- 2020 Super Lawyer: Mr. Rochen has been designated by Thomson Reuters Super Lawyers as one of the top lawyers and mediators in Florida for the eighth (8th) year in a row. This is a designation awarded to only the top 5% of all attorneys throughout the United States. Super Lawyers is a national rating service of lawyers from more than seventy (70) practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Super Lawyers selects attorneys using a patented multi-phase selection process, which includes peer nominations, peer evaluations, and independent research. Each candidate is evaluated on twelve (12) indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis. Super Lawyers’ objective is to create a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys to be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel.
- 2020 Florida Trend’s Legal Elite: Mr. Rochen has also been designated by Florida Trend as one of the elite lawyers and mediators throughout the sate of Florida. This designation is awarded to only the top 1.4% of all Florida attorneys. In terms of the selection process, Florida Trend invites all in-state members of the Florida Bar to name attorneys whom they highly regard or would recommend to others. An outside vendor then tabulates all ballots, and attorneys are scored based on the number of votes they receive, with more weight applied to votes from outside their own firms. The list of top vote recipients is then examined using Florida Bar membership status and histories, and a panel of previous Legal Elite honorees from across the state representing different practice areas review the list of finalists before ultimately approving the list.
2020 Florida Trend Legal Elite
- 2020 South Florida Legal Guide Top Lawyer: Mr. Rochen has also been designated as a “Top Lawyer” by the South Florida Legal Guide, a designation that is awarded to only the top 5% of all attorneys throughout south Florida based on peer nominations, respective candidates’ legal experience, and independent research.
Mandatory Changes to Florida Notary Laws
For those of you who are unaware, on January 1, 2020 Florida’s new Remote Online Notarization Law came into effect, allowing for the performance of notarial acts using electronic means. With the change in the law, a principal is now permitted to appear before a notary public by means of audiovisual communication technology.
What is important to note about the changes in the law is that the Legislature has revised the formats of the respective jurat / notarial certificates, requiring that they now include language indicating whether the principal appeared before the notary by physical presence or by means of audiovisual technology (the particular format depends on the status of the principal…e.g. individual; corporation; LLC; partnership; attorney-in-fact; public officer, trustee, or personal representative). It is imperative that any documents you have notarized subsequent to January 1, 2020 reflect the changes in the law; this is particularly important in terms of notarized documents affecting title to property that are recorded in the public record. To view the new jurat / notarial certificate requirements and formats, please click on the links below to the applicable statutes.
For those interested, the Palm Beach County Bar Association recently released its 2019 Judicial Evaluation Results, which provides some useful information regarding the Palm Beach County Judiciary. As part of the Evaluation, the Palm Beach County Bar Association elicited input from several attorneys in the community who have practiced in front of the respective judges, and asked the attorneys to rank each of the judges as to their: knowledge & application of law; impartiality; diligence & preparedness; judicial demeanor & courtesy toward counsel; control of the courtroom; case management; punctuality & timeliness; common sense in decision making; and enforcement of standards of professionalism. Please click on the first link below to be directed to the summary of the results or click on the second link below to be directed to the survey detail.
http://www.palmbeachbar.org/downloads/2019%20Judicial%20Evaluation.Condensed%20Results.pdf
http://www.palmbeachbar.org/downloads/2019%20Judicial%20Evaluation%20Survey.detail.pdf
This past Wednesday, Florida Governor, Ron DeSantis, announced that he will be signing new legislation into law focused on curbing what insurance carriers refer to as an epidemic of abusive litigation by repair contractors seeking compensation under property policies. In recent years, insurance carriers have voiced complaints about contractors abusing the assignment of benefits (“AOB”) system by accepting work from policyholders, only to then perform excessive repairs and inflate the charges. Those in favor of the new legislation argue that such practices have led to increases in coverage litigation and insurance premiums. The new bill has already been passed by the Florida Legislature and will be effective as of July 1, 2019.
- Impact on Attorneys’ Fees:
The primary force that has been driving the influx of AOB litigation has been the “one-way” attorney fee rule, requiring insurance carriers to pay an assignee’s litigation costs associated with a coverage action, regardless of the outcome of the dispute in court. The new bill requires the courts to utilize a formula that may result in a fee award in favor of the assignee, the insurer, or neither party, based on the comparison of the pre-suit settlement offer, the pre-suit demand, and the difference between the ultimate judgment and pre-suit settlement offer. If the difference is less than 25% of the disputed amount, the insurer will be entitled to attorney fees; if the difference is 25% to 49% of the disputed amount, neither party will be entitled to attorneys’ fees; and if the difference is 50% or more, the assignee is entitled fees. It is worth noting that the new change does not apply to first-party property actions.
Advocates of the new legislation argue that it levels the playing field for insurance companies who are often-times left litigating against commercial companies in AOB situations instead of individual consumers, who the one-way fees rule was designed to protect. Opponents of the new legislation are concerned that it may be the first move in doing-away with the one-way fee provision in other contexts.
- New Pre-suit Requirements:
The new bill requires an assignee to provide an insurance company with notice of intent to file suit, and restricts the assignee from serving formal suit papers until the insurer has a opportunity to render a coverage determination within the statutory time frame. The insurer is then required to respond within 10 days with a settlement offer, demand for appraisal, or alternative resolution. Proponents of the new bill believe that the new pre-suit requirements will curtail “gotcha” situations in which insurers become subject to suit before having the opportunity to conduct their own investigations. Opponents of the new bill believe that the new pre-suit requirements place unfair burdens on contractors that will discourage them (especially smaller contractors) from accepting certain repair work.
- Limitations to Assignments of Benefits:
The bill also creates a situation in which insurers will be permitted to offer policies that cannot be assigned, so long as prospective policyholders are provided with clear notice of the restrictions and are offered assignable policies with the same coverage. If an insurer decides to sell both types of policies, the restrictive policy must cost less than the non-restrictive policy, and the insurer must advise its policyholders of available coverage options at least on an annual basis.
- Required Impact Assessment:
The new bill also calls for an assessment of the effectiveness of the new reforms. Beginning on January 30, 2022, insurers will be required to submit annual reports to Florida’s Office of Insurance Regulation accounting for each “residential and commercial property insurance claim” paid under an AOB agreement in the preceding year. The idea is that such assessment will assist the Florida Legislature with deciding whether or not they will need to implement additional measures focused on curtailing the abuse of the AOB system.
The foregoing is a summation of an article published by Jeff Sistrunk from Law 360 on April 25, 2019. To view the full article, please access Law 360 directly.