agree to the damages, it was clear that we would need to file a lawsuit in order to let a jury determine the extent of the damages my clients suffered. I communicated this to OC (who the carrier retained in order to conduct their investigation into the claim) and asked if they would agree to waive service of process of the lawsuit.

Despite our cooperation in their investigation of the claim, OC informed me that the carrier would NOT waive service of process and OC told me that is the carrier's policy. What makes this policy more ridiculous is the process for serving an insurance company in Florida. Serving an insurance company in Florida is simple and automatic.

Insurers want cooperation in cases, but are usually unwilling to extend reasonable courtesies to their insureds and/or claimants.

03/28/2023

Lawyers, believe it or not, there are times when you should bite your tongue and just listen.

My first big case arose out of an automobile accident that occurred in Broward County, Florida. I tried to resolve the case pre-suit, but was unable to do so, so I had to file a lawsuit in the case. There were multiple defendants and they were all represented by excellent and experienced insurance defense attorneys.

One of the claims in the lawsuit was a claim for uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) motorist benefits. The attorney representing the UM/UIM carrier had represented insurance companies for decades and was a fine lawyer. The attorney for the UM/UIM carrier filed a motion for summary judgment (MSJ). I read the MSJ, digested it, researched the applicable laws (including the laws of the jurisdiction where the UM/UIM policy was issued) and drafted and filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

The MSJ was specially set for hearing, and, as the hearing neared, I read the MSJ, our memorandum of law, and all applicable law as I prepared to represent my client at the hearing. I was laser focused and was like a prize fighter ready to answer the bell as soon as OC was finished arguing his case.

The Circuit Court Judge who presided over the case had been a judge for a long time, was experienced and had obviously read the MSJ and my memo. The hearing was held in the Judge's chambers which were adorned by his degrees and a University of Florida Marching Band uniform that was proudly displayed.

As the hearing went on, it became clear that the judge was going to deny the MSJ. After OC ended his argument, the judge turned to me and I couldn't wait to tell him why he should deny the MSJ. After about a minute of my argument, the judge stopped me, looked me in the eye, and in his booming voice with a rich Southern accent said "counselor, you do realize you are winning this hearing, and the only thing you are going to do if you keep talking is convince me that you shouldn't win." As much as I wanted to show the judge how smart I and well-prepared I was, I heeded his warning, closed my mouth and he ruled in my client's favor.

This is a lesson I never forgot, and one I tell anyone willing to listen.

03/24/2023

Thank your Florida lawmakers. They have just stuck all Florida citizens with a terrible bill drafted by insurance companies and amateur lawmakers who don’t understand or care about what they were doing. Now insurers can act in their own best interest and not that if their insured.

03/23/2023

A friend told me that one law firm has filed 25,000 lawsuits, another law firm has filed 9,000 lawsuits and another firm has filed 3,000 lawsuits in the last week or two in an effort to file before the impending “tort reform” bill is enacted in Florida. This is a windfall for the Clerks of Court in Florida, but will put incredible strain on the Courts, judges and all Court personnel as well as insurance defense firms and their attorneys and staff.

Some parts of the legislation are unworkable and will absolutely be challenged in court, which will further lead to strain on everyone involved in the system.

The switch from pure comparative fault to modified comparative fault will lead to completely inequitable results and a windfall for insurers at the expense of Florida’s citizens.

The mandate that parties can only enter a Medicare or Medicaid rate for medical procedures into evidence is unworkable and will lead to a cottage industry of medical coding experts testifying at every trial.

This is bad legislation that was drafted by insurance companies and unqualified legislators.

03/10/2023

How many people do you know who have had a positive experience with an insurance company? The answer is probably zero. Insurance companies have such a bad reputation (well deserved) that many years ago, Florida passed a law that prevents attorneys from naming an insurance company as defendants unless a person is suing his/her own insurance company (Florida's "anti-joinder" statute).

The number one reason people have bad experiences with insurance companies is that they generally do not want to pay claims, and when they agree to pay claims, they are usually not fair or reasonable to person making the claim.

When you buy a policy of liability insurance, such as an automobile policy, the insurance company has three obligations to its customer, the insured: 1. the duty to defend (hire a lawyer to defend you) their insured if their insured is involved in an accident; 2. the duty to indemnify their insured (pay claims to a person their insured injured trough their negligence); and, 3. the duty to act in good faith towards their customer (the insured) which means that the insurance company has to place their customer's best interests above the insurance company's interests.

The duty to act in good faith is what motivates insurance companies to pay the claims that they don't want to pay. The way it works is, if an insurance company doesn't settle a claim, winds up getting their insured sued, and a jury awards more damages against their insured than the amount of coverage that the insured paid for in their insurance policy, the insurance company might have to pay the full amount of the damages, if the insurance company acted in bad faith towards its insured. Insurance companies hate paying more than the amount of insurance that their insured purchased. In short, the bad faith laws of the State of Florida are powerful incentive for insurance companies to pay the claims that we know they don't want to pay.

The Florida Legislature has undertaken a comprehensive effort to fundamentally change the balance of power between insurance companies and Florida residents and visitors. The Florida Legislature wants to end the duty for insurance companies to act in good faith, by making it impossible to hold an insurance company liable for its bad faith. Essentially, what the Florida Legislature is proposing is that an insurance company can cure its bad faith up to 90 days after a person files a bad faith lawsuit against the insurance company.

This will result in two issues for Florida consumers: insurers will no longer have an incentive to handle claims fairly, and their insured will be on the hook for judgments against them that exceed the amount of insurance they buy. In other words, insurance companies will let their customers get sued, provide a defense, and, if there is a big judgment that requires a bad faith suit, the insurance company can pay their policy limits and their customers are on the hook for the rest.

This legislation will do more damage to Floridians than our elected leaders are telling you.

Please contact me if you want further details on this pending legislation.

03/09/2023

DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT HANDLE NEGLIGENT SECURITY CASES.

The proposed “tort reform” legislation in Florida pertaining to negligent security cases will absolutely result in Floridians and visitors having less safety and security when entering a commercial property such as a mall, restaurant or hotel. The legislature is proposing to immunize property owners for criminal acts perpetrated on their property by a third party.

The law currently holds a property owner liable for third party crimes if the property owner doesn’t have reasonable security on their property. Once property owners no longer can be held liable for third party crimes on their property, they will no longer have a duty to maintain reasonable security, and as soon as the security measures are removed, it will be open season on Floridians and tourists.

This legislation looks at the little picture at the expense of the big picture.

03/06/2023

"He [the plaintiff] will be fine in a year and walk without a limp."--Defense Expert Orthopedic Surgeon trial testimony on direct examination.

That testimony was offered over four years ago by an orthopedic surgeon who had been hired by the defendant to testify at trial at a cost of $1,500.00/hour "portal-to-portal." His bills for preparing a Compulsory Medical Evaluation report and to testify at the trial of the case exceeded by multiples the bills of the surgeons who saved my client's limbs.

At the time of trial, my client had recently had an additional surgery, needed a cane to walk and had a profound limp.

I saw my client this past weekend. Its been over four years since that testimony and my client, whom the defense expert boldly predicted would be perfect within a year, unfortunately still limps and still has pain.

It was clear to anyone paying attention, most importantly, the jury (who rejected the defense expert's opinions), that this doctor was biased and his opinions were of little or no value.

Almost every personal injury case I've tried, and almost every I case I know of becomes a "battle of the experts." There is, in my opinion, a huge difference between the quality of an opinion of a treating physician (who can be sued for malpractice) and that of a hired defense expert who doesn't have to worry about being sued for malpractice for an opinion derived and testified to for purposes of litigation.

Cross examination of hired defense experts is critical to your case. You have to do your homework before trial, and you should be able to effectively diffuse "expert" testimony.

01/08/2023

Zoom status conference for a case in United States District Court.

Immediately before the pandemic, I had the honor of representing a client who was bedridden. As we got closer to trial I apprised the Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge of my client’s condition at a status conference and asked if my client could appear at trial through video-teleconferencing technology. The Judge denied my request and was going to force my bedridden client to appear at trial in his courtroom. The case settled and my client didn’t have to appear in the courtroom.

At the time of this status conference, Covid was on the horizon in the US as it was already an issue in China. The request I made to accommodate my client, which was denied, became the norm in our courts.

01/03/2023

Dash cam video of the crash in Torres v. First Transit.

Chandler Trial Law, P.A.

04/05/2023

04/02/2023

03/31/2023

03/28/2023

03/24/2023

03/23/2023

03/10/2023

03/09/2023

03/06/2023

01/08/2023

01/03/2023

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share