The Injury Board Commentary - Automobile Accidents

The Big Trial Charade

Steve Watrel — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:11:37 GMT

Personal injury trial lawyers deal with some curious laws as a result of insurance industry sponsored statutes that stack the deck in their favor. One of these is the so-called “Non-Joinder Statute” (Florida Statute section 627.4136) which says it is illegal for an injured person to sue the at-fault party’s liability insurance company as a defendant in a lawsuit. The law only allows an injured person to sue the at-fault party even though the at-fault party is covered by a liability insurance policy.

This law, together with others, prohibits jurors from knowing anything about a defendant’s liability insurance company including how much coverage they have. The premise of this law is that if jurors knew about liability insurance, they would give the injured person much more money for compensation. This is a questionable premise at best and based upon an old jury research study.

The reality is that a defendant’s liability insurance company controls all aspects of the defense of the at-fault party including choosing the defense lawyer and making the ultimate settlement decision. The defendant merely goes along for the ride relying on the company’s good faith in handling the case. Losing a personal injury case is not a huge concern for many insurance companies because they have billions of dollars at their disposal to defend cases.

The unfairness of the law is this: Jurors absolutely want to know if the defendant has liability insurance. When they are told by the court that it’s none of their concern, they may conclude there's no insurance and may actually compensate less which is unfair to the injured person. Jurors are human and want to know if their ultimate verdict could financially impact a defendant.

It’s a challenge for the injured person and their attorney to navigate around this issue at trial without running afoul of this law. If the word insurance is mentioned or if it’s disclosed the defense lawyer is employed by the insurance company, it’s a mistrial and the case will need to be retried at great expense. If the issue of insurance is not disclosed, jurors may believe there’s none at all and be very cautious with their verdict.

Unfortunately, there’s no chance that this law will be struck down or taken off the books anytime soon because it's one of the insurance industry’s crown jewels. So, the charade continues.

Steve Watrel is a personal injury trial lawyer in Jacksonville, Florida. His website is www.stevewatrel.com.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Watrel

Not Wearing a Seatbelt Can Have Devastating Consequences

Jim Lewis — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:36:46 GMT

A recent accident that occurred in York County, Virginia (VA) illustrates how important it is to always wear your seat belt, and make sure your children are wearing their seat belts, while in a vehicle.

A two-year-old toddler was thrown from a vehicle and injured in an accident. The crash occurred when a 2001 Chevy Malibu was attempting to make a left hand turn during a red light.

When the driver made the left to turn onto Yorktown Road, it ran into a Sienna, then hit a pickup truck which caused the toddler to be ejected from the vehicle.

A seven-year-old child was also in the car and suffered injuries, according to Pilotonline.com.

Both children were rushed to Riverside Regional Medical Center where they received treatment for serious injuries. The accident was responsible for shutting down the intersection of Yorktown Road and Hampton Highway.

The driver (the father of the two children) was charged with multiple infractions including reckless driving, running a red light and failure to secure a child in a restraint.

Unfortunately, as this accident indicates, many people still make the poor decision not to wear their seat belts. A potential contributing factor to this disregard for seat belts is the fact that Virginia is not a “secondary enforcement” state. That means a police officer cannot pull someone over if they notice that the driver is not wearing a seat belt. A driver must be violating another traffic law before the police can pull the driver over. This is a bad law and the statistics indicate that states which have categorized wearing a seat belt as a primary enforcement law, seat belt use increased 11 percent.

To learn more about the importance of wearing your seat belt, take a look at this article which was written by an experience Virginia personal injury lawyer.

About the Editors: The Shapiro, Lewis & Appleton personal injury law firm, which has offices in Virginia (VA) and North Carolina (NC), edits the injury law blogs Virginia Beach Injuryboard, Norfolk Injuryboard and Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard as pro bono services.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jim Lewis

What You Need To Know About Complyig With Pennsylvania Teenage Driver Laws

Scott Cooper — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:11:11 GMT

Recently, Pennsylvania enacted laws "Lacey's law" which dramatically change the requirements for young drivers first obtaining their licenses. There is now a three stage program for a driver to obtain a full unlimited license. Below is a link to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania summary of the requirments and what a driver needs to know in order to be fuilly compliant with Pennsylvania’s new laws and the three state process.

http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/young_drivers/yng_drv_fact_sheet.pdf

It is a well known fact that teenage drivers are, unfortunately, more likely to be involved in a car accident or wreck involving injury and death. This fact exists not only in Harrisburg, Central Pennsylvania, and the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania but all over the country. Becoming aware of the new laws will help reduce this risk.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Scott Cooper

Michelin Has Knowingly Been Selling Defective Tires, But Won’t Own Up

Mike Ferrara — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:52:30 GMT

After almost two years of a series of bad faith efforts to keep information about its defective, dangerous tires private, Michelin North America has been ordered by a federal judge in Atlanta to pay plaintiff’s attorney’s fees for deliberately holding up a case against the company.

In November 2009, in Bates v. Michelin North America, Michelin was sued for negligence and liability for a tire-related rollover crash that rendered the driver a quadriplegic, with permanent spinal and brain injuries. The crash happened when the left rear Uniroyal Laredo tire of the driver’s 2001 GMC Jimmy suffered a tread separation, causing a loss of control and a rollover. The driver was wearing his seatbelt at the time of the crash.

Although the plaintiff’s attorneys requested numerous documents and data relating to Michelin’s tire safety testing, the number of tires being returned for manufacturing defects, etc., Michelin deliberately held up the discovery process, first by claiming confidentiality issues were involved, and then by producing a series of meaningless documents that didn’t contain any of the requested data.

“In sum, Michelin’s bad faith conduct caused serious prejudice to the integrity of the legal process and to Plaintiffs’ orderly, effective development and proof of their case,” U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg, of the Northern District of Georgia, wrote in her 61-page decision. “The pattern of abuse by Michelin is extremely troubling…“First, Michelin made multiple misrepresentations to the Court that it had produced documents as ordered by the Court when it in fact had not. Second, Michelin repeatedly refused to produce documents in direct violation of the Court’s January 3rd, June 3rd and June 24th Orders. Third, Michelin intentionally engaged in an extremely narrow, unjustified interpretation of the Court’s Orders in order to limit, or altogether avoid, producing relevant and useful documents in response to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.”–SafetyResearch.net

Judge Totenberg also acknowledged that Michelin’s Laredo tire was “defective and unreasonably dangerous.” Although the court has yet to decide whether the Laredo tire caused the accident in question, it just couldn’t look worse for Michelin at this point.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage- Is It Really Necessary?

Hugh Robert — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:01:51 GMT

A new study shows that one in four drivers in Oklahoma are on the road and carry no liability insurance (the fourth highest number of uninsured in the Country.) Over half the drivers in Oklahoma either have no insurance or the bare minimum coverage. While the legislature is passing laws that have stiff penalties for not carrying insurance, it is not going to help get your medical bills or lost wages.

If a driver carries the minimum coverage, $25,000, that could be eaten up in the first day or two of a hospital stay. As health care costs are rising, it is a big factor to consider when decided whether or not to carry Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage. Many friends of mine have responded to this by saying, well I already have health insurance so I am not worried about it. UM also can apply to lost wages and pay for deductibles that otherwise would have been out of your pocket.

A hit-and-run driver also counts as uninsured as it relates to bodily injury (UMBI). UM pays for your injuries when someone with no insurance causes an accident or when you're hit by a hit-and-run driver. UIM kicks in when someone else causes an accident but doesn't have enough insurance to cover all your costs.

I know for many years I used to reject the UM coverage when offered by my insurance carrier, now that I have seen the cases where someone is seriously injured and has no recovery, it made me think twice. I have since added UM coverage to my policy and was very surprised at how reasonable the premiums were.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Hugh Robert

Underinsured and Uninsured Motorist Coverage is Very Important

Mike Bryant — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:00:00 GMT

In the past, the Insurance Research Council found that one in six drivers in the country are without insurance. With the economic issues that have struck the country, it is expected that those numbers have grown. Based on current unemployment rate projections, the percentage of uninsured motorists has risen from 13.8 in 2007 to 16.1 in 2010.

In 2007, the five states with the highest uninsured driver estimates were New Mexico (29 percent), Mississippi (28 percent), Alabama (26 percent), Oklahoma (24 percent), and Florida (23 percent). The five states with the lowest uninsured driver estimates were Massachusetts (1 percent), Maine (4 percent), North Dakota (5 percent), New York (5 percent), and Vermont (6 percent).

What do these numbers mean for you and your family? It means that if any of you are in an accident, there is a higher possibility that it will be with a driver who is uninsured. This would mean no coverage for the injuries except for the insurance that you purchased. It is imperative that you review what your UM and UIM coverage is. Keep in mind that if you have more than one car on your policy that you can stack your no fault coverages.

It is too late after an accident to find out that you didn't protect yourself. Most coverage increases aren't that much compared to the extra protection they provide.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Fog Is Causing Minnesota Highway Issues

Mike Bryant — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:22:00 GMT

It has been a very different winter. There has been a lot of fog out there this month. Evan with the low temperatures, moisture is in the morning and afternoon air. The fog is as close to blackout conditions as you can get.

Fog is nothing to take lightly. The Weather Channel put together a great set of tips to keep in mind:

Drive with lights on low beam. High beams will only be reflected back off the fog and actually impair visibility even more.

Reduce your speed -- and watch your speedometer. Fog creates a visual illusion of slow motion when you may actually be speeding.

Listen for traffic you cannot see. Open your window a little, to hear better.

Use wipers and defrosters as necessary for maximum visibility.

Use the right edge of the road or painted road markings as a guide.

Be patient. Do not pass lines of traffic.

Do not stop on a freeway or heavily traveled road. If your car stalls or becomes disabled, turn your vehicle's lights off, and take your foot off of the brake pedal. People tend to follow tail lights when driving in fog. Move away from the vehicle to avoid injury.

As with any weather related collision, it is important that investigation be done early. Insurance companies will blame the conditions and work to relieve defendants of their role in causing the problem. Issues such as what lights were on and what was the reason the driver was there all come into play. If you or a love one is injured, it's important that you talk to an experienced personal injury lawyer who will know what to do and how to protect you.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Does Your Financed Car Have Real Car Insurance?

Mike Bryant — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:52:00 GMT

Every once in a while, we get involved in a case with a client who had their finance company purchase car insurance for them. Usually, it's a high loan risk or person who didn't come forward with their own insurance and the bill arrived for the insurance that the loan now also covers. It's usually very expensive and it called "insurance". But, is it Minnesota Car Insurance?

But, an accident happens and guess what? It only covers the car. Actually, it may not cover the whole loan. It has no other protection whether it be liability, no fault , UM or UIM. The person for all intents and purposes has been paying for nothing in personal protection.

How this coverage is legal in Minnesota is still beyond me. Seems to me the law requires basic coverages with any insurance policy, so how do these car coverages get around that? Looks like poor governmental oversight. When you look at how expensive the fake coverage is, the person could have bought solid protection and often for less.

These policies are bad . Make sure you don't have one.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Pennsylvania Court Holds Prejudice To Insurance Carrier Defeats Uninsured Motorist Claim

Scott Cooper — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:28:14 GMT

What are the requirements in your jurisdiction in order to preserve an uninsured motorist claim?

In a limited, but important, opinion the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued a ruling in an uninsured motorist case on February 6, 2012. Limited to the specific facts of the case, attached is the link to the Pennsylvania Superior Court opinion in Vanderhoff v. Harleysville.

This case has been reported about for several years and was initially the subject of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion in 2010 where the Supreme Court held that an insured need not report a phantom vehicle to his or her insurance company within 30 days BUT the company can deny coverage if it can show prejudice was suffered by the late reporting. Vanderhoff v. Harleysville, 997 A.2d. 328 (Pa. 2010). The case was then remanded back to the trial court for a hearing on the issue of prejudice.

At the trial court level, on remand, the insurance company presented testimony of an insurance adjuster to explain how the uninsured claim is investigated, a local attorney who testified what actions he may have taken if the claim was reported earlier than the 8 months in this case, an investigator who testified that the investigation would have been much different if reported sooner, and an accident reconstructionist to testify on the importance of timeliness in reporting. The trial court found that the evidence was insufficient to establish prejudice but as noted by the Superior Court the trial court did not provide a “explicit, distinct rationale for its finding”. The Court then finds that “[u]nder the specific facts of this case, we conclude that this argument constitutes a clear abuse of discretion…”

The trial court is reversed.

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a29029_11.pdf

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Scott Cooper

Become a Certified "Beyond Driving with Dignity" Professional

Matt Gurwell — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:45:51 GMT

Keeping Us Safe, a national organization based in Cleveland, Ohio will be holding its inaugural west coast “Beyond Driving with Dignity’ training and certification course for professionals in the greater Los Angeles area on March 1, 2012. This is the first time the course has been offered in California (classes are also schedule for Tampa and Seattle during the month of March, 2012).

The certification program has been designed to provide professionals with the additional tools necessary to help older drivers and their families work through the complicated issue of diminishing driving skills caused by the aging process.

Matt Gurwell, Founder & CEO of Keeping Us Safe explains that the “Beyond Driving with Dignity” Professional Certification program is not built around the premeditated goal of “taking the keys away” from an older driver.

Gurwell explains “the program is designed to help the older driver and concerned family members make appropriate decisions on the future of the individual’s safe driving career. It is true that in certain circumstances, this may involve assisting the older driver in making a smooth and permanent transition from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat.”

The certification program is based on Keeping Us Safe’s self-assessment program for older drivers, along with their recently published “Beyond Driving with Dignity; The workbook for the families of older drivers”.

When asked what prompted the development of the Beyond Driving with Dignity program, Gurwell (a retired Ohio State Trooper) explains "It was the result of 20-plus years of holding dying people in my arms at terrible car accidents, and delivering dozens and dozens of death notifications to families. I would much rather work with families to bring a peaceful resolve to this sensitive and uncomfortable issue now, rather than have them deal with it when a State Trooper is knocking on their front door".

In addition to Newport Beach, this unique certification program is also being offered in Seattle, Tampa, Baton Rouge, Minneapolis, Toronto and Denver.

More information on the program is available at: http://keepingussafe.org/linked/brochurebddprofessionalcertification020712.pdf

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Matt Gurwell