Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Filing 8818506 Electronically Filed 01062014 104552 AM
RECEIVED 162014 104840 John A Tomasino Clerk Supreme Court
BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA
SC l3-1333 INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE No 12-613
LAURA M WATSON
JUDGE WATSONS NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OMNIBUS ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS DATED DECEMBER 20 2013
Pursuant to the Chairs December 20 2013 Omnibus Order on Pending
Motions Judge Watson discloses the following character witnesses
1 The Honorable Thomas M Lynch IV 201 SE 6 Street Ft Lauderdale FL 33301
2 John P Seiler Esq
Seiler Sauter Zaden Rimes
2850 N Andrews Ave
Ft Lauderdale FL 33311
3 Terrance OConnor Esq
Morgan Carratt and OConnor
111 SE 12th Street
Ft Lauderdale FL 33316
Contrary to the procedure generally followed at a case management hearing
instead of requiring the Petitioner JQC to list its expert witnesses first and then
allow the Respondent Judge Watson additional time to list her experts the Chair
reversed this procedure and ordered Judge Watson to first list her experts Judge
Watson objects to this procedure and requests additional time to list additional
experts in the subject matter of any experts listed by the JQC to the extent that their
testimony addresses a different subject matter from the expert below
Lawrence Kopelman Esq
200 SW 1 Avenue 12 Floor Ft Lauderdale FL 33301
954-462-6855 Email larrykopelblankcom
Mr Kopelman has extensive experience in representing litigants in causes of action similar to the PIP cases that were handled by the firm of Laura M
Watson PA He is familiar with the nature and extent of work performed by the
Watson firm and the responsibility of the claimants attorney in the prosecution of
personal injury protection benefits cases and had extensive experience in class action suits and other complex litigation Furthermore he has examined many of
the files handled by the Watson firm and testified in numerous fee hearings regarding the issues related to the proceedings and the services rendered by Laura
M Watson PA
The Watson firm each began specializing in the representation of health care
providers in PIP insurance claims by the late 1990s That was long before the practice of PIP law became the crowded field it has since become Laura Watson and the lawyers were pioneers in their own right having been involved in
significant judicial decisions and legislative developments over the years The
2
Watson firm discovered that Progressive and other PIP carriers were improperly
reducing PIP benefits using various methodologies including the improper use of preferred provider organizations (PPOs)
The contract that the client had with Judge Watsons law firm provided that if the suit was successful the client would recover the unpaid benefits and interest
and the lawyers would recover the legal fees and costs Often times the sum being
sought was less than $50000 Progressive aggressively defended PIP suits brought
by the health care providers As a practical matter if the client had to advance the legal fees and costs to recover the benefits they would not have done so The
Watson firm assumed the risk on the clients behalf and agreed to perform as much
work and expend whatever time was necessary Eventually the health care providers prevailed and recovered the unpaid PIP benefits plus interest and the Watson firm recovered cost and attorneys fees from the insurance company
Mr Kopelman has reviewed numerous files and of the files he has reviewed
he found that the average recovery per file at the time of the settlement with
Progressive Insurance Company was roughly $1000000 and that a multiplier was appropriate for many of the files Mr Kopelman finds that at the time of this litigation $25000 per hour is a reasonable hourly rate for Laura M Watson and
that the other attorneys in her firm were entitled to be awarded $20000 per hour
for their services in this type of litigation The work that the Watson firm
completed was reasonable and necessary to get the client paid Each of the Watson
firm clients received 100 benefits plus interest which is what they were entitled
to under the contract
Multiplier of 20 - 25 is appropriate
Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court the number one factor in determining whether a multiplier should be applied is whether or not the relevant market requires a contingent fee multiplier for the Plaintiff to obtain competent counsel Quanstrom v Standard Insurance 555 So2d 828 (Fla 1990) The relevant market means this case and this client A contingent fee with the
3
possibility for a multiplier was necessary to attract competent counsel in this community Most of these cases presented the complex and novel issue of the whether or not an insurer can legally reduce a healthcare providers medical bills based upon a PPO contract without selling the insured a PPO policy and passing the discounts to the insured Because several major insurers including Progressive and Allstate had taken the position that they could legally take these discounts and not pay the full amount due for these type of charges it was unlikely that these cases would settle Not only did this create a financial crisis for the providerclients who were not getting paid for their services but this creates a crisis to the National Program of insurance wherein the insurance company selectively removes treatment to their insureds This issue is greatly important to both providers and consumers and this issue had far reaching implications
Further a contingent fee with the possibility for a multiplier was necessary to attract competent counsel in this community Most of the healthcare providers were unable to obtain any counsel to represent them in 2000 and 2001 when these cases began These cases also presented the complex and novel issue of the constitutionality of the arbitration provision of FS 627736 (5) Laura M Watson PA was unable to mitigate the risk of non-payment and instead was placed in a position to invest large sums of money to file these PPO claims and take on insurers and adequately represent their clients
Laura M Watson PA had a pure written contingency fee contract with their clients Though it is referred to as a pure contingency fee the lawyers and the clients do not share in the recovery of the benefits and interest The Watson firm recovered 100 of the outstanding benefits and interest for their clients after they aggressively litigated this case The fact that these cases settled is directly related to Laura Watsons extensive experience and ability as an attorney Laura Watson is highly regarded for her skill and reputation in this area of the law at both the trial and appellate levels
Lastly Quanstrom requires the court to look at the Rowe factors These cases meet numerous factors Specifically the time and labor required to prevail in this litigation was extensive This was a novel and extremely difficult case requiring a high level of skill necessary to perform the legal service properly The PA recovered 100 of the outstanding benefits for their clients after they aggressively litigated this case
4
I do not believe these cases settled because of Larry Stewarts involvement with the bad faith case The PIP cases handled by the Watson firm had a great deal of value At the time of the settlement in issue in this case the Watson firm had numerous outstanding final judgments for fees and costs which had not been paid and had fifty-three fee hearings pending
People are not outraged by a computer program used to derive what insurers call reasonable values particularly when they inject how medical providers are causmg msurance rates to go up by overutilization and other abuses Insurance companies are interested in taking thousands of cases and shutting them down due to the attorneys fees Mr Kopelman does not believe that punitive damages would be awarded in this case There is no outrage no reprehensibility not even a proven violation of the law It was not even clear at the time of the settlement if the courts were going to allow these type of reductions without selling the appropriate policy and ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that the insurers did not violate the law by taking these PPO reductions without selling a PPO policy
Even if you could convince a jury that punitive damages were appropriate State Farm v Campbell would prevent a major punitive damage claim from being upheld on appeal Larry Stewart was trying to turn a PIP bad faith case into a quasi-class action which is not permitted under the statute His idea of adding more and more plaintiffs created a scenario that was unmanageable
Respectfully submitted
The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907 jwatsonl 7thficourtsorg
s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq milesmcgranelawcom
lisamcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran
Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri
Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of
the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156
Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110
Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 Robert A Sweetapple
Pleadingssweetapplelawcom Co-counsel for Judge Watson 165 East Boca
Raton Road Boca Raton Florida 33432-3911 this 6th day of January 2014
Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The
Honorable Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S
Beach Street Daytona Beach FL 32114
s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON
6
Contrary to the procedure generally followed at a case management hearing
instead of requiring the Petitioner JQC to list its expert witnesses first and then
allow the Respondent Judge Watson additional time to list her experts the Chair
reversed this procedure and ordered Judge Watson to first list her experts Judge
Watson objects to this procedure and requests additional time to list additional
experts in the subject matter of any experts listed by the JQC to the extent that their
testimony addresses a different subject matter from the expert below
Lawrence Kopelman Esq
200 SW 1 Avenue 12 Floor Ft Lauderdale FL 33301
954-462-6855 Email larrykopelblankcom
Mr Kopelman has extensive experience in representing litigants in causes of action similar to the PIP cases that were handled by the firm of Laura M
Watson PA He is familiar with the nature and extent of work performed by the
Watson firm and the responsibility of the claimants attorney in the prosecution of
personal injury protection benefits cases and had extensive experience in class action suits and other complex litigation Furthermore he has examined many of
the files handled by the Watson firm and testified in numerous fee hearings regarding the issues related to the proceedings and the services rendered by Laura
M Watson PA
The Watson firm each began specializing in the representation of health care
providers in PIP insurance claims by the late 1990s That was long before the practice of PIP law became the crowded field it has since become Laura Watson and the lawyers were pioneers in their own right having been involved in
significant judicial decisions and legislative developments over the years The
2
Watson firm discovered that Progressive and other PIP carriers were improperly
reducing PIP benefits using various methodologies including the improper use of preferred provider organizations (PPOs)
The contract that the client had with Judge Watsons law firm provided that if the suit was successful the client would recover the unpaid benefits and interest
and the lawyers would recover the legal fees and costs Often times the sum being
sought was less than $50000 Progressive aggressively defended PIP suits brought
by the health care providers As a practical matter if the client had to advance the legal fees and costs to recover the benefits they would not have done so The
Watson firm assumed the risk on the clients behalf and agreed to perform as much
work and expend whatever time was necessary Eventually the health care providers prevailed and recovered the unpaid PIP benefits plus interest and the Watson firm recovered cost and attorneys fees from the insurance company
Mr Kopelman has reviewed numerous files and of the files he has reviewed
he found that the average recovery per file at the time of the settlement with
Progressive Insurance Company was roughly $1000000 and that a multiplier was appropriate for many of the files Mr Kopelman finds that at the time of this litigation $25000 per hour is a reasonable hourly rate for Laura M Watson and
that the other attorneys in her firm were entitled to be awarded $20000 per hour
for their services in this type of litigation The work that the Watson firm
completed was reasonable and necessary to get the client paid Each of the Watson
firm clients received 100 benefits plus interest which is what they were entitled
to under the contract
Multiplier of 20 - 25 is appropriate
Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court the number one factor in determining whether a multiplier should be applied is whether or not the relevant market requires a contingent fee multiplier for the Plaintiff to obtain competent counsel Quanstrom v Standard Insurance 555 So2d 828 (Fla 1990) The relevant market means this case and this client A contingent fee with the
3
possibility for a multiplier was necessary to attract competent counsel in this community Most of these cases presented the complex and novel issue of the whether or not an insurer can legally reduce a healthcare providers medical bills based upon a PPO contract without selling the insured a PPO policy and passing the discounts to the insured Because several major insurers including Progressive and Allstate had taken the position that they could legally take these discounts and not pay the full amount due for these type of charges it was unlikely that these cases would settle Not only did this create a financial crisis for the providerclients who were not getting paid for their services but this creates a crisis to the National Program of insurance wherein the insurance company selectively removes treatment to their insureds This issue is greatly important to both providers and consumers and this issue had far reaching implications
Further a contingent fee with the possibility for a multiplier was necessary to attract competent counsel in this community Most of the healthcare providers were unable to obtain any counsel to represent them in 2000 and 2001 when these cases began These cases also presented the complex and novel issue of the constitutionality of the arbitration provision of FS 627736 (5) Laura M Watson PA was unable to mitigate the risk of non-payment and instead was placed in a position to invest large sums of money to file these PPO claims and take on insurers and adequately represent their clients
Laura M Watson PA had a pure written contingency fee contract with their clients Though it is referred to as a pure contingency fee the lawyers and the clients do not share in the recovery of the benefits and interest The Watson firm recovered 100 of the outstanding benefits and interest for their clients after they aggressively litigated this case The fact that these cases settled is directly related to Laura Watsons extensive experience and ability as an attorney Laura Watson is highly regarded for her skill and reputation in this area of the law at both the trial and appellate levels
Lastly Quanstrom requires the court to look at the Rowe factors These cases meet numerous factors Specifically the time and labor required to prevail in this litigation was extensive This was a novel and extremely difficult case requiring a high level of skill necessary to perform the legal service properly The PA recovered 100 of the outstanding benefits for their clients after they aggressively litigated this case
4
I do not believe these cases settled because of Larry Stewarts involvement with the bad faith case The PIP cases handled by the Watson firm had a great deal of value At the time of the settlement in issue in this case the Watson firm had numerous outstanding final judgments for fees and costs which had not been paid and had fifty-three fee hearings pending
People are not outraged by a computer program used to derive what insurers call reasonable values particularly when they inject how medical providers are causmg msurance rates to go up by overutilization and other abuses Insurance companies are interested in taking thousands of cases and shutting them down due to the attorneys fees Mr Kopelman does not believe that punitive damages would be awarded in this case There is no outrage no reprehensibility not even a proven violation of the law It was not even clear at the time of the settlement if the courts were going to allow these type of reductions without selling the appropriate policy and ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that the insurers did not violate the law by taking these PPO reductions without selling a PPO policy
Even if you could convince a jury that punitive damages were appropriate State Farm v Campbell would prevent a major punitive damage claim from being upheld on appeal Larry Stewart was trying to turn a PIP bad faith case into a quasi-class action which is not permitted under the statute His idea of adding more and more plaintiffs created a scenario that was unmanageable
Respectfully submitted
The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907 jwatsonl 7thficourtsorg
s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq milesmcgranelawcom
lisamcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran
Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri
Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of
the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156
Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110
Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 Robert A Sweetapple
Pleadingssweetapplelawcom Co-counsel for Judge Watson 165 East Boca
Raton Road Boca Raton Florida 33432-3911 this 6th day of January 2014
Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The
Honorable Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S
Beach Street Daytona Beach FL 32114
s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON
6
Watson firm discovered that Progressive and other PIP carriers were improperly
reducing PIP benefits using various methodologies including the improper use of preferred provider organizations (PPOs)
The contract that the client had with Judge Watsons law firm provided that if the suit was successful the client would recover the unpaid benefits and interest
and the lawyers would recover the legal fees and costs Often times the sum being
sought was less than $50000 Progressive aggressively defended PIP suits brought
by the health care providers As a practical matter if the client had to advance the legal fees and costs to recover the benefits they would not have done so The
Watson firm assumed the risk on the clients behalf and agreed to perform as much
work and expend whatever time was necessary Eventually the health care providers prevailed and recovered the unpaid PIP benefits plus interest and the Watson firm recovered cost and attorneys fees from the insurance company
Mr Kopelman has reviewed numerous files and of the files he has reviewed
he found that the average recovery per file at the time of the settlement with
Progressive Insurance Company was roughly $1000000 and that a multiplier was appropriate for many of the files Mr Kopelman finds that at the time of this litigation $25000 per hour is a reasonable hourly rate for Laura M Watson and
that the other attorneys in her firm were entitled to be awarded $20000 per hour
for their services in this type of litigation The work that the Watson firm
completed was reasonable and necessary to get the client paid Each of the Watson
firm clients received 100 benefits plus interest which is what they were entitled
to under the contract
Multiplier of 20 - 25 is appropriate
Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court the number one factor in determining whether a multiplier should be applied is whether or not the relevant market requires a contingent fee multiplier for the Plaintiff to obtain competent counsel Quanstrom v Standard Insurance 555 So2d 828 (Fla 1990) The relevant market means this case and this client A contingent fee with the
3
possibility for a multiplier was necessary to attract competent counsel in this community Most of these cases presented the complex and novel issue of the whether or not an insurer can legally reduce a healthcare providers medical bills based upon a PPO contract without selling the insured a PPO policy and passing the discounts to the insured Because several major insurers including Progressive and Allstate had taken the position that they could legally take these discounts and not pay the full amount due for these type of charges it was unlikely that these cases would settle Not only did this create a financial crisis for the providerclients who were not getting paid for their services but this creates a crisis to the National Program of insurance wherein the insurance company selectively removes treatment to their insureds This issue is greatly important to both providers and consumers and this issue had far reaching implications
Further a contingent fee with the possibility for a multiplier was necessary to attract competent counsel in this community Most of the healthcare providers were unable to obtain any counsel to represent them in 2000 and 2001 when these cases began These cases also presented the complex and novel issue of the constitutionality of the arbitration provision of FS 627736 (5) Laura M Watson PA was unable to mitigate the risk of non-payment and instead was placed in a position to invest large sums of money to file these PPO claims and take on insurers and adequately represent their clients
Laura M Watson PA had a pure written contingency fee contract with their clients Though it is referred to as a pure contingency fee the lawyers and the clients do not share in the recovery of the benefits and interest The Watson firm recovered 100 of the outstanding benefits and interest for their clients after they aggressively litigated this case The fact that these cases settled is directly related to Laura Watsons extensive experience and ability as an attorney Laura Watson is highly regarded for her skill and reputation in this area of the law at both the trial and appellate levels
Lastly Quanstrom requires the court to look at the Rowe factors These cases meet numerous factors Specifically the time and labor required to prevail in this litigation was extensive This was a novel and extremely difficult case requiring a high level of skill necessary to perform the legal service properly The PA recovered 100 of the outstanding benefits for their clients after they aggressively litigated this case
4
I do not believe these cases settled because of Larry Stewarts involvement with the bad faith case The PIP cases handled by the Watson firm had a great deal of value At the time of the settlement in issue in this case the Watson firm had numerous outstanding final judgments for fees and costs which had not been paid and had fifty-three fee hearings pending
People are not outraged by a computer program used to derive what insurers call reasonable values particularly when they inject how medical providers are causmg msurance rates to go up by overutilization and other abuses Insurance companies are interested in taking thousands of cases and shutting them down due to the attorneys fees Mr Kopelman does not believe that punitive damages would be awarded in this case There is no outrage no reprehensibility not even a proven violation of the law It was not even clear at the time of the settlement if the courts were going to allow these type of reductions without selling the appropriate policy and ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that the insurers did not violate the law by taking these PPO reductions without selling a PPO policy
Even if you could convince a jury that punitive damages were appropriate State Farm v Campbell would prevent a major punitive damage claim from being upheld on appeal Larry Stewart was trying to turn a PIP bad faith case into a quasi-class action which is not permitted under the statute His idea of adding more and more plaintiffs created a scenario that was unmanageable
Respectfully submitted
The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907 jwatsonl 7thficourtsorg
s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq milesmcgranelawcom
lisamcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran
Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri
Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of
the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156
Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110
Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 Robert A Sweetapple
Pleadingssweetapplelawcom Co-counsel for Judge Watson 165 East Boca
Raton Road Boca Raton Florida 33432-3911 this 6th day of January 2014
Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The
Honorable Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S
Beach Street Daytona Beach FL 32114
s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON
6
possibility for a multiplier was necessary to attract competent counsel in this community Most of these cases presented the complex and novel issue of the whether or not an insurer can legally reduce a healthcare providers medical bills based upon a PPO contract without selling the insured a PPO policy and passing the discounts to the insured Because several major insurers including Progressive and Allstate had taken the position that they could legally take these discounts and not pay the full amount due for these type of charges it was unlikely that these cases would settle Not only did this create a financial crisis for the providerclients who were not getting paid for their services but this creates a crisis to the National Program of insurance wherein the insurance company selectively removes treatment to their insureds This issue is greatly important to both providers and consumers and this issue had far reaching implications
Further a contingent fee with the possibility for a multiplier was necessary to attract competent counsel in this community Most of the healthcare providers were unable to obtain any counsel to represent them in 2000 and 2001 when these cases began These cases also presented the complex and novel issue of the constitutionality of the arbitration provision of FS 627736 (5) Laura M Watson PA was unable to mitigate the risk of non-payment and instead was placed in a position to invest large sums of money to file these PPO claims and take on insurers and adequately represent their clients
Laura M Watson PA had a pure written contingency fee contract with their clients Though it is referred to as a pure contingency fee the lawyers and the clients do not share in the recovery of the benefits and interest The Watson firm recovered 100 of the outstanding benefits and interest for their clients after they aggressively litigated this case The fact that these cases settled is directly related to Laura Watsons extensive experience and ability as an attorney Laura Watson is highly regarded for her skill and reputation in this area of the law at both the trial and appellate levels
Lastly Quanstrom requires the court to look at the Rowe factors These cases meet numerous factors Specifically the time and labor required to prevail in this litigation was extensive This was a novel and extremely difficult case requiring a high level of skill necessary to perform the legal service properly The PA recovered 100 of the outstanding benefits for their clients after they aggressively litigated this case
4
I do not believe these cases settled because of Larry Stewarts involvement with the bad faith case The PIP cases handled by the Watson firm had a great deal of value At the time of the settlement in issue in this case the Watson firm had numerous outstanding final judgments for fees and costs which had not been paid and had fifty-three fee hearings pending
People are not outraged by a computer program used to derive what insurers call reasonable values particularly when they inject how medical providers are causmg msurance rates to go up by overutilization and other abuses Insurance companies are interested in taking thousands of cases and shutting them down due to the attorneys fees Mr Kopelman does not believe that punitive damages would be awarded in this case There is no outrage no reprehensibility not even a proven violation of the law It was not even clear at the time of the settlement if the courts were going to allow these type of reductions without selling the appropriate policy and ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that the insurers did not violate the law by taking these PPO reductions without selling a PPO policy
Even if you could convince a jury that punitive damages were appropriate State Farm v Campbell would prevent a major punitive damage claim from being upheld on appeal Larry Stewart was trying to turn a PIP bad faith case into a quasi-class action which is not permitted under the statute His idea of adding more and more plaintiffs created a scenario that was unmanageable
Respectfully submitted
The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907 jwatsonl 7thficourtsorg
s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq milesmcgranelawcom
lisamcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran
Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri
Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of
the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156
Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110
Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 Robert A Sweetapple
Pleadingssweetapplelawcom Co-counsel for Judge Watson 165 East Boca
Raton Road Boca Raton Florida 33432-3911 this 6th day of January 2014
Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The
Honorable Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S
Beach Street Daytona Beach FL 32114
s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON
6
I do not believe these cases settled because of Larry Stewarts involvement with the bad faith case The PIP cases handled by the Watson firm had a great deal of value At the time of the settlement in issue in this case the Watson firm had numerous outstanding final judgments for fees and costs which had not been paid and had fifty-three fee hearings pending
People are not outraged by a computer program used to derive what insurers call reasonable values particularly when they inject how medical providers are causmg msurance rates to go up by overutilization and other abuses Insurance companies are interested in taking thousands of cases and shutting them down due to the attorneys fees Mr Kopelman does not believe that punitive damages would be awarded in this case There is no outrage no reprehensibility not even a proven violation of the law It was not even clear at the time of the settlement if the courts were going to allow these type of reductions without selling the appropriate policy and ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that the insurers did not violate the law by taking these PPO reductions without selling a PPO policy
Even if you could convince a jury that punitive damages were appropriate State Farm v Campbell would prevent a major punitive damage claim from being upheld on appeal Larry Stewart was trying to turn a PIP bad faith case into a quasi-class action which is not permitted under the statute His idea of adding more and more plaintiffs created a scenario that was unmanageable
Respectfully submitted
The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907 jwatsonl 7thficourtsorg
s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq milesmcgranelawcom
lisamcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran
Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri
Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of
the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156
Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110
Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 Robert A Sweetapple
Pleadingssweetapplelawcom Co-counsel for Judge Watson 165 East Boca
Raton Road Boca Raton Florida 33432-3911 this 6th day of January 2014
Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The
Honorable Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S
Beach Street Daytona Beach FL 32114
s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq milesmcgranelawcom
lisamcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran
Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri
Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of
the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156
Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110
Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 Robert A Sweetapple
Pleadingssweetapplelawcom Co-counsel for Judge Watson 165 East Boca
Raton Road Boca Raton Florida 33432-3911 this 6th day of January 2014
Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The
Honorable Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S
Beach Street Daytona Beach FL 32114
s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON
6
![Securities Litigation Quarterly - 2010Q2.ppt [Read-Only]...Securities Litigation –Q2 2010 Key Developments • A sharp increase in new suits filed, led by breach of fiduciary duty](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/601a62cbc0967e27a82d224c/securities-litigation-quarterly-read-only-securities-litigation-aq2-2010.jpg)
