Will your accident attorney be able to seek Florida uninsured motorist compensation following a work related car accident? In the recent case of Germany v. Darby, an employee Earl Germany was injured in a car accident while driving a work vehicle. The vehicle had uninsured motorist coverage for up to $500,000 for executives and their families, but only $30,000 for all others. That includes Mr. Germany and all other employees of the company. As a result, the Court was forced to determine whether it was legal to provide varying degrees of coverage dependent upon the insureds. The Court ultimately held that different dollar values of coverage is permissible. In Florida, the uninsured motorist coverage automatically matches the bodily injury coverage, unless the uninsured motorist coverage is expressly rejected or reduced. As the Court wrestled with the language found in § 627.727(1), the Court begins first by analyzing the actual language used in the statute because statutes do not need interpretation if the language is clear and unambiguous. The statute provides that a written rejection of the coverage on behalf of all insureds or selection of a lower limit conclusively presumes that there was an informed, knowing election of the lower limits. Notably, the court held that there does not need to be a specific limit. The Court then analyzed Varro v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co. In Varro, a special endorsement allowed for UM coverage for a any director, officer, partner, or owner of the named insured and his or her family member but specifically excluded coverage for any other person qualifying as an insured. The court in that case concluded that UM rejection based on only some insureds is not permissible. However, that court also [...]
Florida Supreme Court Says Exculpatory Clause Effective to Bar Negligence – Sanislo v. Give Kids The World, Inc.
Personal Injury Attorney review of SANISLO v. GIVE KIDS THE WORLD, INC., No. SC12-2409 (Fla. Feb. 12, 2015) relating to exculpatory clauses. Give Kids the World, Inc., (Give Kids the World) a non-profit located near Disney World, endeavors to provide storybook vacations to the seriously ill children and their families. Give Kids the World provided the Sanislos family with a form that was filled out in order to fulfill the wish. The form contained a liability release that provided, in pertinent part […]
My patent law office often receives calls from inventors seeking to protect their invention but are unsure whether they should file a utility patent or a design patent. Utility patents can protect the structure and function of the invention, whereas a design patent protects the ornamental design of an entire article or just a portion of the article. Design patents can also protect ornamentation applied to an article by filing a design application claiming just the surface ornamentation. Unlike utility patents, design patents are limited to […]
NVIDIA SUES SAMSUNG In an unexpected move and offensive move, NVIDIA filed patent complaints against Samsung and Qualcomm. While NVIDIA is regularly involved in patent lawsuits, the cases are typically defensive in nature, such as the patent sued initiated by […]
The question that the Patent Attorney for the Defense raised before the Court is whether the particular computer-implemented scheme for mitigating “settlement risk” by using a third-party intermediary are patent eligible pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101, or are instead drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. The Court held that merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The District Court found the claims to be ineligible because the patent claims were directed to “employing a neutral intermediary to facilitate simultaneous exchange of obligations in order to minimize risk.” To understand what is patent eligible subject matter, one must first look at Section 101 of the Patent Act. The act provides: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. An established principle of patent law has long held that laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas do not rise to the level of patent eligible subject matter. In fact, this is one of the oldest principles in United States law, dating back to over 150 years. The law was formed in this manner to prevent monopolization of patent rights that would impede on progress and innovation. For example, patenting of a mathematical equation would significantly impede the progress of math and science. But the question then becomes what is a law of nature, natural phenomena, and an abstract idea? The Supreme Court has established a two part test for determining whether an idea is an abstract idea or patent eligible subject matter. The Court determined [...]