Hobart M. Hind, Jr.: Lawyer with Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig

Hobart M. Hind, Jr.

View Hobart M. Hind, Jr. 's Martindale-Hubbell Connected Profile
Phone(813) 281-1900

Peer Rating
 4.6/5.0
AV® Preeminent

Client Rating

Featured AV Peer Review Rated Lawyer IconFeatured AV Peer Review Rated Lawyer Icon
Printer Friendly VersionEmail this PageDownload to My Outlook ContactsAdd lawyer to My FavoritesCompare this lawyer to other lawyers in your favorites

Experience & Credentials Ratings & Reviews
 

Practice Areas

  • Subrogation & Recovery
     
    Contact InfoTelephone: (813) 281-1900
    Telecopier: 813-281-0900 Outside Florida: 1-800-283-1193
    http://www.butler.legal
     
    University Georgia Institute of Technology, B.A., Economics, 1992
     
    Law SchoolGeorgia State College of Law, J.D., 1995
     
    AdmittedFlorida; Georgia; Texas; Texas Courts (State and Federal); Georgia Courts (State and Federal); Georgia Supreme Court and Court of Appeals; Florida Courts (State and Federal)
     
    BornAlbany, Georgia, October 4, 1970
     
    Biography

    A Partner at Butler, Hobie Hind practices in our Subrogation & Recovery department, where he first started his legal practice. Since joining the firm in 1996, Hobie has handled subrogation claims as his sole focus, ranging from smaller homeowner losses to large-scale industrial events.

    Hobie received his Doctor of Jurisprudence from the Georgia State University College of Law in 1995. He is admitted to practice in all State and Federal Courts in Georgia, Texas, and Florida. He has handled cases throughout the United States, with an emphasis in the Southeast, and recently, Texas.

    Hobie speaks regularly at many subrogation industry events. He is an active member of the National Association of Subrogation Professionals (NASP) and served as the chair for the 2010 NASP Annual National Conference in Dallas, Texas, as well as on the NASP Board of Directors since 2012.

    PUBLICATION

    April 01, 2014 PUBLICATION How to Succeed at Subrogation (...but you do have to try!)

    Success in Subrogation can be measured in many ways, and depends greatly on what type of business is at issue for the underlying recovery claim. There can be different strategies for each type of subrogation claim (Property is different from Health Care which is different from Workers Comp which is different from Auto) but there are some universals, and we will try to discuss those here.

    April 01, 2014 PUBLICATION Texas Damages

    In Property Subrogation, one of the most difficult damages situationsto deal with is a commercial loss where older equipment is destroyed and that equipment is integral to the operation of a facility. Oftentimes, the business decision is made to replace used equipment (which may not have a fair market value in the marketplace) with new equipment, to minimize the downtime and the associated business income loss. A recent Texas case may give property subrogators some ammunition to contest how those pieces of equipment get valued for recovery purposes.

    April 01, 2012 PUBLICATION Made-Whole Interpretations Leave Insurers Feeling Empty

    There is a growing trend among state courts to interpret the made-whole doctrine in ways that have the potential to make it very difficult for insurers to effectively exercise their subrogation rights. In recent years, state courts' decisions have increasingly created hurdles for insurers to overcome before they are able to actively pursue recovery for payments made to their insured. These requirements could have a potentially chilling effect on the field of insurance subrogation.

    April 01, 2012 PUBLICATION What Nearly Two Decades as a Subrogation Attorney Has Taught Me about Product Safety

    The other day when I was asked to write an article about product safety I pondered how to best approach this. As we all know, what is or is not a safe product is often in the eye of the beholder (or which side of the v you are on!). Is any product that fails even once an unsafe product? If 1, 000, 000 items have been manufactured and only 73 of them have failed, is that an unsafe product? What about 133 of them? If a product fails when it was being used improperly, but it was not a stretch for the manufacturer to have anticipated this alleged misuse, is that an unsafe product? If a product has been tested by agencies and groups with an international reputation for such testing, and the product has passed, can that product be an unsafe product?

    October 14, 2010 PUBLICATION 2010 Annual Conference Committee Report

    NASP's 12th Annual Conference, being held November 7-10 at the Gaylord Resort in Grapevine, Texas IS RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER. Can you believe it is less than two months away?!?! The Grapevine is a world-class facility located just outside Dallas. Just like in years past, this year's Conference will be a topnotch showcase for some of the best educational presentations the industry has to offer, no matter what the forum. There is no greater array of educational programs than the NASP Annual Conference. The entire program for the conference has been selected, and we have tried to limit the number of presentations slightly from year's past so that every attendee has a better chance of attending all of the programs they want, and not having too many conflicting presentations to decide upon.

    July 08, 2010 PUBLICATION Arbitration of Construction Defect Claims

    Arbitration Forums, Inc. and Construction Defects Claim Managers Associations (CDCMA) have begun a new joint project to develop a special arbitration forum related to certain construction defect claims. This joint project is intended to develop awareness that certain types of construction defect claims can be arbitrated through arbitration forums

    October 01, 2004 PUBLICATION Forcing the Issue: Virginia Courts Begin to Expand Recoveries in Tort Between Parties to a Contract

    When subrogating against an adverse party having a contractual relationship with your insured, it is routine to face the argument that your damages are barred by the economic loss rule. Most jurisdictions have carved out an exception to the sometimes harsh results that can flow from the operation of this rule. One such exception is the “other property” exception, which typically allows for tort recovery when the damaged “other property” is not a subject of the contract.

    MEDIA

    Events

    November 11, 2014 EVENT NASP 2014 Annual Conference

    NASP 2014 Annual Conference

    November 10, 2014 EVENT NASP 2014 Annual Conference

    NASP 2014 Annual Conference

    April 10, 2014 EVENT NASP 2014 Litigation Skills Conference

    NASP 2014 Litigation Skills Conference

    November 03, 2013 EVENT NASP's 2013 Annual Conference

    NASP's 2013 Annual Conference

    June 19, 2013 EVENT Rimkus 10th Annual Seminar

    Rimkus 10th Annual Seminar

    April 15, 2012 EVENT 2012 PLRB Claims Conference

    2012 PLRB Claims Conference

    September 23, 2010 EVENT Product Liability/Subrogation Lecture

    Product Liability/Subrogation Lecture

    April 28, 2010 EVENT What I Have Learned about Litigating against Manufacturers at Trial

    What I Have Learned about Litigating against Manufacturers at Trial

    April 15, 2010 EVENT Confessions of a Subro Trial Attorney

    Confessions of a Subro Trial Attorney

    June 18, 2009 EVENT NASP - Local Education and Networking

    NASP - Local Education and Networking

    November 04, 2008 EVENT How to Best Present at NASP - Teaching Speakers How to Teach

    How to Best Present at NASP - Teaching Speakers How to Teach

    April 29, 2008 EVENT How NFPA 921 is Impacting Fire Related Subrogation - How you and your attorneys should be using it both offensively and defensively.

    How NFPA 921 is Impacting Fire Related Subrogation - How you and your attorneys should be using it both offensively and defensively.

    March 08, 2007 EVENT Direct and Cross Examination of the Carrier's Damage Adjuster

    Direct and Cross Examination of the Carrier's Damage Adjuster

     
    Reported CasesExperience: REPRESENTATIVE CASES; Hobie has handled every type of subrogation case that would ever cross a subrogation professional's desk. From smaller 5 and 6 figure homeowner fire losses to massive 9 figure warehouse losses and every point in between, that is the focus of Hobie's practice. Recently, more of his practice has been spent on market share commercial losses (of every type, including dry and wet system accidental activations, metal halide light fires, industrial explosions, wildfires and similar claims). Much of the work Hobie intakes from clients is program subrogation work where he will assist the adjusters for a company to manage their subro inventory with spreadsheets and instant analysis with the independent adjuster assigned to that claim to manage the costs on each file, and especially to insure expenses are not wasted on subro referrals with no potential for recovery.; CASE TYPE: Commercial Litigation - Collections; Contribution Claims; Explosions; Federal Multi-District Litigation; Federal Tort Claims Act Litigation; Fire Spread Litigation; Manufacturer Liability; Material Failures; Negligent Supervision; Products Liability; Sovereign Immunity Issues; Structural Collapse; Subrogation; Trucking; Construction Defect Litigation - Indemnity Claims
     
    ISLN912174875
     


    View Ratings & Reviews
    Profile Visibility
    #519 in weekly profile views out of 6,777 lawyers in Tampa, Florida
    #101,033 in weekly profile views out of 1,705,233 total lawyers Overall

    Office Information

    Hobart M. Hind, Jr.

    400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2300
    TampaFL 33602




    Loading...
     

    Professional Networking for Legal Professionals Only

    Quickly and easily expand your professional
    network - join the premier global network for legal professionals only. It's powered by the
    Martindale-Hubbell database - over 1,000,000 lawyers strong.
    Join Now