Alabama Personal Injury Blog - GM

What have we Learned from GM and Chrysler?

Jon Lewis — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:54:19 GMT

TEN things we have learned from GM and Chrysler:

1. There is no corporate accountability.

2. They enjoy taking the public's money.

3. Their CEO's and executives have gotten rich while they have failed to properly manage their companies.

4. They took bailout money knowing that they would file bankruptcy - isn't that fraud?

5. They have no insurance, and the court's aren't making them get insurance - why?

6. Chrysler will have no liability to consumers who are killed or injured in a wreck in defective vehicles - Unbelievable!!

7. The taxpayers will be paying their debts for years to come.

8. They cannot compete with foreign car makers.

9. They weren't green until they had to be green.

10. THEY SHOULD HAVE JUST GONE OUT OF BUSINESS!!!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

GM and the new commercials are a disgrace and insulting

Danny Lehane — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:56:09 GMT

The execs at GM have already started their spin machine spending countless amounts of money to tell us that they are not a bunch of wasteful, shortsighted, arrogant pseudo business experts. The message from the ad campaign is as follows: sure we wasted a lot of money. We were arrogant and sold sub standard products thinking that we would be able to do so in perpetuity. But we got busted. So now, because we think you, the consumers, are a bunch of blithering idiots, we are going to propagate the myth that things will be better. And how will we do this? By slick ads that utilize a strong, sincere voice, eye catching photos and upbeat music. Oh yeah, we are also going to use clever phrases throughout the ad.

Phrases such as “let’s be completely honest”, “no company wants to go through this”, “we are witnessing the rebirth of the American car”, “GM needs to start over to get stronger”, “reinvention is the only way we can fix this and fix it we will”. Cars will now be built with “greater efficiencies”, “better fuel economy”, and “new technologies” are used in the ad to assuage any fears. These new cars will be “leaner, greener, faster and smarter”. Are you kidding? Isn’t that the same as saying prior to getting run over by the mismanagement train we saw coming down the tracks we at GM chose to build cars that pretty much lacked and insisted that you like it? Is GM telling us they could have built cars that had “greater efficiencies”, “better fuel economy”, and “new technologies” but chose not to do so? They could have built cars that were “leaner, greener, faster and smarter” and did not? Wow.

The message here is basically the same as that from a politician, athlete or “entertainer” who is never sorry for what he/she did until after he/she was caught. Take and get while the taking and getting is good but once caught or exposed issue the predictable pleas and requests of forgiveness. As we say in the south, good Gawd.

My favorite phrase, line, sucker bait, etc., from the GM commercial is the last words of the ad “this is not about going out of business, it is about getting down to business (pregnant pause with cool music for affect) because the only chapter we’re focused on, is chapter 1.” What, pray tell, does that mean? Really. It is catchy, but does it really mean anything? I submit it means quite a lot. It means this: We at GM think you, the American consumers, are quite stupid. We could have made cars with “greater efficiencies”, “better fuel economy”, and “new technologies” but chose not to. Maybe we will now (maybe we won’t) but we clearly believe that, although we are the same shortsighted wasteful group operating this entity, we can take a dead pig, slap some lipstick and make-up on it and pass it off as a keeper. We will do this by slick ads with clever phrases and because we think you, consumers, are idiots and you will swallow this drivel, hook, line and sinker.

How insulting.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Lehane

We Can Always File Bankruptcy, Right GM?

Danny Lehane — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 10:30:04 GMT

There will be at least 75 quadrillion articles and opinions written on the GM bankruptcy and the effects of the same before the end of June 2009. This blog will not shed any light on the mechanisms of how GM, Lehman Brothers, Chrysler, Charter, Trump Entertainment, Washington Mutual, Nortel, etc., got to the point where bankruptcy was apparently the only option, but along with everyone else I do have a few questions. Such as: how in the @#$%^!*#>#!(I do not use colorful words but feel free to use whichever one fits here) could any of your high paid CEOs, COOs, CFOs and other high priced, presumably overly educated fancy-boy titled folks not have seen this coming? For a good long while? Earthquakes can occur without any warning but the train wrecks of GM, et al., apparently have been waiting to happen for awhile. The respective disasters did not leave the station the night before bankruptcy became inevitable.

I can’t begin to answer what GM should have done to avoid its current situation but I would like to think that the $2.2 million salary the previous CEO was paid in 2008 and the pay to the current CEO (base salary of $1.7 million, with total 2008 compensation at $8.7 million) was enough to get them to be a tad more proactive than “Huh. This is all so sudden. How could we have seen this coming for the last 15-20 years?” Give me a @#$%^&*!# (same thing as above, fill in your favorite word) break.

Hey, forget the thousands of people negatively affected by this particular collapse, as long as the big boys at GM, Lehman, Chrysler, etc., got paid, it is all good. Clearly they earned it.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Lehane

Insurance Company and Corporate Names

Jon Lewis — Sat, 16 May 2009 15:35:40 GMT

Names may change, but the companies don't. In law school, we learned a phrase, "Form over Substance". What's an example? You can call a table a chair, but it's still a table.

In the Birmingham News today, it was reported that GMAC Bank is taking on a new name. GMAC Bank has now become Ally Bank. This is not a surprise given the fact that GM is about to file bankruptcy. Why would GMAC Bank want to be associated with a bankrupt company? They wouldn't.

Another example of this is 21st Century Insurance. Who is that? Surprise!! AIG. Can you believe it? AIG sold its insurance division to Farmers, and it's now called 21st Century Insurance. They don't want their company associated with AIG anymore. Are they really any different?

Why do I care? Well, a couple of years ago in Seattle, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ran a full page ad in the USA Today stating, "Same leopard. New Spots". They were referring to the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. Our Group decided to change the name of the organization to the American Association for Justice.

Obviously, "Trial Lawyers" have been bashed in the media and by corporate interests, and our organization wanted to let people know what we stand for as opposed to what our name is. People can bash "Trial Attorneys", but who can bash "Justice?"

I bring this up because I want people to know that the corporate and insurance interests are no different. In fact, they are worse. Why? Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. They criticize trial lawyers as greedy and selfish when it is now abundantly clear where the greed lies. Given our current economy and mortgage crisis, who has exemplified more greed than huge corporations. Look at Enron, Tyco, HealthSouth, Madoff, Worldcom, AIG, and on and on. These companies, and their officers and directors, were fleecing the American public. Do they care? No, they just change their name and go on with government backing - our tax dollars.

On the flip side, what do trial lawyers do? We try to protect individuals from injury and fraud. Which side are you on? Corporate accountability or Corporate greed? I'm biased, but I'll take corporate accountability and side with trial lawyers any day of the week.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

What Is A Motion For Summary Judgment?

Michael Roberts — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:10:07 GMT

The defendant in my lawsuit has filed a motion for summary judgment. What does that mean? Even though our constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury, the law permits a defendant to file a motion that argues the question of whether there is at least some evidence that supports the injured person’s claims. There are differing standards among the states, but frequently, the question is whether there is “substantial evidence” in support of the claim. Sometimes the question is whether there is “substantial evidence” in opposition to a defense, such as the statute of limitations.

Here is a simple example of how a motion for summary judgment works – say a store customer is hurt by a store’s negligence. If, however, the store proved through its employee’s testimony or affidavit that the accident happened more than two years before the customer filed suit, then the store might get a summary judgment order dismissing the case, if the accident occurred in a state like Alabama, where the statute of limitations for such cases is 2 years. If the evidence remains undisputed that the store is correct about the date, then it would win its motion for summary judgment, and the judge would be required to dismiss the case. If, however, the customer proved or provided evidence through his own affidavit or testimony that the accident occurred less than 2 years before suit was filed, then the motion should be denied, and a jury would later listen to both sides and decide who is right.

The losing party on the motion for summary judgment would have a right to appeal this decision, although, if the judge denies the motion and says a trial will be held, it may be necessary that the store wait until the trial is over and a verdict is reached by the jury before it can be appealed. On appeal, the appeals court would review the trial judge’s decision on the legal question of whether the evidence was sufficiently in dispute to make it necessary that a jury decide the question. If a trial judge had ruled for the customer, and dismissed the case, and the customer later won his appeal, then the case would be sent back down or “remanded” for a trial.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Roberts

Following Rules of the Road

Jon Lewis — Mon, 26 May 2008 13:13:34 GMT

Do you follow the Rules of the Road? Did you even know that Alabama has a code section (Section 32-5A-1) governing the rules of the road? Remember that little book (Driver Manual) you had to study before obtaining your learner's permit? Most people forget about these rules immediately following their driver's license exam. Unfortunately, that occurs when you are sixteen (16).

On Saturday, the Birmingham News reported some of the results (here are the complete results) from the GMAC Insurance national driving test (click on this to take the test). According to the Birmingham News, sixteen percent (16%) or thirty-three million licensed drivers in the U.S. should not be behind the wheel. Alabama's rank was fifteenth (15th) which was much better than the State's 2007 result (25th).

When we hear all of the tort reform pundits, they seem to disregard these types of issues. Driving can be dangerous, and when someone does not know the rules of the road (and apparently, there are many of these someones), they can cause accidents and injuries. Not knowing these rules and violating them are negligent, and possibly wanton, actions. When someone does not know these rules, understand these rules, and abide by these rules, they should compensate the other party for their injuries when the person's negligence and/or wantonness caused the injuries. Tort reform rewards this ignorance of the rules of the road. Maybe the pundits should think about this.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis