Results and Cases of Interest

$2,485,000.00 (2.5 million) (effectively policy limits) (1998) Head-on auto collision. A southbound driver on Interstate 95 negligently lost control of her car and spun across the grass median into oncoming traffic and collided with the car of a northbound driver and his wife, causing catastrophic injuries.
    The victim worked forty hours per week at their church without pay and also operated an unattended, free produce stand in east Orange County giving fruits and vegetables to the poor in exchange for donations only which “customers” left in a box at the stand. The victim husband courageously clung to life for several months, but died shortly after recovering for his losses;

$750,000.00 (.75 million) (2003) Head-on collision. A speeding eastbound driver on Highway 50 suddenly swerved his car to his left to avoid a slowing car in front of him and crossed the centerline and drove head-first into oncoming traffic and collided with the car of a westbound driver, causing a career-ending leg injury.
    The victim was a 58 year old father and husband who had worked for the same construction company for 30 years who was no longer able to work;

$600,000.00 (.60 million) (2000) Diving accident. The victim dove from an artificial bank into an artificial lake at a recreational “lakefront” apartment complex.
    Under Florida law, a property owner is generally not responsible for driving accidents involving “natural conditions” on their land or water. Further, the 23 year old victim admitted to drinking alcohol before the drive. As a result, the apartment complex blamed the victim and denied responsibility for the accident.
    Hanson & Hanson performed legal research and determined that a landowner, however, may be liable for diving accidents involving “unnatural conditions” on his property. Hanson & Hanson then obtained 35 year old photos from the County Building  Permit Office depicting a dredge actually digging a deep trench in the bottom of the lake around its perimeter and using the mud removed from the bottom of the shallow lake to build a steep artificial “bank” along the shoreline upon which future, luxury “lakefront” apartments would be built. The end result of the dredging in the lake was a tall, steep bank, with very deep water just off shore, and a shallow lake center. Thus, Hanson & Hanson proved that neither the “bank” from which the victim dove, nor the “lake” into which the victim dove was a “natural condition.”
    Hanson & Hanson further proved that the steep angle of the “bank” and the deep trench in the bottom of the “lake” ran along the shoreline (created by the dredge) created the false appearance that the lake was deep enough to safely dive into. But, in fact just beyond the deep trench in the bottom of the “lake” that ran along the shoreline was the original shallow lake bed which was located in the center of the lake as it existed before being altered. It was that original shallow lake bed that the victim struck when he dove from the artificial “bank” into the center of the lake just beyond the deep trench in the bottom of the “lake” that ran along the shoreline (created by the dredge);

$350,00.00 (.35 million) (2002) Knowingly selling alcohol to a minor injured in an auto collision. A Winter Park bar served alcohol and provided live entertainment. The bar admitted both customers of legal drinking age and customers who were not. But, to distinguish those of legal drinking age from those that were not, the bar checked the identification of every person admitted at the door, and placed a wrist band on those that were not of lawful drinking age.
    The victim was a customer of the bar who was not of lawful drinking age who neither received nor wore a wristband. Nevertheless, despite the fact that he was not wearing a wristband, the bar illegally served the victim alcohol to the point that he was legally drunk. On the way home, the victim was overcome by the effects of alcohol and lost control of his car. The insurance company of the bar blamed the victim and denied responsibility for the accident;

$300,000 (.30 million) (policy limits) Violation of Swimming Pool Code causing death of a small child. Orange County adopted a model Swimming Pool Code that required child-resistant, one-way locks to all doors leading through residential swimming pool enclosures (which allow doors to open from the inside, but not from the outside). The stated purpose of the law is to deny small children access to unsupervised pool areas where they could drown.
    The homeowner’s pool enclosure and its locks were originally built to code. But, because the one-way locks also operated to deny the adult homeowner access to her own pool from the backyard, she permanently disabled the locks to the doors leading through the pool enclosure by completely breaking off the locking mechanism. This act defeated the purpose of the pool code and rendered her unsupervised pool accessible to small children.
    On July 4th, although she knew the child could not swim, the homeowner invited the child over for a swimming party. The homeowner knew that the locks to the doors leading through the pool enclosure were broken off, but concealed that fact from the child’s mother. As a result, the homeowner also knew that the child could secretly access her unsupervised pool from the backyard, but also concealed that fact from the child’s mother. The homeowner then helped dress the child in a new swim suit and watched the child cry because she wanted to go swimming. The homeowner watched the child’s mother tell the child that she could not go swimming until later when the adults went with her. Thus, the homeowner knew the child’s mother did not want the child to go swimming. Finally, the homeowner watched the mother send her child (wearing her new swimming suit) next door with her older sister. Still, the homeowner concealed from the child’s mother that, due to the homeowner’s violation of law, the child could secretly gain access to her unsupervised pool from the backyard (out of the view of all adults).
    Within minutes the child was found floating face down in the homeowner’s pool. The insurance company of the homeowner blamed the child’s mother for failing to guard against a secret danger she did not, and could not know about (and that the homeowner did know about) and therefore denied all responsibility for the accident until the day before trial;

$300,000 (.30 million) (policy limits) (2003) Homeowner failed to supervise a minor who seriously injured a toddler and thereafter negligently failed to render aid to the toddler. The homeowner and the victim’s family were neighbors. The homeowner and the victim’s family exchanged free babysitting services with one another. The homeowner had an over-weight, mentally-challenged, teenaged son who frequently imitated the stunts of professional wrestlers. The victim was a two year old toddler.
    While the toddler was in the care of the homeowner, the teenager pretended to be a professional wrestler and jumped off of a bed and onto the toddler who was lying down on the floor, face up. The over-weight teen landed on the toddler’s abdomen with his full body weight, knees down. The blow was so severe it caused a rupture of the toddler’s intestines. Although the homeowner new what had happened, she refused to take the toddler to the hospital and actively concealed from the toddler’s parents what had occurred. Later, the toddler (who could not talk) became lethargic and collapsed due to the resulting infection. The Doctors did not expect the toddler to survive, but she did.
     The main dispute in the case centered on questions of insurance coverage. The insurance company claimed that fine print in its insurance policy excluded coverage (such that it had no obligation to pay even though the homeowner was at fault for failing to supervise and for failing to render aid);

$226,000.00 (.22 million) (2004) Driver negligently backs out of driveway into a highway and into oncoming traffic;

$145,000.00 (2002) Rear-end auto collision;

$133,000 (2001) Slip and Fall. Failure to clean up or warn business visitor about a known spill of an entire 55 gallon drum of clear, extra-virgin, olive oil that coated a polished industrial warehouse floor. The victim worked for a paper company delivering paper to industrial customers. The victim had just delivered the paper to a regular industrial customer.
    As part of his duties, the victim was required to obtain a signature of the manager of the industrial company acknowledging receipt of the paper. (All deliveries of all products to the industrial company followed this same procedure). While walking through the warehouse straight to the manager’s office (where he had a right to be) in an effort to obtain a signature, the victim slipped and fell.
    An investigation revealed that the industrial company had spilled a 55 gallon drum of clear, extra virgin olive oil on its polished warehouse floor. The industrial company was aware of the spill, and had cleaned up part of the spill, but much of the spill remained untouched. The oil made an extremely thin, slippery coating over the warehouse floor which was practically invisible. The industrial company did not properly clean up the spill or warn the victim of the hazard. The insurance company of the industrial company blamed the victim and denied responsibility for the accident;

$125,000.00 (2001) Auto collision;

$125,000.00 (2003) Auto collision;

$115,000.00 (2000) Auto collision;

$110,000.00 (1998) Elevator accident. An elevator repair company negligently maintained an elevator, which sometimes, would not function properly.
    The victim was a career Chef who worked for an entertainment complex which required him to cook on one floor and to deliver the food on a cart by an elevator to another floor. In order to prevent the prepared food from falling off the cart, it was necessary for the Chef to pull the car into (and out off) the elevator. The elevator repair company had a contract to service and maintain the elevator.
    In accordance with its contract, the service company serviced the elevator. Shortly thereafter, the Chef backed into the elevator with his cart as the elevator door opened. Unfortunately, due to a malfunction, the elevator had stopped approximately one foot short of floor level. As a result, the Chef fell backwards into the elevator and was seriously injured. The insurance company of the repair company blamed the Chef for not noticing that the elevator it serviced and maintained had malfunctioned;

$110,000.00 (combined policy limits) (1995) Auto collision;

$100,000.00 (1995) Negligent hiring, supervision, and retention (not firing) of a sexual predator for a position at an institution with unsupervised, 24-hour access to small children. The victim was a child who claimed to have been repeatedly molested by the sexual predator while at the institution. The insurance company of the institution claimed the victim was a liar and that even if the child was telling the truth, the institution did not know about the molestation going on at the institution, did not know that it’s worker was a sexual predator, and had no duty to supervise the sexual predator it employed. Facts disputed;

$100,000.00 (1996) Auto collision;

$100,000.00 (1998) Auto collision;

$100,000.00 (2000) Auto/truck collision. A southbound truck pulled out of a side road onto Highway 50 into the path of a westbound car near Christmas, Florida killing the driver.
    The Highway Patrol Officer who arrived on the scene wrote down the names of four witnesses, but only wrote down the account of the negligent truck driver (who said the deceased was speeding) and a similar account of a woman who later admitted to “road rage” and to playing “highway games” with the deceased minutes before the accident occurred. The Highway Patrol found an alcohol container in the driver’s car, and the deceased victim was not alive to tell his story. As a result, the Highway Patrol charged the deceased car driver with causing the accident.
    Days later, an eyewitness to the accident saw the victim’s family placing flowers and a cross at the scene of the accident and stopped to offer his condolences. The eyewitness said he was driving in front of the deceased at the time of the accident and was “almost killed” when the truck driver negligently pulled out into the highway into the path of the deceased’s car and two other cars (the drivers of which swerved to successfully avoid the truck). The eyewitnesses said he left the scene because the other witnesses promised to stay until the Highway Patrol arrived (which they did but, the Highway Patrol officer did not seek or record their account of the accident). When the victim’s family told the eyewitness that the decedent has actually been charged with causing the accident, the witness became enraged and offered to testify.
    When finally interviewed, the remaining eyewitnesses (both drivers of the other two cars backed up the account of the first eyewitness (that the truck driver negligently pulled out into the path of the deceased’s car, his car, and two others). The eyewitness also testified that because the deceased was immediately behind them on highway 50 for several miles, and because they themselves were not speeding, then the deceased was not speeding either. As a result, the truck driver was proven to have mostly been at fault (despite no testimony for the deceased who was not alive to testify, despite the presence of the alcohol container in the deceased’s car, and despite that the deceased was originally charged with causing the accident);

$100,000.00 (policy limits) (2001) Auto collision;

$100,000.00 (policy limits) (2002) Auto collision;

$100,000.00 (policy limits) (2003).