Source: https://www.butler.legal/floridas-legislature-abolishes-joint-and-several-liability
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 09:15:10+00:00

Document:
This article was originally published in the Subrogator, a publication by the National Association of Subrogation Professionals, Winter 2007, Page 130. © Copyright 2007 by NASP. All rights reserved. Republished by Butler with permission from NASP.
Effective April 26, 2006, the Florida Legislature eliminated the last vestige of joint and several liability. Florida has now joined the minority of jurisdictions that have completely abolished joint and several liability. Although this move has brought dramatic change and controversy, it was no surprise. The attempt at abolition actually began nearly twenty years ago and has been heavily lobbied by Florida's "Big Businesses." This article will address the impact of the elimination of joint and several liability, and the effect this change in the law will have on subrogation in Florida.
Joint and several liability allows victims to recover fully for their injuries in situations where full recovery might otherwise be unavailable. A perfect example is the widely publicized case of Walt Disney World v. Wood, which has been speculated as a driving force in the elimination of joint and several liability. In Wood, Disney World was found to be one percent at fault and another defendant eighty-five percent at fault, yet Disney World was held responsible for the entire judgment amount due to the doctrine of joint and several liability. Since Wood, the Florida Legislature had modified the statute several times, eventually allowing for joint and several liability only when the defendant was at least ten percent at fault, and further capping the damages for which the defendant could be held liable.
Under Florida's new law, defendants will only be responsible for their own percentage of liability, whether or not the plaintiff has been made whole. Accordingly, in Florida, the plaintiff will now not have an opportunity to be made whole unless every responsible defendant has the funds to cover their respective apportionment of damages. Of course, if joint and several liability still existed in Florida, it would benefit all plaintiffs in collecting the damages they are awarded, despite one defendant's lack of funds. Defendants, however, are loathe to the concept as it exposes them to liability for other defendant's negligence, which is what led to the change in the law.
This change of law will have serious effects on those who pursue subrogation claims in Florida. Any action accruing after April 26, 2006 will be governed by the new law. This will affect every stage of a subrogation matter. Initially, it will affect those deciding whether to pursue a subrogation claim at all. No longer will the total dollar amount of the damages and the strength of the case be the determining factors if there is more than one potentially responsible party involved, but only one party is collectible. The potential for recovery will now have to be weighed solely against each potential defendant's percentage of fault. One "deep-pocket defendant" will not be reason enough to pursue a case if that particular defendant is likely to have a small percentage of liability.
If a decision is made to pursue a subrogation claim in Florida, the new law should also affect the realistic expectations of the claim. It will, for example, affect the dollar amount that parties seeking subrogation will devote to investigation if most of the culpable parties have no liability insurance, or are otherwise protected from a finding of responsibility.
By abolishing joint and several liability, the statutory change may also, eventually, abolish legal theories that are solely a creature of apportionment of fault, such as contribution. Without joint and several liability, an insurer who has paid a plaintiff's claim will probably not be able to bring a claim against other responsible defendants under the theory of contribution, since, presumably, no party will ever be required to pay more than their own percentage of fault.
The change in law will further affect proposals for settlement and offers of judgment. A plaintiff seeking subrogation will have to use great care in calculating the exact dollar amount a defendant may potentially be held accountable for when drafting a proposal for settlement. Under the old system, the plaintiff had greater leeway, as many defendants were potentially liable for the entire claim amount, despite their own percentage of liability. Defendants, likewise, can now file lower offers of judgments as the potential for a recovery that is higher than their "fair share" is no longer an issue.
The new law will frustrate subrogation plaintiffs and alleviate defendants of potential liability for other defendants' negligence. Interestingly enough, although the insurance companies pursuing subrogation will suffer from the effects of the new law, liability insurers will benefit in claims they are defending. For everyone involved, the new law demands attention. All parties pursuing subrogation claims will need to address the new law in relation to every claim they have that was not already in litigation as of April 26, 2006.
1. Florida Statutes § 768.81 previously allowed for joint and several liability in certain circumstances depending on percentage of fault and amount of damages. Fla. Stat. § 768.81 (2005). The newly revised § 768.81 offers no trace of joint and several liability. Fla. Stat. § 768.81 (2006).
2. Walt Disney World v. Wood, 515 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1987).
In denying AutoNation’s motion and finding that a duty existed, the Court reasoned that AutoNation's status as a General Motors dealer gave it easily accessible and specialized knowledge about the truck recall via the electronic VIN check. The Court explained that the “the decision to impose a legal duty is a multifaceted issue requiring courts to balance a number of factors,” including risk and utility.
May 05, 2015 PublicationProduct Liability Blackjack (21) Ways to Win, Bust or Fold!
Strategic thinking in prosecuting or defending product liability actions often mirrors the creativity, gut-check and fortitude to play the winning blackjack hand. As in blackjack, in the litigation game, it is often not how you start but how you finish that decides the winner. Though the cards often favor the house or your adversary, playing your cards to their maximum potential yet recognizing when it is necessary to fold, is vital to smartly beating the odds. Below is a practical checklist of 21 ways to win, bust or fold in your product liability game.
Successful subrogation recoveries generally start with proper documentation and preservation of the relevant evidence. For this reason, every effort should be made to involve a subrogation professional at the earliest possible moment following a loss. However, early involvement is not always plausible. Additionally, at times, the circumstances surrounding the loss simply do not allow for the desired preservation of evidence. When the relevant evidence is not sufficiently documented or preserved, a claim for recovery is likely to be met with a spoliation defense.
From cell phones, to the world wide web, to electronic mail, and beyond, over the past twenty years, we have experienced an unprecedented growth in technology, as well as a growing dependence in our day-to-day lives on these technologies. Accordingly, it is of little surprise parties and mediators alike have implemented the advancements in information technology to the mediation process. Various forms of technology can be utilized to assist parties from the initial stages of selecting a mediator to the actual day of the mediation conference, and all points in between. This article details a number of ways technology advancements have affected the way parties mediate.
June 26, 2014 PublicationThe Language Was Not Enough: Florida Supreme Court Holds that the Standard "Transfer of Rights" Provision Does Not Abrogate the "Made Whole Rule"
The scope of these transferred rights had not been addressed in Florida until the Eleventh Circuit certified the issue to the Florida Supreme Court. In its recent opinion, the Florida Supreme Court clarified that a basic transfer of rights provision, without more, does not give the insurer a right of priority. Under such circumstances, priority of recovery remains dictated by Florida's common law "made whole doctrine."
April 01, 2014 Publication"Texas Damages"
In Property Subrogation, one of the most difficult damages situationsto deal with is a commercial loss where older equipment is destroyed and that equipment is integral to the operation of a facility. Oftentimes, the business decision is made to replace used equipment (which may not have a fair market value in the marketplace) with new equipment, to minimize the downtime and the associated business income loss. A recent Texas case may give property subrogators some ammunition to contest how those pieces of equipment get valued for recovery purposes.
This article was originally published in the Subrogator, a publication by the National Association of Subrogation Professionals, Winter, 2013. © Copyright 2013 by NASP. All rights reserved. Republished by Butler with permission from NASP.
As subrogation professionals, it is sometimes easy to overly focus on the liability issues in each case, leaving a thorough damages analysis for another day. However, it is a better practice to perform a complete evaluation of the legally recoverable damages early during the subrogation investigation, so that the true value of the claim can be ascertained and relayed to the subrogating insurer. This is especially so in cases where the business interruption portion of the loss is significant, since an error in proper quantification of the recoverable portion of the business interruption loss could dramatically change the overall valuation of a case -- both for settlement and trial purposes.
There comes a time at the end of every case involving retained evidence when the file handler, whether that be the adjuster, lawyer or third party claim handler, receives an evidence disposal form. Many times it is second nature to simply sign these forms and fax or email them back to the party storing the evidence. However, before doing so, thought needs to be given to any party that might have an interest in that evidence before it is disposed of, especially the insured. Otherwise, you may have just traded in a subrogation claim for the defense of a claim based on spoliation of evidence.
In an advantageous decision for the subrogation industry, the Florida Supreme Court recently narrowed the scope of the economic loss rule, and limited the rule’s application to only cases involving products liability. Broadly stated, the economic loss rule prohibits a tort action in certain circumstances when the damages incurred are wholly economic, and there is no other property damage or personal injury. Although inexplicably expanded over time, the recent decision curtails the expansive definition and returns Florida’s economic loss rule to its historical roots.
However, over the years, courts have used the product liability concepts created in the early cases interpreting the Rule to expand the Rule's application to include construction claims, which has created problems in applying the Rule in non-product liability claims. "[T]the troublesome cases discussing the dreaded economic loss rule have usually arisen in the field of construction."
Generally, "to establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant had a legal duty to conform to a certain standard of conduct; (2) the defendant breached that duty; and (3) the plaintiff sustained damage that was proximately caused by the defendant's breach.
This past legislative session, Alabama passed significant tort reform bills - something that has not been done since 1999. The legislative changes discussed below particularly affect subrogation rights and include changes to the laws affecting admission of expert testimony, product liability claims, and construction defect claims.
The other day when I was asked to write an article about "product safety" I pondered how to best approach this. As we all know, what is or is not a "safe product" is often in the eye of the beholder (or which side of the "v" you are on!). Is any product that fails even once an "unsafe product?" If 1,000,000 items have been manufactured and "only" 73 of them have failed, is that an "unsafe product?" What about 133 of them? If a product fails when it was being used improperly, but it was not a stretch for the manufacturer to have anticipated this "alleged misuse", is that an "unsafe product?" If a product has been tested by agencies and groups with an international reputation for such testing, and the product has passed, can that product be an "unsafe product?"
We shall have the right but no obligation, in all cases, to assume charge of the defens and/or settlement of any claim, and, upon our written request, you shall tender such portion of the SIR as we may deem necessary to complete the settlement of such claim.
February 10, 2012 PublicationDoes the "Case-by-Case" Approach in Florida Apply Only on a Case-by-Case Basis?
The "Anti-Subrogation Rule" dictates that an insurer is generally precluded from seeking recovery against its own insured. While this premise on its face seems simple, a speCIal circumstance arises in the context of damage to leased property caused by a tenant's negligence, Where "the obvious intent of the parties [to a lease] was to shift the risk of daruages ... to an Insurer ... [the lessee] qualifies as an intended beneficiary under the Insurance policy;" and therefore, the insurer is prohiblted from subrogating against the lessee.1 However, the lease provisions are commonly unclear, if not contradlctory, as to which party-landlord or tenant-is to bear the risk of a loss to the leased premises, or whether the tenant is considered a "co-insured" under the landlord's property insurance policy. Most jurisdictions have been presented with these types of cases, and courts have implemented one of three recognized "analytic approaches," Recently, the Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida addressed this very issue in Underwriters of Lloyds of London v. Cape Publications, Inc., 2011 WL 2415845 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
A great subrogation recovery can be defined as one that recovers the largest amount of money in the shortest period of time with the least amount of cost. Disputes between commercial entities are resolved daily, and not all of them require litigation. There are many ways to resolve a claim. Some claims are resolved through informal conversations between two adjusters. Other times, litigation and trial can be both necessary and unavoidable. However, in these economic times, most companies want to effectuate recoveries and close files as quickly as possible.
Under Florida's Workers' Compensation Statute, when an employee is injured in his/her Course and Scope of employment due to the negligence of a third party, the injured worker is able to pursue recovery for his/her injuries from the negligent third party; and the workers' compensation carrier is entitled to assert a lien in the amount of the benefits provided against any settlement or judgment obtained by the injured worker.
NASP's 12th Annual Conference, being held November 7-10 at the Gaylord Resort in Grapevine, Texas IS RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER. Can you believe it is less than two months away?!?! The Grapevine is a world-class facility located just outside Dallas. Just like in years past, this year's Conference will be a topnotch showcase for some of the best educational presentations the industry has to offer, no matter what the forum. There is no greater array of educational programs than the NASP Annual Conference. The entire program for the conference has been selected, and we have tried to limit the number of presentations slightly from year's past so that every attendee has a better chance of attending all of the programs they want, and not having too many "conflicting" presentations to decide upon.
In Florida, like nearly all jurisdictions, an insurer may not pursue subrogation against its own insured. But when a tenant causes damage to its landlord's property, is the tenant treated as a presumptive "co-insured" under the landlord's property insurance policy? The answer, at least in Florida, is "it depends."
Historically, in Florida, tort claims against the state and its state agencies have been limited to $100,000 per claim or $200,000 per occurrence. On April 27, 2010, the Florida Governor approved an amendment to Florida Statute §768.28(5) thereby increasing the limit of tort liability for claims against the state and its state agencies. While the act does not take effect until October 1, 2011, claims arising after that date will now be subject to increased limits of $200,000 per claim or $300,000 per occurrence.
Contact the authors for a full version of the article.
October 29, 2009 PublicationThe Daubert Tango: "Recent Developments In Fire and Explosion Litigation"
Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.
Winning litigation requires that you and your counsel land the devastating uppercuts at the key moments in the fight. Big opportunities for critical testimony and evidence exist by pursuing permissible ex parte contacts with another party's current and former employees. The ethical ropes and practical tips for effectively contacting and interviewing such witnesses are discussed below.
Entry of errant water into a building or other structure can lead to serious mold problems, physical damages and substantial property and business interruption losses. This article provides a roadmap on developing viable recovery claims against restorative drying contractors who were involved in improper and careless restoration and remediation of water damaged property. As in any garden-variety tort claim, it is imperative that your counsel appreciate the critical importance of identifying the target contractor's vulnerable liability exposures.
The Supreme Court of Alabama recently limited the rights of a workers' compensation insurer seeking to recover medical expenses paid on behalf of a worker who later died as a result of his injuries. Alabama's unique wrongful death statute, which allows for the recovery of punitive damages only, precludes an insurer from recovering medical expenses incurred prior to the worker's death.
Florida Governor Jeb Bush initially approved Senate Bill 1286 on May 23, 2003. The initial version of Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes (hereinafter identified as "the Statutes") set forth the requirements for making a claim for defects related to the construction of homeowner property. The authors of this article published a summary of the law in the Winter 2003-2004 issue of the Subrogator. In 2005, the Statutes were amended by the Florida Legislature to make compliance more practical for both claimants and contractors. The authors published a summary of these changes in the Spring/Summer 2005 issue of the Subrogator.
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. ("UL") is a nonprofit organization conducting product safety evaluations. UL Marks are on 19 billion products ( www.ul.com ). As of 2005, there are more than 71,000 manufacturers producing UL-certified products and 97 countries where UL customers are located. UL publishes hundreds of safety standards and disseminates safety information globally.
The word "hurricane" originates from the Spanish word, "Huracán," for the ancient Mayan "storm god." No doubt the Mayans suffered frequently from Huracán's wrath. But unlike the Mayans, recent storms have led insurers to vigorously pursue subrogated hurricane claims. This article will explore issues associated with the successful pursuit of subrogation claims arising from hurricanes.
"My grandfather's law diploma means the world to me. It was framed and given to me after his death by my family, as I was the only child to become an attorney as well." These self professed statements of value are heard over and over by subrogation attorneys throughout the United States during painstaking conferences with the insured to determine the value of his or her uninsured losses after a catastrophic loss. Quite simply, attorneys often attempt to assess the "value" of a certain personal items of the insured, when actually, no realistic fair market value exists. Such items are considered "irreplaceable" by the insured, and consist of photographs, family heirlooms, wedding memorabilia, and family documents such as marriage licences.
Over a decade has passed since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc ., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and it is time to evaluate where we've been, where we are, and where we are headed on the admissibility of expert opinion testimony in fire and explosion cases.
High-level executives are frequently sought to be deposed because of their unique corporate roles for, inter alia, policy making, corporate governance and implementing policy compliance and corrective actions. On a tactical basis, the executive deposition is pursued so that your adversary's "figurehead" directly feels the "hot buttons" of your case, real-time, without layers of filtering and spin. "Top-dog" depositions, commonly called "apex depositions," cover a wide range of executives, including CEOs, presidents and other senior management positions.
In developing your case, as plaintiff or defendant, it is important to appreciate the various alternative ways for opening the door to "other conduct" evidence to prove relevant facts at issue. Below is a synopsis of strategic methods and insights for proffering evidence of character for a non-propensity purpose, habit, subsequent remedial measures and prior occurrences/failures.
Until 2003, Florida courts recognized an independent tort of spoliation for both first and third party claims. However, that all began to change with the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision in Martino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 835 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In Martino, the plaintiffs filed a premises liability action against Wal-Mart, alleging that Mrs. Martino was injured while shopping at a Wal-Mart store when her shopping cart collapsed. Later, when Wal-Mart could not produce the shopping cart nor the security video that may have recorded the incident, the plaintiffs added a claim against Wal-Mart for spoliation of evidence. Wal-Mart filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's spoliation claim, which the trial court granted.
This case involves a subrogation action following payments made by a commercial property carrier to its insured as a result of a fire that occurred at an insured apartment complex located in Franklin County, Ohio. The fire occurred on January 28, 2003, after one of the tenants in the apartment complex placed hot ashes from his fireplace into a cardboard box, and then left the box unattended inside of his unit. Approximately 30 minutes later, a fire ignited. The tenant quickly called the fire department, who responded and extinguished the fire. The fire damage was confined to the tenant's unit which suffered approximately $10,000 worth of damage.
May 03, 2005 PublicationHow "What We Learned in Little League" Paves the Way for Winning Litigation!"
As in baseball, whether being the batter, pitcher, or outfielder, successful litigation requires a strong belief and conviction that one has the power to shape reality. Certainly, without the batter's confidence that he or she will hit the ball, irrespective of its speed, twists or turns, few home runs would be made, let alone "singles or doubles"
Florida's Construction Defect Statute, F.S. § 558.001 et seq. ("Construction Defect Statute"), first became effective on May 27, 2003. This law drastically changed how claims for construction defects are to be made by homeowners against contractors in Florida.
After years of confusing and contradictory rulings, Florida's Supreme Court finally reigned in the scope of the Economic Loss Rule. In Indemnity Ins. Co. v. American Aviation, Inc., 891 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2004), the Florida Supreme Court cogently limited the Economic Loss Rule. It held that the Economic Loss Rule does not bar a negligence action to recover solely economic damages where the defendant is not a product manufacturer or distributor. The Court also held that the Economic Loss Rule simply does not apply to any situation where there is no privity between the litigants.
April 01, 2005 PublicationLive . . . From The House Of Subrogation!
The Hilton Hotel in Austin, Texas will truly be "The House of Subrogation" from November 13 through 16, when over 1,200 subrogation professionals from around the globe assemble for the NASP Annual Conference. And this year's conference is expected to be even bigger, better and more alive than ever before!
When subrogating against an adverse party having a contractual relationship with your insured, it is routine to face the argument that your damages are barred by the economic loss rule. Most jurisdictions have carved out an exception to the sometimes harsh results that can flow from the operation of this rule. One such exception is the “other property” exception, which typically allows for tort recovery when the damaged “other property” is not a subject of the contract.
Florida Governor Jeb Bush approved Senate Bill No. 1286 (“Bill 1286”), which drastically changes the method for presenting a claim for construction defects. Effective May 27, 2003, Florida homeowners and their subrogees cannot file a construction defect lawsuit without fully complying with new pre-suit requirements.
In Section 1 of Bill 1286, the Florida Legislature states the intent of the new law.

References: v. 
 § 768
 § 768
 § 768
 § 768
 v. 
 v. 
 §768
 v. 
 v. 
 § 558
 v.