OLG LEGAL COMMENTARY: Jennifer Englert
OLG Founder & Managing Partner
In today’s society, cell phones are like an appendage. People sleep with their phone by their side and rarely leave home without it. Unsurprisingly, police utilized this ever present companion as a significant investigative tool, with help from the Third Party Doctrine. In brief, the third party doctrine states that a person has no right to privacy when they voluntarily turn over information to a third party, such as a cell phone company, so the police do not require a warrant to access the information. But what about cell phone location data? Should a demand for a person’s location without a warrant constitute invasion of privacy?
The Carpenter Case
Such was the case while investigating Timothy Carpenter for a series of robberies at Radio Shack and T-Mobile. Mr. Carpenter’s investigation was not unusual; cell phone companies received tens of thousands of demands for location data in 2016. In June of 2018, the Supreme Court changed the rules of engagement in a highly debated 5-4 ruling; cell phone location data is subject to the protection of the Fourth Amendment of the constitution.
The Supreme Court stated in the ruling that their decision was a narrow one, but it has tremendous implications for privacy in the digital age. Carpenter’s case before the Supreme Court brought to attention the hole in the 4th Amendment. Although the Third-Party Doctrine properly addressed the concerns at the time of its conception 40 years ago, it does not sufficiently rectify the growing rift between law and technology.
Is Digital Location Tracking Invasion of Privacy?
One such flaw addressed by the court is the lack of voluntary conveyance, which is required for the Third Party Doctrine. Cell phones log a location data without affirmative acts on part of the user. The committee for Justice went on to say “Incredibly deep reservoirs of information are constantly collected by third-party services providers today… This trend will only accelerate as the ‘Internet of Things’ supplies data revealing more and more of our activities – even use of our household appliances – to third party providers.”
While deciding on warrants and cell phone tracking, the court’s also touched on individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Justice Sonia Sotomayor went on to say “Most Americans, I still think, want to avoid Big Brother. They want to avoid the concept that government will be able to see and locate you anywhere you are, at any point in time.” Justice John Roberts also described cellphone location information as “a near perfect tool” for surveillance. This does not preclude law enforcement from accessing this data, but it does require a warrant to prevent the acquisition of the location data from being invasion of privacy.
Therefore, legitimate law enforcement tools are being eliminated, so much as safeguards are put in place for the population in general. If law enforcement could constantly track subject’s every movement with such ease and accuracy without legal implications, constitutional rights, such as freedom of assembly, would be heavily threatened. In this decision, voted on across party lines, the Supreme Court created a landmark decision which protects individual’s privacy in the modern era.
Jennifer Englert is the managing partner and founder of The Orlando Law Group, PL. For over 15 years, she has focused on business disputes, business law, general civil litigation, special needs & education law, family law, personal injury, and real estate. She has represented entities and individuals in both federal and state trial and appellate courts.
Founded in 2009, The Orlando Law Group, has been named one of the fastest-growing law firms in Central Florida and through America [ranked No. 105 among the top 500 fastest-growing law firms in the United States, per the 2017 Law Firm 500]. It has earned a reputation as the Orlando-area law firm that cares about its clients and the communities it serves. Offices located throughout Orange and Seminole counties. To contact Englert, or for more information about The Orlando Law Group, please visit www.TheOrlandoLawGroup.com or phone 407-512-4394.
OLG LEGAL COMMENTARY: Jennifer Englert
OLG Founder & Managing Partner
Whether you are a member living within a development governed by a homeowners association (“HOA”) or a condominium owners association (COA) and interested in installing solar panels on your home, or a member of the Board of Directors of a HOA, COA, or its respective architectural review committees, (ARC), in Florida, it would behoove you to become familiar with Florida Statute 163. It is essential that you understand what F.S. 163 says about COA and HOA restrictions on solar panels in so far as its governance and application to energy saving devices such as solar panels and F.S. 163’s effect on the governing documents of your association.
Clearing the confusion about COA and HOA restrictions on solar panels.
As one would guess, the primary area of dispute in an association controlled development is not usually the use of solar panels or whether energy saving devices are permitted or not, but rather, where those panels may or may not be located on the roof of the home or condo. May the solar panels be seen from the street? May the solar panels face the street or fence line? These are some of the questions about HOA restrictions on solar panels that Florida Statute 163 governs and attempts to answer. Florida Statute 163.04(2) expressly prohibits homeowner and condo associations from preventing its members from installing “solar collectors, clotheslines, or other energy devices based on renewable resources from being installed on buildings erected on the lots or parcels covered by the deed restriction, covenant, declaration, or binding agreement.” Id. However, that very same statute and subsection does permit associations to “determine the specific location where solar collectors may be installed on the roof within an orientation to the south or within 45° east or west of due south if such determination does not impair the effective operation of the solar collectors.” Id.
Recommendations for homeowners interested in installing solar panels in a COA or HOA governed community.
Clearly there are limits to HOA restrictions on solar panels. With this being stated, it is recommended that even though the association cannot deny the homeowner the ability to install energy saving devises such as solar panels on their property, that the member should still follow the applicable procedures set forth by the architectural review committee before any such installation. In conjunction with this issue, the architectural review committee of each association should also develop a well thought out Solar Policy. This policy should address solar and roof energy saving issues within an application to be submitted by all homeowners/condo owners before the installation of such devices. The application should address, among other issues particular to your development, a satellite or aerial image of the roof with the proposed locations of the solar panels; roof slope and angles; north/south orientation; clear illustration of any shading issues; manufactures product information for the units to be installed on the home; and for those homes intending to install the solar panels on a street-facing front roof that is not within 45 degrees of due South and faces the street, an explanation of why installing the solar panels on the other available roof space would not be equal to or more efficient than, that the street facing roof. Ensuring that the home/condo owner and the association are all on one page and at least attempt to resolve any disputes prior to the installation process can potentially save both the association and member thousands in litigation expenses, noting here that F.S. 163.04(3) does award the prevailing party to any such litigation, its attorney’s fees, and costs.
If you are a member of an association or on the Board of an association and are having problems with Florida Statute 163 and its applicability to your governing documents, please contact The Orlando Law Group and schedule an appointment to speak with one of our outstanding attorneys about your problems and concerns.
Jennifer Englert is the managing partner and founder of The Orlando Law Group, PL. For over 15 years, she has focused on business disputes, business law, general civil litigation, special needs & education law, family law, personal injury, and real estate. She has represented entities and individuals in both federal and state trial and appellate courts.
Founded in 2009, The Orlando Law Group, has been named one of the fastest-growing law firms in Central Florida and through America [ranked No. 105 among the top 500 fastest-growing law firms in the United States, per the 2017 Law Firm 500]. It has earned a reputation as the Orlando-area law firm that cares about its clients and the communities it serves. Offices located throughout Orange and Seminole counties. To contact Englert, or for more information about The Orlando Law Group, please visit www.TheOrlandoLawGroup.com or phone 407-512-4394.
At a recent speaking engagement, I shared my own personal family story about the dangers of not being prepared for one’s own mortality – and how that lack of preparation effects one’s family.
My grandparents, you see, were in a horrific car accident in 1994 in South Florida. My grandmother was killed on-scene. My grandfather was declared brain-dead.
They had four kids, my mother being the oldest one. When they all went to Miami, they learned that my grandfather did not have a living will, or any documentation that said what he would want if ever in such a life-threatening position. So, as such, it was left to the four children to decide.
After discussions, they agreed that my mother would make the final decision as to what to do with my grandfather. And after speaking with all doctors, and seeing that there was no possibility whatsoever for him to survive, my mother made the difficult decision to take him off life support.
And then, after he died, one of her siblings said that — had it had been left up to them — they never would have done that. That sibling blamed my mother for killing my grandfather.
More than 20 years later, there is still a rift in our family that was caused by that decision. Yet if he had a Living Will, then he would have been able to have made the decision himself, while alive. And that is what I tell people – that YOU are making the decision as to what happens to you. And in doing so, you are not putting that on anybody else. All you are doing is telling people to carry out your decision that you have already made, should that ever happen to you.
I share that story because, unfortunately, most people tend to wait too long before they consider officially filing the appropriate documentation with regard to Living Wills, Trusts, and Estate Planning. So many of us wait, not thinking that tragedy will strike, and then when it does, we are legally all for the worse.
It is not just the average citizen, though, that acts – and/or reacts – that way. It is the rich and famous, too.
Aretha Franklin’s family will most likely be finding that out now themselves.
The legendary singer, who passed away last week from a battle with pancreatic cancer at the age of 76, had no will or trust at the time of her death.
According to her attorney, in a report in the Detroit Free Press, Franklin just “never got around to it.”
Due to that inaction, Franklin’s family might potentially have a long legal road ahead of them – similar to when Ike Turner passed away. He, too, did not have a will, and his estate has been in litigation for 11-plus years.
With regard to Aretha Franklin, the laws in Michigan say that her estate is supposed to go to her children. But since she did not have a specific will or trust, other relatives can technically come in and try to get something from her estate. By not having a Will in place, it opens the door for other people to come in and argue that they should have a piece of the pie. They can go potentially go to court and argue that they have an interest and deserve a cut of the estate.
The cost to do so, though, is not just time. Many dollars are uselessly spent by families on attorney and other legal fees, in order to contest the estate and go through litigation matters. Depending on how much time respective attorneys need to put into various matters, it can cost thousands of dollars each year for families to go through the process. And how do those fees get paid? By monies held in the estate. Thus, the estate value lowers with each dollar spent on those fees.
Throughout my career, I have seen too many examples of families arguing over what many would perceive as petty issues. I have heard of family members feeling like they deserved more money than was left for them, so they spent thousands and thousands of dollars on challenging the Will, with the case still being in court. I have seen families arguing with one another about estates that had nary a dollar in it. And I have seen heartbreaking cases where a young loved one passes away, and estranged family members receive monies that other family members feel that they do not deserve.
And virtually all of this – be it with regard to the families listed above, your family, or even Aretha Franklin’s family potentially — could be prevented by simply finding the 30 minutes to visit with an attorney and fill out the proper Wills, Living Wills, and/or Trust documents.
As for my respective family?
Well, after both grandparents died in that crash, almost my whole entire family got Living Wills.
And as for me? It helped lead me here, to help you with yours.
Christina Miner is a Wills and Estate Planning Attorney with The Orlando Law Group. Her practice focuses on estate planning, guardianship, probate and trust administration. She has worked for private law firms, was assistant regional counsel for the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel – 5th District, and was senior attorney for the Florida Department of Children and Families. She earned her Juris Doctorate from FAMU College of Law, and earned her bachelor’s and master’s from the University of Central Florida.
To contact Christina, visit www.TheOrlandoLawGroup.com or call (407) 512-4394.
Members of the media wishing to contact Christina or any other OLG attorney should call 20 A-M COMMUNICATIONS at (407) 917-20AM (2026).
One of the most frustrating and frightening experiences you can go through is getting chronically sick with symptoms that linger indefinitely and having no idea what’s causing your illness. Everyone gets sick now and then, but we’re accustomed to a cycle where the symptoms start gradually, peak after a day or two, then slowly get better until you’re fully recovered. Imagine, however, coming down with a cough, tightness in the chest, fever, aching muscles, fatigue and chills and they just never get better.
One possible explanation for this could be Building Related Illness (BRI), a condition where the patient suffers from an infection or allergic reaction and the source of the contaminant is known to be the patient’s home, workplace or other building. Typically, the cause of BRI is the presence of bacteria, mold, fungus or viruses in the air supply inside the building. Usually, symptoms related to BRI persist in the patient, even when they are not physically in the building.
In a BRI case, the source of the illness must have been identified as a building or structure the patient spends time in regularly. This is in contrast to another condition, commonly known as “Sick Building Syndrome,” or SBS, during which some of the same cold- and flu-like symptoms as BRI are present, but the cause is unknown. Also, symptoms of SBS tend to get better once the patient leaves the building and return when he or she returns.
The Legionnaire’s disease outbreak of 1976
The best-known example of BRI is Legionnaires’ disease, which became well known more than 40 years ago after the first documented, and highly publicized, outbreak. In July 1976, the American Legion held its annual three-day convention in Philadelphia, attended by more than 2,000 Legionnaire’s from across the country. Shortly after the convention, several of the attendees became ill and died of what was thought to be heart attacks. Within a few weeks, however, 221 attendees had been impacted, 34 of whom had died.
Coincidentally, three of the initial victims had the same doctor, who was aware that all three had been at the convention, so he contacted the Pennsylvania Department of Health. This led to an investigation by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which discovered that the most likely source of the disease was a strain of bacteria, which would be named “Legionella,” that was breeding in the air conditioning system at the hotel where the convention was held, allowing it to spread throughout the building.
While most cases of BRI are not potentially deadly like Legionnaires disease, to say that it should be taken seriously is clearly an understatement. For many sufferers of BRI, coping with the persistent physical symptoms and the emotional toll it causes can completely disrupt the quality of their lives. It can also mean exorbitant medical costs and missed time at work, creating a financial burden that lasts for years.
Where you could be exposed to BRI conditions
A common misconception is that Building-Related Illness plagues only older buildings, such as the hotel where the Legionnaires disease outbreak in 1976 occurred, which was built in 1904. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, however, up to one of every four new or renovated structures can be classified as “sick,” meaning conditions that cause BRI are present.
Still, if you’re the proud owner of a recently built new home, this can be an unsettling prospect that’s difficult to accept. Imagine being a new homeowner who has just spent months working with a contractor to design and build their dream home, then you move in and start experiencing coughing, headaches, nausea and other aches and pains. Typically, your home is a place where you’re supposed to feel safe and protected, so it isn’t the first place you’d think to look for answers about why you’re sick.
However, even in new and renovated homes, mistakes are sometimes made. Some mistakes are obvious and easy to fix, like a piece of crown molding that isn’t perfectly aligned or light fixture that doesn’t work. The mistakes we’re talking about, though, are hidden inside walls and in attics. Some areas that can be the source of BRI symptoms include:
The HVAC system. Like most living organisms, mold, bacteria, and other compounds need water to survive, and a poorly functioning HVAC system can create a lot of moisture that, if not drained properly, can stagnate in the ductwork. If you add dust – which is made up mostly of skin, pollen, pet dander and other organic material – you’ve added a source of nutrients, creating an environment where mold can thrive and spread.
Insufficient ventilation. Even when the HVAC system is working properly, it may not be able to overcome the humidity and moisture found in a poorly ventilated home. There is actually a well-known example of this from the 1970s, when contractors started building homes more airtight to save energy during the energy crisis. As an unintended consequence, they built homes that also retained their humidity too well, allowing mold and bacteria to thrive and making many of the inhabitants of these homes sick. The recent charge towards energy efficient building standards has resulted in the same issues occurring again as they did in the 1970’s.
Plumbing. Obviously, if the plumbing in a new home leaks due to poor construction, water ends up in places it’s not supposed to be. If the leak is just a slow drip, it might be enough water for mold or other bacteria to grow even though the water is hidden inside walls where the homeowner can’t see it. Another way that poorly constructed plumbing can cause air quality problems occurs when the entry and exit points of the pipes are not sealed correctly, allowing pests to enter the home and leave feces, which can dry out and become airborne or serve as an added nutrient source for mold and bacteria. Also, there is a possibility that the installation of the septic lines were accidentally placed by the contractor above the potable water lines. When the septic lines leak, this can cause harmful matter to seep into the potable water lines.
Chemicals. Known as “volatile organic compounds” or VOCs, we are exposed to these chemicals at low levels every day, usually with no health consequences. They come from the cleaners, paint, sealants, permanent markers, dry-cleaned clothes and air fresheners we are around all the time. In a new home, however, high levels of VOCs like formaldehyde can be released by new carpet, new furniture, paint, finishes, sealants and more. If the new home is not allowed to off-gas these chemicals and air out sufficiently before the new owner moves in, it’s likely to cause some worrisome health problems.
Unfortunately, when the source of a BRI case is a brand new home, it can often take months, if not years, for the true source of the health problems to be identified. Ironically, this is not because it’s difficult to find mold and bacteria in a new home. In fact, a fairly simple, straightforward investigation by a trained professional can easily find mold, bacteria, VOCs and other contaminants. The reason it goes unidentified for so long is that a new home is the last place people think of as the possible cause. They have an expectation that their contractor will provide quality service, workmanship, and materials and that they will follow all the applicable building codes. Plus, most homeowners feel that their home is part of their identity, a reflection of who they are. And with new homeowners, you can add excitement to the emotions they feel about their new home.
In that context, it’s difficult for most people to accept that the home they are so proud of and that they love so much is causing them serious harm.
While recently constructed homes are a clear area of concern for BRI, renters are also at risk. And for renters, it doesn’t matter if the structure is old or new because a rental contract is a business transaction, wherein the property owner is providing a home, condo or apartment in exchange for money. If that property causes harm to the occupant in the form of a BRI, the renter may be entitled to legal protections, assuming the problem amounts to a breach of the rental contract. Also, renters in an apartment complex may be even more at risk because the activities of adjacent neighbors, including those above and below them, could create air quality issues in their unit if a neighbor has pets, causes water leaks, leaves food out that attracts pests, or is a heavy smoker.
Finally, your workplace is another area that can cause you to develop symptoms associated with a BRI. This is not limited to factory and mine workers who could be exposed to harmful airborne dust. Even if you work in a corporate office, all the potential contributors found in homes can be present. In fact, VOCs may be even more prevalent in a work environment because of some office supplies like printer toner. If you find that multiple employees seem to be developing the same persistent symptoms, that could indicate a BRI problem
What to look for
The first question when you are suffering from symptoms that don’t seem to go away is if their onset coincided with the start of spending a lot of time in a building that you hadn’t previously spent much time in. This could be moving into a new home or apartment, or starting a new job. If you’re a college student starting a new term and your classes are all in the same building, that may point to the source of your symptoms. Observe the other people you work or go to class with and see if they have similar health issues.
If that doesn’t narrow your search down, it’s possible that a building that isn’t new to you has undergone renovations, installed a new air conditioning system or had plumbing work done recently, any of which could result in air quality problems.
The symptoms that you should watch for are similar to those typically associated with cold, flu or allergies, except that they persist longer than you would expect. They include:
Irritation in the eyes, nose, throat
Sinus congestion
Headaches
Confusion
Dizziness
Nausea
Physical and/or mental fatigue
Feeling like you can’t take a deep breath
Exacerbation of existing conditions, like asthma
Lung pain
Skin irritation
Reactive Airway Disorder (in infants and toddlers)
These symptoms can range from chronic, nagging discomfort to severe, acute pain, depending on the severity of the symptoms’ source. The damage to your health can also range from chronic to acute. Carbon monoxide, for example, can cause severe brain damage and even death at 800 parts per million (ppm), even if the exposure is only for a few minutes. However, at exposure levels as low as 35 ppm, it might only produce flu-like symptoms after a few hours, but can cause serious injuries over a matter of months or even weeks.
What should I do if I suspect I am suffering from Building-Related Illness?
The most important thing to remember if you’re suffering from severe symptoms, especially chest pain or difficulty in breathing is to get immediate medical attention. If you’re in doubt, call 911.
If your symptoms are not severe, your next step should be to call an attorney for a consultation. Because these cases are extraordinarily complex, be sure you talk to an attorney who has experience investigating BRI cases and getting positive results. Finally, never give any statements to insurance companies or their representatives without your attorney present.
BrianDunmire is an attorney for the Orlando Law Group in Orlando, Florida. He has successfully represented multiple clients with Building-Related Illness claims and other personal injury matters.
Florida has garnered a reputation as being one of the most amicable states for homeschoolers, with numerous statutorily recognized options that place homeschooling on the same legal footing as public or private schools.
As of November 2016, Florida boasted 75,000 students being homeschooled, and, according to an article published recently in the Florida Bar Journal, the number is growing.
These students are following the path of Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Edison, and Tim Tebow, to name a few. Homeschooling is not merely an educational choice, but a lifestyle which has a considerable weight attached. Numerous studies – including those found on National Home Education Research Institute — have demonstrated that homeschoolers perform as well as their traditional counterparts in categories such as standardized tests, college, and socialization, if not better.
Furthermore, homeschooling is arguably one of the best ways to create a unique educational experience, which is specifically designed to suit your child’s needs. Although homeschooling does require significant time and dedication, it is easy to understand why parents would opt for the pedagogical method.
The situation become perilous, however, when parents separate.
In the United States, approximately 40 percent of marriages end in divorce. Unfortunately, Florida is in the top 10 states for divorce, behind Alaska and Nevada. The subject of children tends to breed disagreement among separating parents, especially when it comes to education. While it might be tempting to seek educational decisions through sole custody, here in Florida, courts have a strong propensity to grant shared parental responsibility. Florida Statute §61.13 enacted in 1982 states “The court shall order that the parental responsibility for a minor child shall be shared by both parents unless it finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child.” The language remains nearly identical today, with plenty of support from case law. This is largely due to the well-supported belief that children benefit from the involvement of both parents in their lives, even in cases of separation.
Fortunately, as of 2008, Florida’s family statutes allow for parenting plans which create timesharing scheduling that permits homeschooling, while optimizing the other parent’s time with the children. Language such as “the parents have agreed to homeschool the children” is recommended. This way, there is no ambiguity and a party cannot later claim a substantially changed circumstance. The ideal situation is to have a parenting plan which directly gives the homeschooling parent the ultimate decision-making authority regarding education. At the very least, a parenting plan should not accept or imply that the children will attend a private or public brick-and-mortar school. Once accepted, courts will be extremely reluctant to change the status quo, especially considering the parent voluntarily yielded authority in terms of education.
Mediation is highly recommended to facilitate the negotiations. The other party will likely have concerns about their ability to have a full relationship with their child. It would be wise to follow the example of a homeschooling father in Virginia [Brown v. Brown], who was praised by the court for his agreement to allow the former wife to join the occasional homeschooling class, as well as his efforts to keep her updated as to the child’s progress. Compromise will be crucial, so it’s important to give leeway on other important issues being discussed.
If litigation becomes necessary as a result of a deadlock at mediation, here are some things to keep in mind. The amount of time a child was homeschooled impacts how much weight a judge will give to the practice. Many judges will have preconceived notions about homeschooling and it will be up to you to dispel them. Expert witnesses will be invaluable to a case to demonstrate the educational and social benefits. There are even organizations which specialize in such testimony, like Homeschool Legal Defense Association. Involving children in outside extracurricular activities to develop social skills is highly recommended, so the other party cannot claim the child is being deprived of a fundamental experience provided by brick-and-mortar schools. And keep meticulous records which comply with all aspect of the state’s home education laws, or there will be little chance to continue homeschooling. When going through a separation, an attorney can be an invaluable aid, particularly when children are involved.
Jennifer Englert is the managing partner and founder of The Orlando Law Group, PL. For over 15 years, she has focused on business disputes, business law, general civil litigation, special needs & education law, family law, personal injury, and real estate. She has represented entities and individuals in both federal and state trial and appellate courts.
Founded in 2009, The Orlando Law Group, has been named one of the fastest-growing law firms in Central Florida and through America [ranked No. 105 among the top 500 fastest-growing law firms in the United States, per the 2017 Law Firm 500]. It has earned a reputation as the Orlando-area law firm that cares about its clients and the communities it serves. Offices located in Altamonte Springs, Dr. Phillips, Lake Nona, and Waterford Lakes. To contact Englert, or for more information about The Orlando Law Group, please visit www.TheOrlandoLawGroup.com or phone 407-512-4394.
I have had big cases before, and, with those, big victories for my clients. But truth be told, as a personal injury attorney, some of my largest victories were on low-value cases.
That, in of itself, can be surprising to people – especially those who might have preconceived notions as to what a personal injury attorney is and does.
It is not glamorous. It is not television. It is not multi-million-dollar judgments day in, day out.
It is real life. It is working for the client, whether for $10,000 or $100,000. It is working for – and protecting – YOUR rights.
Do you want to know what it’s like being a personal injury attorney? Every day, I go to work at The Orlando Law Group and speak with colleagues, staff, clients, insurance adjusters, and defense attorneys about cases, scenarios, and injuries. I coordinate medical care for my clients and make sure that they have transportation to get to their visits. I speak with my client’s medical doctors so that I can understand their injuries better. I speak with insurance adjusters to convince them of the life-changing damages my clients have sustained because of someone else’s negligence. And, most importantly, I fight – I fight for the people who have decided to put their trust in me. Because whether a case is worth $10,000 or $100,000, that trust is something that I never take for granted.
It is a consistent challenge. So often, for example, I am faced with $10,000 in available insurance to cover the injuries that a respective client has sustained in an automobile accident. To my client, and to me, it is obvious that their injuries are worth far more than $10,000. However, seemingly more often than not, I find myself fighting with insurance companies to get them to pay even just that $10,000.
Those are the fights, done on behalf of my clients, that you will never see on a billboard. In fact, I often wonder just how many personal injury attorneys do not even put in the effort it takes sometimes to get even a full $10,000 settlement for a client. Truth be told, there’s no less work to be done on a $10,000 case compared to a higher value case. In fact, there could be more work. I could see where many attorneys may just accept a $4,000 or $6,000 offer since it’s the easy thing to do.
I am proud to say that I put in the effort to maximize settlement value – even if the case is worth “only” $10,000. I am proud to say that, every day, I fight tooth-and-nail for my clients and for the opportunity to help make our community safer. I do this to hold people and companies accountable for their actions. Companies that fail to properly maintain their premises that cause a patron to fall should be held accountable. That company should be held liable as much as the person who runs into the back of your automobile should be held liable.
It is because of my client’s tremendous courage to retain an attorney, and their trust in me and The Orlando Law Group to represent them that only then are we able to hold people and companies accountable for their actions that cause unnecessary harm.
No, it is not glamorous. And it is not Hollywood. But when someone asks what it is that I do for a living, there is no hesitation in my response – “personal injury attorney.” I am here for you, to fight for you, whether for $10,000 or $100,000. Because, quite frankly, when someone places their trust in me to represent them — well, that is truly my biggest victory.
Brian Dunmire practices in the area of personal injury representing clients who have been injured in automobile accidents and slip and falls. Prior to joining The Orlando Law Group, Dunmire represented insurance companies and Fortune 500 corporations in litigation — thus his unique experience and knowledge of how insurance companies and major corporations litigate and value claims. To contact Dunmire, or for more information about The Orlando Law Group, please visit TheOrlandoLawGroup.com or phone 407-512-4394.
Since Hurricane Irma hit just a few months ago, Florida has seen a continuous increase in attorney advertisements for “hurricane damage” claim denials. By now, for example, you have likely seen billboards up and down our roads stating, “Claim Denied? … Hurricane Lawyer.”
For many a homeowner, it may seem obvious to seek assistance through an attorney for an insurance claim denied by the carrier. But did you also know that you should seek legal counsel when an insurance company [carrier] undervalues your claim, which can – and does – happen quite often?
Keep in mind that, by undervaluing your claim, the carrier is not denying the claim, but instead telling you [the insured] that your claim is not high enough to make it past the deductible and/or depreciation value of your property.
Essentially, it is their way of getting out of having to pay any monies to you that you might rightfully be owed.
As has most commonly been seen in several cases The Orlando Law Group has recently reviewed, the insurance company will send a letter to the insured stating that they will issue payment in the amount of $0. For example, let’s say you have damages to your home costing $8,000 to repair. After review, the insurance company [carrier] then tells you the depreciation of your property is $4,000. Then they apply your deductible – let’s say, for this example, $4,000. Suddenly, all monies you thought you would receive from your carrier have dwindled to zero.
And, technically, they have not denied your claim.
But, realistically, with their math, they offered – and, under this example, will pay you – nothing.
If and when this happens to you, you do not have to accept this. You do not have to agree to this. And you do not have to sign off on this.
In the end, the carrier claims that it properly evaluated your claim and that you were not owed any money under your insurance policy, or an amount that was less than a reasonable amount to repair your property.
As a property owner, do you have to take the insurance carrier at its word as to the value of your property damages? Even if the adjuster was nice to you and told you [either in person or on the phone] that the insurance would pay your claim? The answer is an emphatic no. You do not have to assume that the insurance carrier properly determined the value of your insurance claim and/or even appropriately determined and/or applied the depreciation value of your property.
It is not uncommon for the property owner to obtain damage repair or replacement estimates more than the amounts determined as the “correct” amount according to the insurance carrier. So, you might be wondering how this can be.
First, the insurance carrier may hire independent claims adjusters to review your property. These are typically the “nice” people who visit your property and make statements to you that the insurance carrier should pay your claim. Unfortunately, those statements do not bind the carrier, and oftentimes will later be recanted by the adjuster, meanings/he will later deny making those statements — leaving you in he said/she said situation.
Second, the adjusters use an automated program that uses pre-determined amounts for a standard product which will produce an estimate that is often well below the standard charges in your community for property repairs and replacement.
Whether your claim has been denied or undervalued [meaning: you received a reduced or no payment in response to your claim], you should find competent counsel who you trust to challenge the insurance carrier’s evaluation and treatment of your insurance claim. A carrier’s denial or reduced valuation of your claim does not mean that the insurance carrier properly adjusted your claim.
Remember: Even if the carrier ends up paying you nothing in response to your claim, the claim will remain on your insurance record as having been made. This means that in the future, should you make another claim of any kind, this original claim can be used against you – particularly if you did not make the necessary repairs in response to the claim. It might also be used to increase premiums [or to continue providing insurance coverage to you] in the future. You may have received zero [or reduced] dollars for your insurance claim and yet still take the penalty of showing that claim on your record moving forward.
It is in your best interest not to let the carrier’s decision stand without review from a legal expert.
I often use the analogy that choosing to file for bankruptcy is like choosing to get liposuction.
When you want to lose body fat, you have a choice: You can continue to work out, and keep trying to lose the weight, or, you can go get liposuction, and lose the weight quickly.
It’s the same thing with bankruptcy. Many people will call me, not sure if they are quite ready to pull the trigger on filing for bankruptcy. They say, “I’m going to just keep trying to pay all these bills, or settle them,” when, clearly, the best thing for them to do would be to just get the liposuction – to just pull the trigger on bankruptcy and get rid of all their debt that they cannot afford to have.
What I tell people who are struggling with that decision is that: If you are struggling to pay, and struggling to keep up, and feeling the pressure, and losing sleep at night, then consider pulling the trigger on bankruptcy to give you peace of mind, to be done with it.
And, for many people, the early part of the year – January through March, i.e. the start of tax season – is the best time to consider doing just that.
It is the first few months of each year that most people think about filing for bankruptcy, because they have extra money – thanks to their tax return – to pay the legal fees that come with it.
We find, though, that bankruptcy, for whatever its reasons, is very cliché, and not in a good way. Even knowing that they should, and even with their tax return in hand, many people are afraid to move forward with bankruptcy because they do not want to have a bankruptcy on their record. What they must consider is that, if your credit is already in the toilet, filing for bankruptcy is not going to hurt you anymore.
I have been working in bankruptcy on behalf of clients for almost seven years. Many of my clients are not just people who want to get out of their bills. They are mainly people who have fallen on tough times, be it job loss, death, disability, divorce, something of the sort, and now cannot keep up with their financial obligations. Not because of anything they have done, but just because circumstances of life happened to them.
And I understand that embarrassing stigma. But bankruptcy is not meant for people who go on 20-day tours of Europe, and then decide to file for bankruptcy because they do not want to pay for their trip. Nobody comes to me for that reason. Ninety-nine percent of my clients come to me because of circumstances in life. Things did not go how they expected. Maybe they had no problem paying their bills prior to the circumstance, but then something happened, and they just can’t keep up.
Filing for bankruptcy allows you the chance to get your life back in order. And, especially at this time of year, you have a choice to make. Are you better off using your return to try and pay off some debt? Or are you better off filing for bankruptcy and getting rid of all your debts?
It is no easy decision. And a bankruptcy lawyer will not [should not] make it for you. Only after discussing with my clients their debt and their overall household bills and finances, do I give them the pros and cons of bankruptcy. I will not tell you whether you should – or should not – file. I give you all the options for you to make that decision.
I will ask you questions that you need to truthfully answer, such as: If you are considering using your tax refund, do you want to use it to settle your debts? If so, are you going to be able to settle your debts with that money? Or, would it be better invested with a bankruptcy attorney to help get rid of all your debts once and for all?
That is the real kicker. Don’t try to keep spinning wheels while hoping you’ll catch up. Because maybe you’ll pay back some loans, but you’ll still be in debt with other things, such as credit cards. Or, you can pay one fee, one flat-rate fee, and get rid of all your debts. That is the big kicker. That is what people are trying to decide what to do at this time of year.
But no matter your answers to those questions, and no matter your situation, I do strongly suggest people remember this advice: There is no shame in giving yourself an option that can free you from all that, and give you your piece of mind back. None whatsoever.
Sophia Dean’s practice focuses on bankruptcy and foreclosure defense. She has represented debtors in all stages of debt collection. She is the co-chair of the Orange County Bar Association’s Bankruptcy Committee. To contact Dean for a free consultation, or for more information about The Orlando Law Group, please visit TheOrlandoLawGroup.com or phone 407-512-4394.