Uncategorized

An insurance policy is a contract, and thus the language in that policy dictates and governs what the rights and obligations of the parties to that contract can expect. When an insurance company denies a claim based on the policy, they are typically relying on language in that policy/contract that they interpret as allowing them to not have to pay on a claim for damages.
Throughout our years of practicing personal injury litigation, we have developed a reputation of fighting insurance coverage issues that were preventing our clients from collecting for their damages from insurance policies that were in effect at the time of the injury. Our firm’s experience in insurance defense litigation has allowed us to fight successfully and vehemently for our clients in coverage disputes.
Recently, we had a case where our client was injured in a horrific ATV accident on a wooded, vacant lot. The ATV owner/driver’s policy of insurance allegedly required that the ATV be used on the insured’s property where it was garaged for the insurance to pay for the ATV owner/driver’s liability for our client’s injuries. I argued that the language in the policy was vague and ambiguous and that a policy for an ATV would be expected to cover injuries occurring off the insured owner’s property since that was where an ATV would typically and normally be used. We were able to get the insurance company to tender their policy limits of $300,000.00 based on this litigation battle.
Sarah had a case last month in which she was litigating against an insurance company on behalf of the spouse of her injured client. Under Florida law, a spouse is entitled to pursue damages for their own losses arising out of their spouse’s horrific injuries. The insurance company denied the claim based on the language in the policy that they said prevented a spouse from collecting for her damages. Sarah argued inconsistencies and vagueness in the policy and was able to win the policy limits of $100,000.00 for her client’s spouse.
Finally, several weeks ago, Sarah and I were able to argue contract language in our client’s auto insurance policy that allowed him to collect for 25 days of rental car coverage when the insurance company was arguing that they were only responsible for 3 to 5 days of rental car expense. This was a protracted battle that involved a $120.00 rental expense but resulted in a recovery for the client that was four times that amount.
At Philips & Raaymakers, no insurance battle is too big or too small. We relish the opportunity to fight for our clients to obtain insurance coverage where the insurance company is trying to deny our clients justice. Obtaining compensation for our clients is only half the battle. Obtaining insurance coverage is the first and foremost fight to surmount.
We are always here for YOU!

Chuck and Sarah