Car Accident

State Court Waives Limitations Period for Plaintiff in Underinsured Motorist Claim

Published on: August 25, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Indiana Supreme Court recently published an opinion affirming a lower court’s ruling to allow a plaintiff’s personal injury claim to proceed against her insurance company. The defendant insurance company had argued that the underinsured motorist claim at issue was filed after the policy’s limitations period for such claims had expired and should not be permitted. The courts reasoned that the language of the underinsured motorist policy appeared to exempt such claims from the limitations period and was too ambiguous to be enforced. As a result of the recent appellate ruling, the plaintiff’s claim for damages against the defendant will proceed toward a trial.

The Plaintiff Is Injured in an Auto Accident With an Underinsured Motorist

The plaintiffs in the case of State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company v. Jakubowicz are a woman and her two sons, who were injured in a car accident with another driver in August 2007. According to the facts and procedural case history discussed in the appellate opinion, the woman filed a personal injury case against the other driver less than two years after the accident, seeking compensation for her family’s injuries.

As the claim against the other driver proceeded, the plaintiff learned that the other driver’s insurance coverage would be insufficient to fully compensate her for the expenses and losses suffered in the accident. The plaintiff eventually added a claim against her own insurance company, seeking compensation for damages that would not otherwise be covered through her underinsured motorist coverage, although this claim was not filed until after the three-year limitations period had expired.

General Motors Faces Appellate Defeat in Ignition Switch Case

Published on: August 11, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently released an opinion that will allow several tort claims against General Motors related to a faulty ignition switch to proceed. According to a New York Times article discussing the recent opinion, the ruling stands in the face of a 2009 bankruptcy court ruling, which prevented claims against GM from being asserted against the company that was created in the debt restructuring process. The appellate court ruled that the broad bar on future claims against the successor organization to the “old GM” did not apply to claims based on the defective ignition switches that were concealed by the previous company in anticipation of their bankruptcy restructuring.

Defective Ignition Switches in Millions of GM Vehicles Have Endangered the Public

The product liability lawsuits that have been filed against GM over the defective ignition switches allege that the manufacturer knowingly included the defective and dangerous equipment on their vehicles for years after they discovered the problem, and they even attempted to conceal evidence of their knowledge of the faulty equipment. The recall, which has now been expanded to include over 11 million vehicles in several General Motors make and model lines, is related to an issue with the ignition switch on the vehicles.

The ignitions on the affected vehicles may unexpectedly switch into the “off” position, deactivating important safety features on the vehicles, including power steering and airbags. The defective part has been linked to at least 124 deaths and 275 injuries. General Motors has already paid over $2 billion in criminal and civil penalties and settlements related to the issue, and the company expects to pay more in settlements as the plaintiff class expands with additional recalls.

State Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Plaintiff in Auto-Pedestrian Accident Case

Published on: July 22, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The California Court of Appeals recently released a decision reversing a lower court’s ruling in favor of the defendant in a premises liability lawsuit filed after the plaintiff was hit by a car while crossing the street from an overflow parking lot to the defendant’s establishment. The trial court had ruled that the defendant could not be held responsible for the man’s injuries because the accident occurred on a public street that the defendant did not own or control. The appellate court found that the defendant may be held accountable for negligence based on their ownership of the overflow parking lot and a duty to provide reasonable care. Based on the court of appeals’ opinion, the plaintiff may receive damages from his claim by a trial or if a settlement is reached.

The Plaintiff is Injured Crossing from the Overflow Parking Lot to the Church

The plaintiff in the case of Vasilenko v. Grace Family Church was a church member who intended to attend a church event in Sacramento, California on an evening in November of 2010. According to the facts discussed in the opinion, when the plaintiff arrived to the church the primary parking lot was full. The plaintiff was instead told to park in an overflow lot, which was located directly across a five-lane road from the church and had parking attendants on duty.

After parking his car, the plaintiff did not receive instructions from the parking attendants regarding how to cross the street and there was no crosswalk at the nearest intersection so he attempted to cross directly in front of the church, along with several other churchgoers. As the small group was crossing the street, a vehicle approached on the roadway and the parishioners began running, however, the plaintiff couldn’t avoid being struck by the vehicle.

Plaintiff’s Underinsured Motorist Claim Denied by Appellate Court

Published on: May 27, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently released an opinion affirming a lower court’s ruling against the driver and two passengers involved in a car accident. The plaintiffs alleged that the settlement they received from the at-fault driver was not sufficient to cover their damages, and they sought additional relief from the insurance company covering the driver of the car they occupied. The plaintiffs attempted to use the underinsured motorist coverage included in the driver’s insurance policy to contribute to their relief, but the district court and Seventh Circuit agreed with the defendant, holding that the uninsured motorist coverage under which the claim was filed did not apply.

Plaintiffs Are Injured after Another Driver Runs Through Stop Sign, Causing a Four-Car Accident

The plaintiffs in the case of Trotter v. Harleysville Insurance Company were injured when the car they were occupying was struck at an intersection by another vehicle that drove through a stop sign. After the accident, the plaintiffs filed a personal injury lawsuit and reached a settlement with the insurance company representing the driver of the vehicle that caused the accident.

The settlement that was reached awarded a total of $500,000 to the three plaintiffs, which was shared based on the injuries each had sustained in the crash. The $500,000 settlement was for the single-accident policy limit of the liability insurance coverage, although the plaintiffs maintained after accepting the settlement that they were not made whole by the settlement and suffered more harm that should be compensated.

Accidents Involving Popular Ride-Share Services May Not Be Covered by Insurance

Published on: May 19, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The exploding popularity of the ride-share apps Lyft and Uber, as well as similar services, has created a gray area in insurance coverage that could put some drivers and passengers at increased risk in the event they are involved in an accident with someone who is working as a driver for a ride-share service. Although the most popular ride-share companies provide insurance for passengers once they are in the vehicle, the coverage is not absolute, and other accidents involving a ride-share driver may not be covered by any insurance whatsoever.

Personal Versus Commercial Auto Insurance Coverage

The recent boom in the popularity of ride-share services comes in part from the ease with which people can become drivers and support themselves using only their personal vehicle and the services provided by the app. Most ride-share drivers, however, only carry personal insurance coverage for their vehicles, and they may not be covered for any accidents or incidents that occur while they are engaged in business activities, such as driving a passenger for a fee though the app. According to a recently published national news report, the most popular ride-share services, Lyft and Uber, offer insurance that covers passengers and other vehicles both while a passenger is in the vehicle and while the driver is traveling to pick up the passenger after receiving a call. Passengers, pedestrians, and other drivers who are injured by a ride-share vehicle during these times should be covered for damages by making a personal injury claim against the ride-share driver.

There is No Coverage for Accidents That Occur While the Driver Is Waiting on a Fare

According to the article, there is a gray area that exists in which accident victims may not be covered by any insurance in the event of a crash with a ride-share operator. If a driver is waiting for a notification to pick up a passenger while driving around, they are technically engaged in commercial activity, although the insurance that is provided by the ride-share companies is not in effect. Since the driver is seen as a commercial driver, their personal auto insurance may not offer coverage in the event of an accident. Ride-share operators are encouraged to obtain coverage for these situations, although it is common for them to continue operating a ride-share vehicle with no insurance coverage for these situations.

The Importance of a Thorough Accident Investigation in South Florida

Published on: April 28, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

South Florida accident and personal injury cases often involve two or more conflicting stories, and it can be up to a judge or jury to decide who is telling the truth. Plaintiffs and defendants in a Miami personal injury lawsuit must offer evidence to prove their side of the story. In some instances in which one party appears more believable than another but conceals the facts, the truth of what happened can be hidden from the judge or jury, resulting in an accident victim being denied compensation even when another driver was in fact negligent and caused the alleged injuries.

The Investigation: The First Step in a Successful Personal Injury Claim

Florida accident victims may wonder what the process entails in making an injury claim in state or federal court, and an experienced attorney can shed light on how a claim for damages should proceed. One of the first steps to collecting damages in a South Florida personal injury lawsuit is for the plaintiff’s attorney to ensure that a full investigation is performed into what exactly happened to cause their client’s injuries. It’s not that lawyers don’t believe their client’s side of the story. The investigation is necessary because experienced injury attorneys know the strategies that defendants and insurance companies may use to avoid liability. Only by having a qualified investigative team perform a full investigation of an accident can a Miami injury lawyer begin to construct the best case for their client to receive a fair damages award after an accident.

Admission of Seat Belt Non-use Evidence in Auto Accident Cases on the Rise

Published on: April 25, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas recently released an opinion that overturned an Arkansas law that had made evidence of seat belt non-use inadmissible to prove a plaintiff’s comparative negligence in a personal injury claim. The statute had been designed to prevent defendants from avoiding responsibility for injuries resulting from their negligence because a plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt. Since seat belt use has become mandatory in 49 states and is widely accepted as an important safety precaution, laws in several states that have prevented non-use evidence at trial are being weakened or eliminated.

The Arkansas Case and the State Supreme Court’s Ruling

The case of Mendoza v. Washington Inventory Services was filed by a woman who was a back seat passenger and was injured in a rear-end accident while riding in a vehicle that was being driven by an employee of the defendant. Alleging that the driver of the vehicle negligently caused the accident, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver’s employer, seeking compensation for her injuries. As the case progressed, the defendant sought to introduce evidence that the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to her injuries because she was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the crash. The district court rejected the defendant’s request, citing the Arkansas law that specifically prohibited the admission of such evidence for that purpose.

State Supreme Court Reverses $4.5 Million Award in Auto Accident Case

Published on: April 14, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada recently released a decision in which a trial award of nearly $4.5 million was reversed, and the court ordered a new trial. The state high court found that the lower judge’s exclusion of the defendant’s low-impact accident defense, as well as her ruling to strike the defendant’s answer and enter a default award in favor of the plaintiff, was without merit. As a result of the latest opinion, the plaintiff will be required to settle the case with the defendants or prove the claim again at a second trial.

What Appeared to Be a Minor Crash Allegedly Resulted in Serious Injuries

The plaintiff in the case of Rish v. Simao was allegedly injured in an auto accident with the defendant that occurred in stop-and-go traffic. The plaintiff was able to drive his car home after the crash and refused medical treatment at the scene. However, he later alleged that he developed back and spine injuries. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff’s injuries were exaggerated and could not have been caused by the accident, based on the speed of the vehicles involved and the evidence of the relatively nonviolent impact, suggested by the photos taken at the crash scene.

Before trial, the plaintiff’s attorneys successfully argued to the court that the defense should not be permitted to argue that the crash was a low-impact collision, or that it was not sufficiently violent to cause the plaintiff’s injuries. The judge additionally ordered that the photos of the crash could not be shown to the jury. This ruling was based on the defendant’s failure to retain a biomechanical engineer expert witness who could testify that the forces involved in the crash were too insignificant to cause the injuries.

Jury Finds General Motors Not Liable for Crash Alleged from Recalled Ignition Switch

Published on: April 11, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A New York jury recently reached a verdict in favor of the defendants in a product liability lawsuit that was filed by a couple who alleged that they were injured in a 2014 accident that was caused by a faulty ignition switch in their 2007 Saturn Sky. The jury found that the ignition switch, which has been recalled by the manufacturer, was defective and made the vehicle unreasonably dangerous. However, the jurors also determined that the faulty switch was not the cause of the accident or the resulting injuries to the plaintiffs. Based on the jury’s verdict, the plaintiffs will be unable to collect damages to compensate them for the injuries they sustained in the accident.

The Jury Finds that the Accident was Caused by Icy Roads, Not the Ignition Switch

According to a news report discussing the verdict, the jurors decided that the crash was more likely than not caused by icy road conditions on the New Orleans bridge where it occurred. An attorney for the defendant, General Motors, noted in the article that there were over 30 other accidents on the night it occurred, and he stated that the accident was caused by the driver losing control of the vehicle and had nothing to do with the ignition switch issue.

Although the plaintiffs were not successful in this particular case, General Motors has settled 1,385 other cases related to the issue for a total of about $275 million, according to the article. Furthermore, the judge who presided over the trial made a statement that the verdict should not be read into too deeply by other possible victims of the issue, and it may not dictate the outcome in other cases.

State Supreme Court Agrees Landowner is Not Responsible for Auto Accident Caused by Tenant’s Escaped Horse

Published on: April 4, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of the state of Vermont recently released a decision affirming a lower court’s ruling that the owner of a piece of property would not be held legally responsible for injuries that were caused in an auto accident after a horse escaped from the owner’s property and was hit by a driver. The plaintiff in the case of Deveneau v. Weilt was injured one night after he was unable to avoid a collision with the animal on a road adjacent to the property from which the horse had escaped. The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against both the owner of the property and the owner of the horse, who was a tenant of the property owner, and sought damages to compensate him for his injuries and other costs that were incurred in the accident.The Horse Owner’s Agreement with the Property Owner to Pasture the Horses

The agreement between the property owner and the tenant concerning the pasturing of horses on the land was an important factor in the court’s decision in this case. According to the Court’s written ruling, the property owner agreed to allow the tenant to pasture two horses on the rented land “on the condition that [the tenant] take responsibility for all care of the horses and maintain a fence to keep them enclosed.” The tenant constructed a temporary electric fence to keep the horses enclosed, which was electrified through solar power, but the owner had no knowledge of the design or construction of the fence. Although the functionality of the fence was not a controlling factor in the court’s decision regarding the landowner’s liability, it had not been determined if the fence was electrified at the time of the collision.