Legalfeeguard

12/15/2022

LegalFeeGuard Coverage Questionnaire

11/29/2022

LegalFeeGuard Paralegal Testimonial

08/08/2022

Ask about our Proposal for Settlement Insurance - Approved in FL and GA

04/22/2021

The LegalFeeGuard insurance program is an innovative solution to the serious risks faced by your client from the Proposal for Settlement statute.

08/15/2019

Citizens issued a homeowner's insurance policy to the plaintiff. On October 24, 2005, Hurricane Wilma allegedly caused damage to the plaintiff's home. Although the plaintiff admitted to seeing some water leaking into his house during the hurricane, it was not until almost four years later, on June 12, 2009, that the plaintiff informed Citizens of the alleged damage to his home.

After receiving notice of the alleged damage to the plaintiff's home, Citizens contacted plaintiffs, and as allowed by the policy, requested he send them a "sworn proof of loss," containing certain information regarding the home and the alleged damage. Although the plaintiff later submitted some of the requested information to Citizens, he did not do so in a timely manner.

The plaintiff filed suit after Citizens denied his claim. After its initial motion for summary was denied, Citizens served the plaintiff with a proposal for settlement in the amount of $1000. The plaintiff rejected the proposal for settlement. Citizens then filed a second motion for summary judgment. The second motion for summary judgment was granted, and final summary judgment was entered in favor of Citizens because the notice of the claim was not promptly provided.

After its second motion for summary judgment was granted, Citizens filed a motion to determine its entitlement to attorney's fees pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 and section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2013). The trial court determined that the settlement proposal offered by Citizens was not made in good faith, and thus denied Citizens' entitlement to recover attorney's fees. Citizens appeals this denial.

The Fourth District has consistently held that: The rule is that a minimal offer can be made in good faith if the evidence demonstrates that, the offeror had a reasonable basis to conclude that its exposure was nominal. In the instant case, there is enough evidence in the record to conclude that Citizens faced only nominal exposure, as the plaintiff did not first report the alleged damage to his home for nearly four years after the fact. Therefore, the Fourth District reversed the trial court's order denying Citizens' recovery of attorney's fees and remanded with instructions that the trial court enter an order granting attorney's fees to Citizens and determining the amount to be awarded.

07/11/2019

Duplantis v Brock Specialty Services LTD

Plaintiff was injured when his vehicle was struck by a pickup truck driven by one of the defendant's drivers.

In November 2009, defendant tendered an offer to plaintiff for $300,000 to settle any and all claims against it, but conditioned the settlement on ex*****on of a release in favor of all named defendants, as well as their affiliates. The case was tried before a jury which returned a verdict in plaintiffs favor of only $18,400, after apportionment of fault. Judgment was entered against the driver, and other defendants, jointly and severally, in that amount. Plaintiff was also awarded costs of $35,496.11. Each of the defendants then moved for an award of fees and costs based upon the earlier offer of judgment. The trial court granted the motion and awarded defendant attorney's fees of $80,816.16.

In appeal, plaintiff argued that the offer of judgment made by defendant was invalid because it was, in fact, a joint proposal that failed to state the amount and terms attributable to each defendant, as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. The appeals court agreed that plaintiffs was entitled to separate offers from each defendant, which would have permitted him to independently and intelligently assess and evaluate each offer.

06/18/2019

Our clients often ask how much coverage should be purchased. Many assume incorrectly the amount of coverage should be the amount tendered in the PFS by the other party. However, LegalFeeGuard covers the estimated amount of opposing counsels fees, not the settlement amount offered in the PFS.

It is important to note that LegalFeeGuard is not just for attorneys fees. The policy covers other legal fees, such as expert witnesses and depositions from the opposing party.

What will the jury decide? Trying to guess what the jury or judge will decide in your case is like trying to predict the stock market. You can think you have a sure winner, only to be blindsided by a surprise verdict.

06/04/2019

We will be exhibiting during the Annual Meeting of the State Bar of Georgia, June 6-9, 2019 at the Ritz-Carlton Orlando, Grande Lakes, in Orlando, Florida. We will be exhibiting at booth #1.

Our display table will be open all day where you will have the opportunity to learn more about how LegalFeeGuard works, the advantages of the product, how to buy a policy, and more.

What will the jury decide? Trying to guess what the jury or judge will decide in your case is like trying to predict the stock market. You can think you have a sure winner, only to be blindsided by a surprise verdict.

04/25/2019

Some of the most common questions we get at LegalFeeGuard pertain to vicarious liability. Most of the time our policy form will cover one plaintiff or one defendant. The most common exception to that rule is when one or more parties are purely vicariously liable for another party. Below are recent vicarious liability cases were we covered plaintiffs against multiple defendants on the same policy. In all of these cases the defendants tendered a joint PFS to the Plaintiff.

1)Owner of a vehicle gives permissive use to operate the vehicle to a family member. Family member gets into an accident.

2) A physician committed malpractice in a hospital where the physician had privileges.

3) An attorney made a malpractice error while working for a law firm.

4) An employee of a trucking company gets into an auto accident while on the clock and driving the company vehicle.

If you have any questions on how our policy form will cover your exposure do not hesitate to contact us.

What will the jury decide? Trying to guess what the jury or judge will decide in your case is like trying to predict the stock market. You can think you have a sure winner, only to be blindsided by a surprise verdict.

03/04/2019

On January 4, 2019, the Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict among the DCAs and held that Proposals for Settlement made pursuant to Section 768.79 need not comply with the email service provisions of the Florida Rule of Judical Administration 2.516. It was determined that a PFS is not a pleading, order or "document to be filed" with the court.

A PFS served by email is deemed valid even if it does not include a certificate of service and a subject line containing the words "Service of Court Documents" as 2.516 requires.

01/28/2019

Over the past year, we have seen an increase in demand for ACH as a payment option for LegalFeeGuard. We are proud to adapt to meet the needs of our clients. Effective February 1, 2019 we will accept ACH payments.

There are now four ways to pay for a LegalFeeGuard policy:

Credit card payment online for an additional fee.

ACH payment online for no additonal fee.

Check via mail.

Funding the premium on a non-recourse basis through one of our litigation funding partners.

http://legalfeeguard.com/

01/09/2019

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 states that "[n]o proposal [for settlement] shall be served less than 45 days before the date set for trial or the first day of the docket on which the case is set for trial, whichever is earlier." If the PFS is served less than 45 prior to start of the docket it is untimely, even if it is 45 days prior to the start of trial during that docket.

There is an exception to the bright-line rule. If the PFS is made at a point where it appears that it is not directed to the current trial period, but for an unscheduled trial period it is considered timely.