Call Tucker IP Today! 954.204.0444 or 305.423.9713|info@TuckeripLaw.com
FacebookTwitterGoogle+Linkedin

Monthly Archives: August 2014

Home/2014/August

Personal Injury Jury Instructions

PERSONAL INJURY JURY INSTRUCTIONS When considering how much to demand for a personal injury, your accident attorney will review the amount of damage that you have incurred, and will continue to incur in the future. Medical bills, lost wages, and future medical bills are examples of the types of damage that is recoverable. Insurance adjusters are not considering the types of instructions levied to the Jury, but attorneys should when contemplating the types of compensation that will or could be awarded. § 501.1 Personal Injury and Property Damages When it is proven during a trial that Defendant is liable for the accident, the Court instructs the Jury write on the verdict form, in dollars, the total amount of loss, injury, or damage which the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and adequately compensate him or her for the loss, injury, or damage, including any damages that he or she is reasonably certain to […]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:16+00:00 August 6th, 2014|Car Accident, Civil Litigation, Personal Injury, Slip & Fall|Comments Off on Personal Injury Jury Instructions
Read More

Accident Attorney Review of State Farm v. Curran

New Uninsured Motorist Opinion from the Florida Supreme Court Turning to the Florida Supreme Court, our attention is brought to a case involving uninsured motorist policies and compulsory medical examinations (“EUOs”). The question before the Court was: [fusion_builder_container hundred_percent="yes" overflow="visible"][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type="1_1" background_position="left top" background_color="" border_size="" border_color="" border_style="solid" spacing="yes" background_image="" background_repeat="no-repeat" padding="" margin_top="0px" margin_bottom="0px" class="" id="" animation_type="" animation_speed="0.3" animation_direction="left" hide_on_mobile="no" center_content="no" min_height="none"][fusion_tagline_box backgroundcolor="" shadow="yes" shadowopacity="1" border="1px" bordercolor="" highlightposition="left" content_alignment="left" link="" linktarget="_self" button_size="small" button_shape="square" button_type="flat" buttoncolor="" button="" title="" description="WHEN AN INSURED BREACHES A COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION PROVISION IN AN UNINSURED MOTORIST CONTRACT, DOES THE INSURED FORFEIT BENEFITS UNDER THE CONTRACT WITHOUT REGARD TO PREJUDICE? IF PREJUDICE MUST BE CONSIDERED, WHO BEARS THE BURDEN OF PLEADING AND PROVING THAT ISSUE?" animation_type="0" animation_direction="down" animation_speed="0.1" class="" id=""][/fusion_tagline_box]The Supreme Court answered in the negative for the first part of the issue presented. For the second part of the question, the Court held that the insurer pleading the affirmative defense has the burden of pleading and proving prejudice. The facts go as follows. The Insured held a $100K underinsured motorist policy with State Farm Automobile Insurance Company to cover for personal injury and car accidents. Due to estimated damages at $3.5 million, it should come as no surprise that the insured requested the entire $100K. Because it reached the Supreme Court of Florida, it should be immediately clear that State Farm did not tender the policy limits. Instead, State Farm attempted to set a compulsory medical examination (CME) with a doctor that the insured also attempted to schedule an appointment with. For unclear reasons, the policy holder ultimately declined to attend the CME and simply filed a lawsuit. The trial court in the Fifth District reviewed a summary judgment request that argued [...]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:16+00:00 August 5th, 2014|Car Accident, NEWS|Comments Off on Accident Attorney Review of State Farm v. Curran
Read More

Denver Patent Office Opens

Denver Patent Office Open For Business Denver, Colorado now supports a permanent United States Patent and Trademark Denver Satellite Office. Denver, which has a large population of patent attorneys, allows the USPTO the ability to retain Examiners locally. Denver offers a high quality of life, which differs from the life style of the Washington, D.C. area. Denver is a very sought after location and may provide a location to steel talent away from Silicon Valley. The Denver Satellite Office is estimated to create one hundred thirty Patent positions, from Patent Examiners to Patent Judges with Patent Trial and Appeal Board. With this office, the USPTO has now expanded into the Mountain Time Zone. The goal of the Patent Office is to support offices in every time zone. While the USPTO does not have plans for a Fort Lauderdale Patent Office presently, it would make sense for the USPTO to consider a South Florida location due to the amount of innovation taking place. It is believed that opening offices across the United States will help spur innovation through startups and enterprises, as well as creating high-paying jobs. Denver’s Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for IP and USPTO Deputy Directory Michelle K. Lee delivered opening remarks on June 30, 2014. She stated her commitment to creating incentives to innovate, creating tools to produce and product creative ideas, and balancing risks of developing new technologies. Deputy Director Lee rightly recognizes the advantages that U.S. companies have obtained by providing innovators with protection for their ideas. Most importantly, the Satellite office is intended to reduce the backlog of patents that have jammed up the USPTO headquarters. Any inventor or Patent Attorney will tell you that the backlog is years [...]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:17+00:00 August 5th, 2014|NEWS, Patents|Comments Off on Denver Patent Office Opens
Read More