William Gula - Vernis & Bowling

William Gula, Esq.
Vernis & Bowling of St. Petersburg, P.A. 696 1st Avenue N., 1st Floor St Petersburg, FL 33701
Phone: (727) 443-3377
Email: WGula@florida-law.com
Fax: (727) 443-6828
Website: www.national-law.com
V-Card Email

Verdicts and Dispositions

James Coachman, Jr., v. Nancy Gartlan
Kenneth Amos, William Gula, and Ariana Seiler (St. Petersburg, FL) (Automobile Liability) obtained a Defense Verdict in Pasco County Circuit Court. This was this office’s third trial and third defense verdict since August 2021, and second consecutive defense verdict against the same national personal injury firm.

The Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident in Port Richey, FL. Plaintiff, Mr. Coachman, was traveling on US 19 when Defendant Gartlan entered his lane of travel. The front left of Plaintiff’s vehicle came in contact with the rear right of Defendant’s vehicle. Liability was admitted prior to trial. Plaintiff alleged injuries to both shoulders, neck pain, back pain, and a traumatic brain injury. Plaintiff is a member of the well-known Coachman family that has been a prominent family throughout Pinellas County’s history. Plaintiff was represented by the nation’s largest personal injury law firm.

The Defense elicited testimony that showed that Plaintiff had a history of intense physical labor including working on orange groves, working in a packing plant, renovating houses, and maintaining vast areas of land throughout his lifetime. The Defense argued his need for shoulder surgeries was due to his long history of physical labor. Additionally, the Defense elicited testimony of Plaintiff’s prior concussions from 1988 when Plaintiff was injured in a skiing accident, and in 2006 when he fell sixteen feet from a tree. This testimony was then argued to rebut Plaintiff’s claim of a traumatic brain injury from the airbag deployment during the subject accident. It was further shown that Plaintiff had not followed any recommendations from his expert Life Care Planner since 2019, and thus future medical care was not necessary. The inconsistencies throughout Plaintiff’s testimony and his medical records were shown in detail during closing arguments by Mr. Amos.

The Plaintiff asked the jury for damages of approximately $3,400,000.00. After just over one hour of deliberating, the jury issued a total Defense Verdict. It found that there was no negligence by the tortfeasor that was a legal cause of injury to Mr. Coachman. The last offer by the defense before trial was $300,000. Plaintiff’s last offer was $500,000.
Francine Lopez v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company
Kenneth Amos and William Gula (St. Petersburg, FL) (Automobile Liability) obtained a Defense Verdict in Pinellas County Circuit Court.

The plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident in Clearwater. Lopez wanted to go around the vehicle in front of her. She thus drove into a painted oval median between the two lanes. The median has a double-yellow line as a border with shorter hashmarks inside of it. At the same time, another driver was operating a sedan and exiting a nearby parking lot. The driver crossed one lane of travel and attempted to enter the same median so she could make a left turn. The right front of Lopez’s vehicle hit the left front of the sedan. Lopez claimed injuries to her neck and back plus an injury to a hip.

Lopez claimed that the tortfeasor made an improper left turn, but conceded that she went into the median to go around slower traffic. However, she contended that other drivers do this, as well. In closing, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the jury should assign no more than 25 percent liability to Lopez. The defense maintained that Lopez was fully liable for improperly driving into the median.
Lopez sought recovery of $1.3 million in past and future lost earnings. She also sought recovery of past and future medical expenses and damages for her past and future pain and suffering.

The jury issued a Defense Verdict. It found that there was no negligence by the tortfeasor that was a legal cause of injury to Lopez.
Anthony Osude v. Patricia Cadogan and Paul Schmidt
Ken Amos and William Gula (St. Petersburg, FL) (Auto Liability) obtained a defense verdict in Pinellas County, in the defense of a GEICO insured.

The Plaintiff was represented by a Board Certified Trial Lawyer who has been trying cases in Florida for more than 39 years. The case involved a Plaintiff who was injured in two bicycle accidents within 12 days. Both accidents were brought in the same lawsuit because the Plaintiff argued that damages were impossible to be apportioned between the two accidents. The Plaintiff wanted the jury to award damages to both Defendants pursuant to the indivisible injury rule. Mr. Amos and Mr. Gula represented the driver of the first accident. The client was making a right on red at a busy intersection when the Plaintiff darted out in front of her vehicle on his bicycle. He was transported by EMS to Largo medical Center where he was complaining of back pain. He had a history of prior lumbar surgery to include a fusion at L4-5 fourteen months before the accident. He claimed that the accident caused the need for a second fusion at L3-4 and a refusion at L4-5, resulting in a double fusion in the L3-5 areas of the lumbar spine. The Plaintiff had incurred more than $200k in past medical bills, but chose to board the lien and out of pocket damages for the jury. The defense argued that his need for surgery was due to a long history of spinal stenosis because he had three prior back surgeries before the accidents.

With regard to liability for the first accident, the Defendant testified, and the witnesses testified, that the Defendant was first in line in a series of cars at an intersection exiting the 49th Street judicial center in Clearwater at 140th Avenue. The Defendant was making a right on red while looking at oncoming traffic to her left. She testified that she looked to the right when she approached the crosswalk, and then she inched into the crosswalk and began looking left because pedestrian traffic was clear to her right as far as she could see down 49th Street. Once traffic cleared to her left she took her foot off the brake and instantaneously she hit the Plaintiff after he came out of nowhere and darted in front of her vehicle. The Plaintiff was involved in a second accident 12 days later with similar facts 10 blocks north of the intersection for the first accident. Mr. Amos and Mr. Gula argued that the Plaintiff was never on 49th Street until he cut into the Defendant’s line of travel from an adjacent parking lot when he entered 49th Street to cross the intersection of 140th Avenue. The facts clearly showed that he was late for work and was traveling at a moderate speed for a bicyclist at the time of the impact.

After five days of trial, the Plaintiff asked the jury to award him $581k in damages. The jury returned a verdict for the first accident in the amount of $713.90, finding the Plaintiff 99% negligent and the Defendant 1% negligent. The net award to the Plaintiff will be $7.13 cents, but the Defendant may stipulate to $7.14 cents as a professional courtesy. The jury found zero liability for the co-defendant in the second accident. There is a PFS outstanding.
Araceli Gross v. Government Employees Insurance Company
Ken Amos, Esq. and William Gula, Esq. (St. Petersburg, FL) tried an uninsured/underinsured motorist claim in Pinellas County before Judge Linda Allan. Our firm represented GEICO General Insurance Company.

This case involved a rear end collision. The Plaintiff was robbed at the accident scene where the perpetrator/tortfeasor fled the scene with her cell phone. She was able to testify that she was terrified and shocked from the experience. The perpetrator/tortfeasor was caught about a half mile down the road, where his vehicle came to rest in a small ditch near some bushes. The Plaintiff’s vehicle had a few scratches on the bumper but no damage to the structure. The actual parts replaced for the Plaintiff’s vehicle totaled $35.00. The Plaintiff testified that there was a loud bang and then she exited her vehicle and witnessed the property damage on the tort vehicle.

Shortly after the accident the Plaintiff began to experience “bee like stinging” sensations to her left side of her neck radiating into the left upper extremity down her arm into her wrist. She had $48,000 in past medical bills. She presented evidence that she needed future care in the amount of $184,000 and wanted past and future pain and suffering ranging from $400,000-$500,000. Her total damages presented to the jury were $634,000-$734,000.

After two hours and 45 minutes of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favor of GEICO in the amount of $5,000 for past medical bills with no future medicals, no permanency and no pain and suffering.
Laird v. Jason Dittman d/b/a CFA at Waters, Inc. and Chick-fil-A, Inc.
Ken Amos and William Gula (St. Petersburg, FL) (Fraud) defended a Tampa, Florida Chick-fil-A restaurant in a case where a Plaintiff was found to have committed fraud upon the court. The Plaintiff filed suit on October 1, 2013, alleging negligence against the restaurant and Chick-fil-A, Inc. The Plaintiff alleged that he tripped and fell over a curb on the property of the restaurant. During the pre suit investigation, it was believed that the Plaintiff actually tripped over his grandson, which caused a fractured elbow and an extensive hospitalization due to complications with pneumonia. When the Defendant responded to the Complaint, it served a sanctions letter pursuant to Fla. Stat. Sect. 57.105 accompanied by a Motion for Sanctions. Both documents included the Defendant’s belief that the grandson caused the fall. The Defendant served interrogatories at the beginning of the lawsuit, and despite the Defendant notifying the Plaintiff that the grandson was present and caused the fall, the Plaintiff continued to deny it and even refused to identify the grandson in the interrogatory responses. After almost two years of heavy litigation, the court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice for Fraud Upon the Court. The case is currently in the attorney’s fees and litigation costs stage, but it recently resulted in the arrest of the Plaintiff for Insurance Fraud More than $100k Fraudulently Presenting a False Statement.

After the case was dismissed, the State of Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Insurance Fraud opened an investigation into the Plaintiff. The St. Petersburg Office of Vernis & Bowling worked closely with detectives by providing them all of its evidence used in the civil fraud action against the Plaintiff. On December 15. 2017, the Plaintiff received an early Christmas present when he was taken into custody for his fraudulent conduct. He has been released on bond but has his first visit with a criminal court judge on January 3, 2018.
Salahutdin v. Smith
Ken Amos and William Gula (St. Petersburg, FL) (Automobile Liability) obtained its second zero verdict in two months in a rear-end collision auto accident. The four day trial was held in Tampa, Hillsborough County before judge Herbert Baumann, Jr. It took the jury one hour to deliberate before returning a zero verdict in favor of a GEICO insured who was accused failing to maintain a safe distance between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and his vehicle, causing a rear-end collision. The Plaintiff put on four medical providers as witnesses to the case for causation and damages. Dr. Paul Zak testified that the Plaintiff had herniated discs from the accident at C5-6 and C6-7, requiring either a double discectomy or a double fusion at the cost of $126,000. He opined that regardless of which surgery she elected they were similar in cost. He also opined that she had future needs for MRI’s and x-rays at the cost of $2,200 for each MRI. He also gave a cost for future trigger point injections at $722 each.

Chiropractor Steven Steller testified that the 28 year old Plaintiff needed chiropractic therapy twice a month at the cost of $500 per month for the next 50 years, totaling $300,000. The Plaintiff had $26k in past medical bills. We had a $10k policy for the client. Total economic damages exceeded $450,000. The Plaintiff left it up to the jury to decide the amounts for past and future pain and suffering.

During the course of the trial, Mr. Amos was able to get Dr. Zak to testify that he was not sure within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that she would need the surgery despite his testimony to the contrary on direct exam. The Plaintiff conveniently telephoned Dr. Zak the Friday before trial to elect to have the surgery. This was introduced into evidence through the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff treated with Chiropractor Steven Steller. Mr. Amos was able to get Dr. Steller to admit that he was treating patients with “bad employees” and that he violated his own standard of care to the Plaintiff. Mr. Amos discovered during cross examination that Dr. Stellar had altered his own records and failed to properly document his prescriptions for the MRI’s.

However, the deciding factor was liability and the fact pattern leading up to the collision. The Plaintiff was 26 years old at the time of the accident and had recently fallen in love with her boyfriend. She worked at a nursery less than a mile from the accident scene. She got off work at 1:00 PM. She was excited to see her new love. It was Saturday afternoon and the weather was beautiful. She was a typical young female excited about her relationship and it was time to decide what they were going to do on that Saturday night. We obtained her cell phone records and discovered that from 1:07 PM until 1:14 PM when the collision occurred that she had engaged in 18 text messages in 7 minutes and 21 seconds. Some of them were group messages. She denied it on the stand and said she only sent two text messages while sitting at the red light before making a left turn and slamming on her brakes when our client rear-ended her. We called an AT&T representative to explain the text records to establish that she lied. We also introduced evidence from our insured who testified that the Plaintiff swerved in front of him and slammed on her brakes, causing the collision. The angle of the impact of the Plaintiff’s tailgate on her SUV supported his testimony. So the theme for the defense was entitled, “Shifting the Blame”. What really happened was not what the Plaintiff was trying to sell the jury. We proved that there were four vehicles involved in the collision. Vehicle number one was stopped in the middle of the intersection for no reason, causing vehicle number 2 to slam on its brakes, causing vehicle 3, the Plaintiff, to slam on her brakes because she was switching lanes while texting and not paying attention to the road ahead of her, which in turn caused our client to hit her. The accident was unavoidable due to her cutting him off while texting and driving. The jury agreed.

Of note was an interesting situation during the course of the trial. Mr. Amos was in the restroom on day three of the trial and a juror walked in and began to laugh behind Mr. Amos’ back. The juror then blurted out, “She does not know what pain is.” Despite knowing that this juror was clearly in favor of the defense and no one else heard the comment, Mr. Amos held his integrity and candor to the Court and our judicial system. He immediately reported it to the judge and the opposing attorneys. We had no alternate juror for this case, so it was either going to be a mistrial or we stipulate to five jurors. Before a decision was made by the parties and the Court, the judge took a considerable amount of time recognizing Mr. Amos’ integrity and candor on the record for disclosing what appeared to be juror misconduct. Obviously, the parties agreed to move forward with five jurors and it proved to be the right thing to do. It was a clean trial and there are no appellate issues that hold weight for the Plaintiff. The defense has a $10k PFS that expired at the beginning of the case and the defense intends to enforce it and seek fees and costs.
Benjamin Press v. NPC International, Inc.
William Gula, Esq., Kory Watson, Esq., and Ken Amos, Esq. (St. Petersburg, FL) (Premises Liability) secured a defense verdict for the largest Pizza Hut franchisee in the world, NPC International, Inc., from a Pasco County, Florida jury. Plaintiff, Benjamin Press, represented by Chase Florin, Esq. and Luca Esposito, Esq. of Florida Roebig, claimed NPC was negligent in failing to maintain and/or warn of a dangerous condition involving a door closer in the front entry way to the restaurant. Plaintiff testified he was struck in the head by the door closer while exiting the restaurant. Plaintiff’s key eyewitness, Duane Scranton, was a former employee who testified that he observed the door closer rattling for weeks before the incident, warned management that it was going to fall and injure a customer, and actually witnessed the Plaintiff get struck in the head by the door closer when it fell as Plaintiff walked through the front door. There were no other eyewitnesses to the incident, and there was no factual dispute that the door closer fell and struck the Plaintiff. A former manager, Michelle Wiseman, and current area supervisor for NPC, Randy Harris, both testified that there were no prior issues with the door closer and there was no report by Duane Scranton to management about the condition of the door closer. Plaintiff’s counsel argued NPC was accountable because there was no dispute the door closer fell and struck the Plaintiff, and NPC admitted fault if its employee knew of a problem with the door closer and failed to lock the door or put up a sign to prevent its use. William Gula, Esq. argued that Duane Scranton was not credible, and Plaintiff’s theory of negligence would place an unreasonable burden on NPC to tighten every screw on its premises every single day. The trial was bifurcated for liability to be tried in phase one, and damages to be tried in phase two. Plaintiff’s alleged damages in the second phase of the trial would have included a cervical fusion and total medical bills in excess of one hundred seventy thousand dollars ($170,000.00).
Strickland v. May (defense verdict)
Kenneth Amos and William Gula (Gulf Coast/St. Petersburg, FL) (Automobile Liability) obtained a defense verdict despite Defendant admitting fault for the accident. Plaintiff, who was making a claim for personal injuries, which included past medical bills, future medical bills, and pain and suffering, was rear-ended by Defendant at dusk shortly after a rain storm. After conducting a thorough investigation with regard to the liability and causation issues to be presented at trial, the defense learned that Plaintiff had a Restriction A on her driver’s license at the time of the accident, which required her to wear corrective lenses. At trial, Plaintiff was cross-examined with regard to her utilization of corrective lenses while operating a motor vehicle. She testified that she did not understand why the eye doctor documented her records with regard to glare and wearing eye glasses. She denied that the records were a true and accurate statement. Furthermore, she denied that she had to wear corrective lenses while operating a motor vehicle. The jury returned a verdict of no liability on behalf of Defendant after five (5) full days of trial and testimony from twenty (20) witnesses.

Areas Of Practice

Construction and Construction Defect Litigation
First and Third Party Property and Casualty Claims
Negligent Security
Premises Liability
Sinkhole Litigation

Bar & Court Admission

Florida Bar, 2006

Education

Graduate:
Florida International University School of Law, 2006
Undergraduate:
Florida Atlantic University, 2003

William C. Gula is a senior attorney in the firm’s St. Petersburg office. He is a Florida native. In 2003, he graduated from Florida Atlantic University with a Bachelor’s in Science and Finance and Minor in Marketing. As an undergraduate he served on the Interfraternity Council, was on the Dean’s List, and served as president of Sigma Alpha Mu. In 2006, William received his Juris Doctorate from Florida International University. While in law school he served as secretary of the FIU Law Student’s Association and received the “Book Award” for top grades in professional responsibility and environmental law.

After graduating, William went onto work for the state attorney’s office as an assistant state attorney. He prosecuted felony cases for nearly four (4) years litigating approximately fifty (50) jury trials. In 2011, William joined Vernis and Bowling of the Gulf Coast. Since joining Vernis and Bowling, he has focused his practice on areas of personal injury litigation including auto liability defense, wrongful death, and premises liability. He also has experience in handling property damage cases, lawsuits involving fraud, and construction defect cases. He has successfully handled cases from inception through trial.

William is admitted to practice law in all State Courts in Florida as well as the Middle District of Florida. He is an avid fan of the Miami Dolphins and Florida Atlantic football fan. Outside of work he enjoys activities such as fantasy football, watching Netflix and fishing.

Footer