If you’re a Florida resident who’s been involved in an automobile accident, there’s one courtroom secret you may want to learn about: the nonjoinder statute.
The statute pushed out by insurance companies asserts that the jury does not get to know if you have insurance or not. Jurors tend to give a bigger award to uninsured people. They get sympathetic, wondering how an injured, uninsured person is going to pay for the damages. So, the statute aims to remove any talk of insurance to avoid this bias.
However, the nonjoinder statute seems to work opposite of its intentions. Many jurors will infer that there’s no insurance and that defendants will have to pay out of pocket, causing them to lower jury verdicts due to lack of insurance. So how are attorneys navigating this new law?
Stan Gipe says that there are two avenues attorneys can take to educate the jury on the nonjoinder law. No matter which avenue is taken, jurors are not allowed to know the details regarding insurance. However, there are ways to make sure everyone is on the same page.
It’s beneficial to ask many questions during the jury selection process to see if the insurance issue is already percolating in the back of someone’s mind. If so, you can educate them on the statute and say that’s something they’ll never get to know about because it doesn’t matter.
On the other hand, jurors might bring it up directly. In that case, you can tell them, “Look, here’s why you’re not going to get to hear about insurance. It may or may not be there. You’re just not going to get to know.”
Learn more in this episode of the David vs. Goliath podcast with elite personal injury lawyers Matt Dolman and Stan Gipe. They talk about the details behind the nonjoinder statute, how it affects jurors, attorneys, and defendants, why you should be wary of insurance companies, and the importance of seeking a board-certified lawyer.
In this episode:
- [00:49] Matt Dolman introduces his guest, Stan Gipe
- [01:00] What does Florida’s nonjoinder statute entail?
- [03:10] How the nonjoinder statute can backfire on itself
- [03:57] What Stan does during jury selection and the opening statement to combat jurors forming inferences around insurance
- [07:26] How the presence of insurance companies affects courtroom dynamics
- [10:43] Stan’s tips for educating the jury around insurance situations
- [11:40] What consumers don’t understand about insurance companies
- [15:29] How insurance companies can swindle you out of money
- [19:01] Why is it important to find a lawyer who is board certified?
- [24:37] The truth about attorneys and insurance companies
- [25:50] How can a consumer find the right personal injury lawyer?
Welcome to another episode of the Dolman Law Group Podcast. I’m Matt Dolman from the Dolman Law Group. I’m here with Stan Gipe from Papa and Gipe Local Law Firm. Stan’s a board certified civil trial lawyer. What we’re going to discuss in this episode is known as the nonjoinder statute. It’s the best kept secret in the state of Florida when it comes to or pertains to consumers who have been involved in an automobile accident. A lot of individuals out there do not know that we cannot discuss insurance in the courtroom when it involves a third party. Explain.
Right. Essentially what that means is let’s say we’re driving down the road and you hit me.
Okay. Well what happens? And the issues for the court to decide are who was at fault? Was it your fault? And then what injuries did I sustain as a result of that accident? That’s it. The negligence and then the damages stemming there from. Because of that, in theory since that’s all that mattered, the insurance companies managed to get a bill passed, that’s called the nonjoinder statute, which says that no matter how much insurance you have, I don’t get to join the insurance company in the suit and the jury does not get to know that you have insurance. So that’s the gist of the nonjoinder statute, a theory behind it is, well whether or not you have insurance doesn’t change who was at fault, doesn’t change the negligence picture and it doesn’t change the damages picture.
Well, certainly what it changed, I think jurors are reticent who award high damages against individual they think is not represented by an insurance company, and it’s just poor old Joe is just sitting there at the table, and you think you’re just hitting him for these damages and it’s not being paid by an insurance company.
Right. And that’s where you get kind of the difference between what’s on paper and what jurors feel because you’re right, it shouldn’t matter, when I’m talking about negligence and injuries that flow there from. Okay, your level of insurance coverage shouldn’t matter, but when I’m asking a jury to make you pay for those injuries, jurors get sympathetic, jurors wonder, “How is this guy going to pay?”
Well, if I was put in their place, what would happen to me?
Yeah. Well, that’s it. And see what happens is they think, “Oh, since there’s no insurance there, there’s no insurance company here, this guy must not have insurance.” So the nonjoinder statute almost works the opposite of the way it should. It interjects the lack of, rather than saying… The purpose was to avoid letting jurors know there’s insurance to avoid them awarding more money because of the insurance. What happens is a lot of jurors will infer that there’s no insurance, creates an underlying sympathy for the fact that the defendants are going to be paying this out of their own pocket, and they’re going to lower the jury verdicts due to a lack of insurance, yes. I’ve been attempting to kind of combat this-
Yeah, tell me, how are you getting around this? You had some interesting ideas and I cut you off earlier because I wanted you to share it, and I had to tell the same story twice. So take me through what you’re doing during jury selection? What are you doing during your opening statement? How are you attacking this?
Well during jury selection, jury selection is a voir dire process. For people who don’t know, as attorneys, we go through, what typically is called the jury selection process, okay? Really, it’s not a jury selection process. It’s a jury deselection process because what happens is we ask a bunch of questions to try to fund people who were biased for any reason. They wouldn’t be good jurors either. Hey, I could never make an award against someone. Some people have racial issues. There’s just certain people that don’t make good jurors for a case. So we ask a bunch of questions and then we go through striking jurors. Well, this person is not a good juror for reason A, this person’s not a good juror for reason B, and there’s so certain reasons that are established, okay? So we strike those jurors for cause.
And then there’s peremptory strikes, which are kind of a little looser. We don’t have to have a cause, but we have to have a reason we don’t want that juror there. So what we get left with are six people who didn’t get deselected by either side, no one picked them, they just were the ones that didn’t get eliminated. Now, those jurors, during that process of questioning the jurors, where we go through voir dire, about 50% of the time insurance comes up. “Hey, what about insurance?” And we get to tell them, “Hey, that’s something you’ll never get to know about because it doesn’t matter.” So at that point in time that issue’s been put to rest in their head. “Okay, insurance may be here. We just don’t get to know that there’s probably insurance.” They can put it to rest. Sometimes that doesn’t come up during the voir dire process.
It is always the 300 pound elephant in the room. It is always kind the thing that’s sitting there in the corner looming over jurors and they ask about it half the time. They wonder about it. They make assumptions about the lack of insurance coverage, because the party’s not there. I’ve been asking because while there is a prohibition with the jurors knowing about insurance coverage, there is nothing that says the jurors can’t know about the law that says they’re not allowed to know about insurance coverage.
So I’ve been asking for an instruction on my trials-
That’s why Stan’s here today.
Well, where I asked the judges to say, “Look, okay, insurance is not an issue in this claim. It doesn’t affect damages or liability, therefore it’s something you’re not going to get to hear about whether or not it exists.” Because you don’t get to hear about whether or not it exists, you’re not to assume there either is, or is not insurance during your deliberations. That’s kind of paraphrasing what I try to get the judge to get out.
It helps to at least level, I don’t know if it necessarily explains to them, it doesn’t create the inference as there, but it certainly levels the playing field a bit.
Well, it let’s them know that they’re not going to get to know. It’s not a matter that it’s-
So, it might just be there-
It’s not there. It’s not a matter of it being there. You’re just not going to know. And most people at that point in time put it together, because most everyone’s got insurance.
Yes. At a minimum they’re at least not inferring there isn’t insurance.
Yeah. They’re not inferring there isn’t insurance. Now the one place that sort of changes is when you’ve got uninsured motors. And that’s the coverage we spoke about in the last episode everyone should have. When you got uninsured motors, you’re actually suing your own insurance company, so everyone gets to know the insurance companies there.
And that dynamic, if you look at some of the facts, you know you look at results and things like that? That truly is a factor in verdicts.
Oh, of course. No one likes insurance companies.
No one likes insurance companies.
They’re the great, big evil, these monolithic companies and entities that are owned by shareholders. And there’s plenty of money there. And it’s one thing to know, there’s insurance company available, it’s another thing to think you’re going after this poor old Dolly or Joe sitting at the table and they don’t have anything.
Well, and that’s it. And the dynamic that the insurance companies and or defendants try to spin out there is inevitably when we go to trial, their approach is this is a greedy, dishonest plaintiff. They have lied about something. They are malingering. They are magnifying their damages in order to get money from you.
So they’re trying to put that distaste on our side. When you have an insurance company on the other side, when you have an insurance company as a party, that dynamic works a little less. When you don’t have the insurance company and the jury doesn’t know, suddenly I’ve got poor Matt Dolman who isn’t going to come to court looking like he’s got Rolex watches and millions of dollars because you just don’t do that. Poor Matt Dolman who’s going to be wearing his kind of dumb down suit, look like he’s trying to do his best effort to show up looking nice to trial, but can’t do it.
Looking like a schlep.
Yeah. Looking like someone who’s got no money. Okay. Versus this greedy plaintiff who’s been lying about stuff and trying to malinger and doing all this. Well when an insurance company’s there, you get to spin the dynamic a little differently. You’ve got, “Hey, this insurance company, who’s got all this money and won’t even pay this guy’s bills.”
Yeah, we could should and would’ve been done with this case, but for the fact the insurance company has denied, delayed and defended this claim for no other reason but to put more money in their pocket.
You say, deny, delay, don’t pay. It brings up, you know, this, this is anecdotal. I forget which insurance company it was, but there was one in the nineties, it got in trouble because on their claims manual they had a Latin phrase on the front of it and the Latin phrase translated to deny delay don’t pay.
It was on their claims manual and they figured no one’s ever going to realize this, but it was deny, delay, don’t pay-
What was it there for, as an inside joke among-
Yeah. That’s it. Well, that’s, that’s how you make money in the insurance industry. You know, a lot of this is actuaries-
It is time value of money.
If you’ve got someone sitting out there… Let’s say you got a $10 million claim or a $5 million claim. They’re rare, but they’re out there.
Well, you figure anyone getting a 5% rate of return, which an insurance company’s typically able to get, that’s going to solve fund $250,000 a year for every year you can hang onto that $5 million.
So if they spend $100,000 a year defending a claim, they’re making $150,000 each year, they can spend that out. Deny, delay, don’t pay.
One of those three doors, either don’t pay it, deny it or just push it out as long as you can so we can hold on to our money.
Yeah. The simple dilatory tactics, it forces us as trial lawyers to take cases to trial that should have and could have been resolved. But for these insurance companies that are obviously not looking out for their insured, but for the bottom line. But what I was going to say though was that how do we as trial lawyers combat this? How do we educate the jurors? How do we let the jury pool know that there actually is insurance available?
Well, I’ve been trying with the jury instruction and also in voir dire, which is the jury questioning process. We try to ask as many any questions as we can to see if there’s a juror who’s got that issue percolating in the back of their head, I wanted to mention it during that process so we can kill the bird, just say, “All right, here’s what happened. Here’s the way it works.” I’m not allowed to bring it up in voir dire. Let’s talk about insurance. But if someone asks about it, then I can tell them, “Look, here’s why you’re not going to get to hear about insurance. It may or may not be there. You’re just not going to get to know.” And then they go, “Oh, okay. Now we understand.”
So those are really right now the only two avenues available to a plaintiff attorney or attorney bringing a case to trial to let, to kind of get the jury, not let them know about insurance, but let them know about the law that says they can’t know about insurance.
And what most consumers don’t understand is that insurance companies are making hand over fist in profits, no matter how good a trial lawyer you are, and Stan Gipe’s a very good lawyer, you can only try so many cases in a given year. Obviously we wouldn’t have work and the onus wouldn’t be on us if insurance companies did the right thing. That’s why we have a job, but there’s always going to be tons of claims where you cannot take these cases to trial, which just forces you to accept a settlement. That is, I mean, it’s a compromise, obviously between both parties, but insurance companies still rake it in.
Oh and insurance, you look out there, and and when you really delve in to it, and I’m probably biased. I fight insurance companies all day long, but people don’t realize insurance companies are a big portion of why their healthcare costs are so high. It’s a big portion of why all of these costs are so high. There’s a huge component that is profit. There’s a huge component of what’s paid in that is profit. So when people talk about their healthcare costs, most of them are talking about how much they have to spend for insurance coverage. What I have to spend, it goes up every year, 30, 40% of that money, 50% in some cases goes to the interior processing at claims, paying salaries, all of this other stuff. It’s not going to pay the medical bill. The amount of money that’s that needs to be used to satisfy that medical bill, maybe 60% or 50% of your premium.
The rest of that’s going to the insurance company as overhead and profit to handle this claims adjusting process.
So what happens is the insurance companies tend to be the invisible player in the room. Well, no, one’s blame them. They’re blaming the guy who’s getting the check, the doctor, the hospital, et cetera. And then when you realize really they’re making less than the insurance companies off of this stuff, they’re making less than the insurance companies are off of each one of these claims. And you look at the profit going into the doctor’s pocket after he pays his overhead versus what the insurance companies are taking. But because they’re that invisible layer between you and the doctor, most people pass the blame on to the doctor. The doctor’s the one that’s doing this. The doctor’s only getting half that money. The rest is going to the insurance company.
Who’s making hand over fist.
Hand over fist.
Oh they are. There are very few. I mean, if you can, insurance companies are outright profitable. Of course there’s been anecdotal situations where they’ve gone under. Okay. And usually that’s done due to mismanagement.
It’s due to some people fleecing the insurance companies, taking money out of there that they’re not supposed to have. But these rates they charge everything they’ve done is done by actuaries, people who figured out, “Look, I can make X dollars if I charge this rate.” If you get contacted by an insurance company early on, there’ll be some situations where you’re reaching a limits issue. “Hey, we got to pay the limits. There’s only $10,000 in coverage and we’re reaching out because this is catastrophic.” Where they are actually trying to do the right thing and dump the money-
Which is few and far between.
The more often, if they’re reaching out to you, everything they do, everybody, you know, this is their purpose or corporation is to make money. Okay?
Yeah, these are calculated decisions.
They’re not reaching out to you to offer you $10,000 today because they think, “Oh wait, if we wait a little while, it’ll go down to five.” That’s not the way it’s happening. They’re reaching out to you today because they’re going, “I bet I can get him to take five today before he realizes what’s going on, and if he, once he realizes what’s going on and we get down there, it’s going to cost me 25.” They’re not reaching out to you to pay you because it wasn’t-
There’s actually studies out there that show that individuals who are unrepresented by counsel or they earn, they gross, and actually, I should say net, they net far less in those who are represented by counsel.
They net at the end of the day, I think it’s three times less.
And you know-
And by the way, that’s the caveat that these adjusters will always use the saying, you know, “You do not want to get a greedy attorney involved. They’re going to take all this money from you. At the end of the day, you’re not going to walk away more than we’re offering you now.” And that’s just BS.
It is BS. And I will tell you that what happens most of the time clients who end up walking down that road of I’m going to settle my own claim with the adjuster.
Oh, I love that.
How many times, “Oh, don’t worry. The store’s already contacted me. The manager said they’re going to pay my bills and take care of everything.” Well, I’m going to promise you that manager at Target or Walmart is not the one writing the check. It’s a claims department. And depending on which one we’re talking about, there’s different claims departments. That claims department’s not bound by anything the manager said.
So this manager that’s promising to do the right thing while you’re bleeding out on the floor or anything else doesn’t have any authority really to make those promises and what happens, “Oh, they’re going to pay this. They’re going to do this.” And then you get a hold of the person who goes to write the check, and two, three months down the road, you realize, “Oh, I’m not getting going to get this money. I’m not going to be treated fairly. I need to get an attorney.” Well, that works out. But what happens is that two to three months they’ve been getting information from the injured party. They’ve been talking to them, they’ve been sort of guiding and working with them, not to maximize their claim, but to minimize their claim.
In the meantime, evidence is gone.
Evidence is gone.
Witnesses have disappeared.
Exactly. Witnesses disappear. That, “How you doing today? Oh, I’m doing pretty good.” That’s going to be knocked down. “We talked to them. They said they were doing good.” Everything you say in that, it’s like speaking to the police if you’ve committed a crime, anything you say can and will be used against you. I can promise you if you’re making a statement to an adjuster, a claims management person for any entity, they’re not taking what you say and going, “Oh boy, this person says they’re hurt and need money. Let’s pay them.” They’re taking what you say to figure out how I can use this against that person and keep from paying.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
I mean, that’s it, that’s it in a nutshell. And then what’ll happen is I’ll it that claim or it comes to you and it’s three months down the road and you’re like, “Yeah, I can try to resurrect this, but they-
But I wish I was involved from the very beginning and what I would’ve done.”
That’s the worst feeling.
Well, it is. And you’re going, “Well, I never, this person got these throbbing headaches and I’ve just never checked them out yet because they said they were going to pay me or give me money to go get this done.” So that’s what happens. Then we go to make the claim and the defense is, “Well, they didn’t complain about these headaches or see a doctor for three months.”
Oh, it was manufactured by the plaintiff attorney. He sent his own doctor-
Exactly. They waited three months to get this done. And we can’t bring up the fact that “No, I was talking to the adjuster and the adjuster said they were going to pay my bills, so I didn’t go see a doctor.”
We’re basically fighting a war with our one hand tied behind our back.
And that’s what happens. So I can promise you know, and not every time, if you, not every claim needs an attorney, but if you’ve got an injury, if you’ve got something that’s ongoing, if you get something that you think may be there for a little while, it’s going to behoove you to speak to an attorney way before you speak to any claims adjuster or anyone on the other side,
What does board certification mean, Stan? Why is it important?
Well, the reason it’s important is because I get to throw it behind my name and and it gets some kind of recognition on the defense. But board certification is-
In the reality, what does it mean to a consumer? Why is it so important to find, I didn’t mean to cut you off, but why is so important to find a lawyer who is board certified?
Because much like, and not to slam our profession, but there’s a difference between being billboard certified and real board certified. And what you see on the side of the highway-
That’s, wow, that might be my next phrase.
Yeah. It is a lot of billboard certified attorneys.
Yeah, TV lawyers-
TV lawyers. “I’ve got my billboards. I’ve got all this” and then you’ll never see them in the courtroom. And what a board certified attorney is, is someone who’s had at least 15 trials and then taking the tests and exam, graded by their peers that says, “Yeah, you’re an expert. You can go out there and call yourself an expert in trial law.” It’s very few attorneys are board certified-
Less than 2%.
Less than 2%. And I’ll tell you almost all of those guys you see out there on billboards are not board certified, almost all of them. There’s a couple and-
Jack Gordon, Hillsborough. I’m talking Pinellas-
But there’s very, but if they are-
I love Jack by the way, love his commercials where he just takes apart a certain law firm. You know, I’ll just say it, Culpepper Kurland-
And they’re… Let me just one thing, and this is another caveat, you’re never going to see an audience waiting for us when we get outside the courtroom-
Nor is there a press conference under your normal automobile accident case, nor does it look anywhere near as nice as, or sexy as they make a look at the commercial.
I promise you, there are no fog machines in the courtroom either.
There is never going to walk out in the cloud of fog and you’re not… I’ve never once flipped my card to the crowd waiting-
It’s not us saying this, by the way. I was… I don’t even know what the newspaper’s called now. Is it the Tribune that did the whole expose on them?
That was, well, you know what was interesting? Was it Creative Loafing? It was one of those. It was one of those weekly that came like this.
Yeah, it did the first one, but then Tampa Tribune picked it up.
Yeah. But I remember it was, it was… the title was, they were on the cover and said, “It’s All for Show.” That was what the title was, and at that point in time, they were just getting ready to do their first trial or had done their first-
No father came down from Tallahassee. He was with Akerman Senterfitt.
Yeah. He had come down. It was Culpepper’s dad-
… Had come down to try the case for them, which is kind of odd-
… And went over to the east coast of Florida, and they got zipped from my understanding, got a really bad verdict-
Which happens regardless of skill level.
Exactly. It happens if you’re not losing cases, you’re not trying cases.
Because that’s just the way it goes, but I don’t, since that time, I don’t know what else they’ve done. I can tell you I’ve picked up cases that their firm has let go that we’ve settled for six figures.
I can say the same.
Yes. So these are claims where-
And I can say the same about Morgan and Morgan and all these. I’ll at least say that Morgan and Morgan, they do have some very good trial lawyers for some of the biggest cases, some great trial lawyers even, including Keith Mitnik, but your normal case, I don’t think it’s getting the same personal attention as you’re getting it Papa and Gipe.
Well, what I say about Morgan and Morgan is I don’t bash them.
I mean, they got great advertising. John’s done a lot for the profession.
He’s also done a lot for consumers. He’s the only guy who actually discusses the nonjoinder statute in his commercial. So I actually applaud them.
Exactly. Morgan and Morgan is like the hospital. When you go to the hospital, you don’t know which doctor you’re going to draw. It’s not one homogenous group. And you may get a fantastic doctor, you may get a doctor that’s just so-so. When, and like I say, there are certain specialized compartments of Morgan and Morgan that deals with certain claims. They’re very good at them and handle them very well. Your standard run of the mill auto claim, you may get one of the guys that you say, “Wow, this is fantastic.” And you may get someone who we don’t have as much track record with.
And they have pods and case managers and stuff that just doesn’t exist at a firm like ours.
Yeah. So when I’m talking about that, I don’t want to say it’s necessarily a bad thing to go with Morgan and Morgan-
…But when you go, when someone is talking to the other side, when someone’s negotiating your claim, when someone’s presenting it to the jury, it’s not John Morgan. It’s not the person you see on TV and you better hope it’s one of those guys who’s really good and knows what they’re doing.
And I would say Morgan’s probably one of the few firms that advertise via billboard or mass media that actually tries cases. Jack Gordon too.
The others, yeah, you have to think about it-
Morgan tries a lot of cases. They hold the insurance companies feet to the fire, just like, you know, and that’s one of the things that’s good about them they’re not just an advertiser. They’ll get out there and do it. They don’t necessarily sully the profession. And there are a lot of people out there put their names up on billboards … There was a number of people out there that wouldn’t even file lawsuits.
That have their names on billboards and won’t litigate, won’t file a lawsuit much less take that claim to trial.
I say about third of our cases in our office are in litigation.
Yeah. As I say, about third to 50% of the cases have to go to litigation. And I want to say John Morgan, when he was talking about Culpepper Kurlan kind of said it best, he goes, “Well, if you’re not trying cases that implies that the insurance company is making a fair offer on every single one of your cases.”
Yeah, that was exactly… you were paraphrasing it correctly. Exactly what he said in the article.
Yeah. And that’s not the way it works.
And, and they responded by saying, “We will be medically manage our cases so well and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.” But the truth of the matter is if you’re not litigating cases, you can world’s worst trial lawyer, right? You could be terrible and competent trial lawyer, which Stan obviously isn’t, you’re still better than the other 99 guys down the block who have never tried a case because insurance companies hate to do one thing and that is spend money.
Well, and I’ll tell you what if you’re as an attorney, if you’re agreeing with the insurance company on the other side, every time, you’re doing it wrong.
Yes, you’re doing a great disservice to your clients.
There are some cases where they come out of the gate and you kind of see things, eye to eye, and you do get a good offer and a good settlement on the front end. That’s not the rule and if it was the rule, you wouldn’t need attorneys.
Oh, that’s definitely an outlier.
It is. So, it’s important that you have someone in there that when you tell the insurance company, “That’s fine. If you don’t want to settle it, we’ll see you in court,” that they know you mean it because it’s one of those things if insurance companies are like bullies. If you’re the one who never gets punched, you never stop getting bullied. Or if you’re the one who never punches back, I should say, you never stop getting bullied. And that’s really the way you got to deal with insurance companies. And like, say it doesn’t matter if you lose. Just like a bully, it doesn’t matter if you necessarily lose the fight as long as you punched him.
Yeah. You got to keep it … Yes.
As long as you punch the bully once-
It keeps him honest.
It keeps him honest and it goes, “You know what? If I’m going to pick on someone, I’m going to pick on this guy that’s not going to punch me now.”
Then I’ll leave you with the last question. It’s parlaying off your board certification, how does the consumer find the right personal injury lawyer?
A lot of stuff is the awareness about a specific personal injury attorney typically comes from, like I say, billboards, things like that because it’s such a competitive, competitive environment. You cannot go from point A to point B in Tampa without seeing a billboard.
So it’s not a matter of locating attorneys. It’s a matter of digging in past that. Past what you see on the billboard, look into the internet, look online, see what kind of credentials these people have. If it’s someone who tries cases, are they board certified? Are they with a firm that has board certified attorneys? Are they knowledgeable when they talk this stuff? And when you talk to someone, when you get them on the phone, you can tell. Does your attorney either answer your questions or tell you why he can’t answer them? Or is it someone who fumbles around and is real soft with the responses and doesn’t really know what the-
Vague, amorphous, will never get tied down to a point because they really don’t have a point.
And they don’t know, they don’t-
And I’ll admit I’m not board certified. Have I — jury trials in this state? I sure have. We have a board certified civil trial lawyer at our firm, and another one that’s about to become board certified, but the importance, I want to make sure our listeners understand this, that there are so many guys out there that are dime a dozen, especially personal injury lawyers. We’re everywhere. It’s like roaches. The ones that are good are few and far between. The ones that are trying cases are even fewer. And I’d say Papa and Gipe’s doing it the right way. Stan Gipe is a very, very, very good trial lawyer. One of the more cerebral people I’ve ever met. And thanks for being on the show, man, you were fantastic.
Absolutely. I enjoyed doing, if you can’t tell, I like talking, I like talking about this stuff.
I see it-
I enjoy doing this stuff. I enjoy practicing law. I enjoy trying the cases-
You carried it today. I came in tired thinking, “Oh man, this is going to be a tough one today.” I had a long night last night, I got a five month old. And I’m like, I didn’t have to say anything. I just sat here.
I remember those days. My son is 10 now. So it tends to be long evenings with that, but he sleeps at night now.
That’s the key, man. It’s the sleep. So thank you again. Thanks Stan. And one more time, tell the consumers out there, how they can get ahold of your law firm.
You know, they can find us at papaandgipe.com on the internet. You can call us, you can look us up. I’m Stanley Gipe. Anyone wants to find us, we’re located here on Gulf to Bay Boulevard in Clearwater. And if you’re looking, if you Google us, call us, you’re not going to have trouble finding us.
And I can say, I mean, there’s enough business for everybody, I’m a competitor so to speak but I’m not, and that’s not how I look at the business. Stan’s a fantastic lawyer. You’d be making a good decision hiring his firm. No different than hiring our firm. I think you get really good personal attention and you get a lawyer who actually tries cases. So, one who has the gumption to take on the insurance carrier Thank you again for listening to another episode of the Dolman Law Podcast.
Thanks for having me.
💡 Meet Your Host 💡
Title: Partner at Dolman Law Group Accident Injury Lawyers, PA
Specialty: Matt is a nationally recognized insurance and personal injury attorney and focuses much of his practice on the litigation of catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases throughout Florida.
💡 Featured Guest 💡
Name Stanley Gipe, Esq.
Title: Partner and Head of Litigation at Dolman Law Group Accident Injury Lawyers, PA
Specialty: Stan is a Florida Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer. This distinction connotes expertise in the discipline of trial practice. He has served as lead counsel on over 1,000 Florida personal injury lawsuits.
🔑 Relevant Resources 🔑
The insights and views presented in “David vs. Goliath” are for general information purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. The information presented is not a substitute for consulting with an attorney. Nor does tuning in to this podcast constitute an attorney-client relationship of any kind. Any case result information provided on any portion of this podcast should not be understood as a promise of any particular result in a future case. Dolman Law Group Accident Injury Lawyers: Big firm results, small firm personal attention.