Do I have to give a Statement after an accident?

Posted on November 22, 2025 by Phil Chanfrau

Soon after an accident you can expect to be getting a call from an insurance company adjuster who will just want to ask you a few simple questions. If you were hurt in a store, the manager will want a statement.  It will take you by surprise, and most people feel they have nothing to hide so why not? Adjusters will want to know how bad you were hurt so they can estimate the size of your claim, and maybe offer a small settlement to wrap things up.  They know they can't talk to you after you get a lawyer so they are pushy.  The prospect of an easy settlement a few days after a wreck may be inviting, so why not cooperate?  Because there are some major problems if you do.  How can you be expected to know the full extent of your injuries and the expenses you will have in just a day or two?  No one can know that soon.  It's foolish to drop your claim for a couple of bucks if you don't know what it is worth.

In Florida you do not have to give a statement  unless you are asking for PIP benefits from your own insurance company.  Usually there is just a little PIP Application to fill out, which has to be done. However, sometimes a PIP adjuster will also want to do an Examination Under Oath.  The EUO has to be given if requested or you will blow your right to benefits. PIP benefits up to $10,000 are paid for lost wages and medical bills if you were hurt in a car wreck even if it was your fault or someone else's fault.

So should you give the liability adjuster for the liability insurance company or adjuster for the uninsured motorists company a statement?  I don't recommend it.  Why?  Because it might be used to hurt you later on if you make an accident claim.  How?  Let's say you were rear ended and they ask you to describe your injuries. You tell them about your problems.  Later on when you visit your doctor he may find other issues which you honestly did not know about.  In court, the jury will have doubts about your reasons for the seemingly contradictions in your testimony. The more time you give statements or the longer your statement the more likely it is you will say something wrong.

So, why risk it?  It's not necessary unless its for PIP benefits, and it may be really harmful.

 

 

 

 

Tags:

Foreclosure Defenses : Who REALLY owns the NOTE?

Posted on November 7, 2025 by Phil Chanfrau

Some attorneys concentrate on the Debtors' alleged  default to win a case.  There is a  whole new way to win.   Last year I wrote an article here about a Foreclosure defense based on MERS.  Today I am widening the scope a little to focus on another problem (there are many) which could help those in foreclosure trouble.  It will take a little patience and technical information to understand so bear with me.

When a mortgage loan is closed there are 2 critical documents signed by the borrower.  One is the NOTE and the other is a MORTGAGE.  It is hard to believe but the NOTE is really just a simple IOU form which unconditionally promises to pay a certain amount of money to the ORDER of the lender. Over the centuries this IOU became to be known as a Negotiable Instrument.  Most people know about common every day negotiable instruments called "Checks."   Checks and promissory notes are the two best known and used  negotiable instruments around.

 Well, the law says when a NOTE  payable to ORDER is sold to another BANK it must be signed  on the back by the first bank to transfer (negotiate), just like a check.  No signature: no transfer.    These laws are part of a law code called the UCC, which stands for the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. All 50 states have the UCC, and some have querky little rules like New York.  Under New York's version, when the backside of the original NOTE is so full of endorsements that here is no more room for another endorsement, then an ALLONGE can be permanently affixed to it so there is more space to sign an endorsement.  Not all states require the allonge to be permanenlty attached.  Anyway the signature transferring ownership is called an endorsement.  If there is no endorsement, the new Bank can demand the selling bank endorse it, but cannot sue the original maker. if there are some endorsements, but none naming the current Bank, then it can't sue.  Even if the note is not lost, it must be correctly endorsed to name the current Plaintiff or the Plaintiff's principal.  

 VOILA!  There  in a nutshell  is an explanation to the defense to 99.99% of all foreclosures.   When the Real Estate Boom was flying high, the banks "electronically" signed the back of the NOTES but did not actually sign the original note.  That was a BIG MISTAKE.  The tall building lawyers must have been so giddy with all the fees they were making that they forgot about the need for an actual endorsement. The bank bringing the suit does not have the necessary endorsements from those prior banks on the back of the NOTE.  An electronic endorsement is no good on a NOTE. Add to this the admission by the Florida Bankers  Association that they decided to destroy promissory NOTES right after they were digitally scanned because they were afraid having paper NOTES laying around, they could get LOST.  DUH!  

So this new defense is popping up around the USA and is based on a simple fact:  the paperwork is so messed up that the banks cannot tell who the rightful owners of these NOTES really are, and without that, there is no right to foreclose.  

So, before you throw in the towel, pass this tidbit of info along to your foreclosure lawyer and make him read it!  Good LUCK. 

Tags: , , , ,

Drinking and Driving PART TWO

Posted on November 3, 2025 by Phil Chanfrau

 Last year I wrote a story about a Party Mom in St. Augustine who decided to help her child by hosting a party where she was providing booze to her child's friends  under adult supervision.  I guess the reason was to make her child more "popular" by providing a place and some alcohol for the teenage friends. The totally predictable outcome  was the accidental death of one of the young guests who was killed while driving home.

As I explained in my previous post, parties like this are illegal.  It is also incredibly stupid.  In Florida there is a Florida statute making it illegal to offer booze to kids, and a recent case involving an after school party and underage drinking was decided.  A teenager had too much to drink, and crashed into a tree going 80 miles an hour.  He suffered severe brain damages and is now a quadriplegic. The case started in 2001 and was just ruled on by a Florida Appellate court.  The Court decided that the Alcohol Defense Statute applies to minors who are provided booze by others and then cause themselves to be injured.   A jury verdict of more than $12 million in personal injury damages was overturned.  

 F.S. 768.36 says that whenever a person is in an accident and has a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher, and is found by a jury to be more than 50% at fault they have no right to recover for the accident.  This law was sponsored several years ago by MADD and makes good sense.

I hope that over this year's Holiday Season, and in the future whenever a parent thinks about sponsoring a party and serving alcohol for their kids, they will not make the mistake of providing booze to underage kids.  It is illegal and stupid. There are better ways to make you child popular than teaching their friends how to get drunk and cause horrible accidents.

 

 

Tags: , , ,