The Harper Law Blog
The Harper Law Blog offers news, announcements, thoughts and articles on life, law and our practice areas of emphasis.
Young Lawyer Gets 36.1 Million Dollar Verdict
Posted Wednesday, February 17, 2010 by Sue Fowler, PI Paralegal.
The article that follows is a quick read ~ and a great example of why personal injury trial lawyers catch a bad “rap”. All that the media ever reports is the verdict! They don’t explain the precipitating facts ~ that the insurance company refused to offer a penny for years, leaving the injured person and his family to suffer in every way, including financially, simply because of their greed. THIS is why juries occasionally come back with huge verdicts. It’s because they WANT to punish the insurance companies for their greed. If the insurance companies would be remotely reasonable, paying injured people what they should from the massive premiums they take from all of us, cases wouldn’t even need to go to trial. Going (and even the preparation for going) to trial is a nasty, super expensive, horribly stressful situation – not something anyone, let alone an injured person, ever wants to endure. But the insurance companies typically leave no choice.
_____________________________________________________________
“Truth and love turned out to be a powerful 1-2 combination for trial attorney Nick Rowley. At the age of 32, Rowley has tried 59 cases and seen hundreds of settlements. In his most recent case, tried with colleagues Alejandro Blanco and Daniel Rodriguez, truth and love meant a $31.5 million verdict for a single plaintiff. Rocio Landeros, age 16, suffered a brain injury with resulting left sided hemi paresis (weakness and foot drop). The defendant driver was a farm worker who was drunk and admitted liability, but the insurer refused to pay out. For 25 months the insurer would not offer a penny. After years of battling, the insurer offered to settle the case for policy limits, but Rowley, Blanco & Rodriguez had other ideas. They turned the Insurer Fireman’s Fund down, saying “the settle-for-policy-limits-train left the station- we promised we would take you to trial.” They marched into a month-long trial knowing that the insurer risked a potential bad faith suit if the plaintiffs won in excess of the $10 million policy limit. The jury returned a more than triple verdict of $36.1 million for the plaintiffs.”
Pedestrian struck by car has ability to access personal injury protection benefits of the striking vehicle
Posted Friday, February 05, 2010 by Ed Harper.
An often overlooked provision in a motor vehicle insurance policy is the benefits a pedestrian is entitled to upon being struck by a vehicle. A pedestrian, (a person afoot – which includes a wheelchair and bicyclists) who may or not have their own vehicle can rightfully make a claim under the striking vehicle’s insurance policy. This provides first party benefits for the pedestrian.
Personal injury protection (PIP) extends no-fault coverage for medical expenses, income continuation, loss of services, and funeral expenses incurred by an individual due to bodily injuries suffered in an automobile collision. RCW 48.22.095 mandates the minimum levels of PIP benefits that may be offered.
This allows another lay of coverage for the injured person. If one is fortunate to have their own PIP coverage from their own auto insurance policy, this would provide a second layer of coverage. Then, once the PIP benefits have been exhausted from all auto insurance policies, health insurance coverage or government health care benefits would arise and provide coverage.
Premises LIability - Highest Duty of Care owed to an Invitee
Posted Friday, January 15, 2010 by Ed Harper.
A possessor of land is obligated, to varying degrees, to those who come upon his or her land. The level of obligation is determined by the “status” or connection with the land. This is somewhat an antiquated legal perspective, and many other states do not abide by this common law distrinction. One is either an invitee, a licensee, or a trespasser.
Of the three different levels, the highest degree of care is owed to an invitee – one who is invited onto the premises, either by express or implied permission, to enter or remain on land for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with the business dealings of the possessor of the land. Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 432.
Thus, the occupier must warn of latent dangers (aka hidden dangers) and to affirmatively protect the invitee against dangers in the condition of the premises about which the landowner knows or should reasonably have known.
Duty to investigate - onus is on the insurance company to do it correclty
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 by Ed Harper.
Insurance companies have a duty to investigate a crash. They have an obligation to do it quickly and without a detrimental impact on their insured – the person who is covered by the insurance. Thus, when investigating a claim, their sole obligation is to protect or cover their own insured – and not protect or insure the claimant.
However, an insurance company representative may try and persuade you/the claimant into believing your have a mutual interest. Stating things like “we provide better claims handling” or “you are our customer and we are here to serve you” are untruthful statements. Their interests are not your interests. Promises of “your in good hands” or “like a good neighbor” do no apply to their adversary – you the claimant. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, in Washington, in a recent case determined by the Court of Appeals, Allstate was implicated in the unlawful practice of law when the Allstate representative insisted a family had no other recourse but to accept what she was offering. The claim arose from a roll-over crash wherein a Ford vehicle (Aerostar) rolled over and the family suffered catastrophic injuries. The family relied upon the forceful presentation of Allstate’s insurance money, as the only money they could expect in this claim. In exchange for the $25,000 the family had to sign a release of all claims. This caused the family to lose joint and several liability against Ford Motor Company for a claim that had a value far in excess of the $25,000.
The courts were not pleased with what Allstate had done through their representative. Allstate ultimately paid the entire amount of the value of the claim, more than $1,000,000 for their illegal conduct.
A claimant can expect a claim offer for property damage to be resolved within 30 days. Here in the State of Washington there is a requirement that when liability is clear, the property damage claim should be resolved within this time frame. However, you do not have to go to the insurance company’s suggested property damage repair shops – but you can expect to have this completed on an expedited bases. Thus, in sum, the insurance company is not going to be looking out for your best interests and you have to be aware of this before you sign on the dotted line.
Insurance Co. using credit scores to determine insurance rates
Posted Thursday, November 05, 2009 by Ed Harper.
I am a big proponent of not utilizing debt to secure the items we want. That is why the growth of big government and their wasteful practices with our tax dollars is so frustrating. Also, when consumers are penalized for not carrying debt, it is upsetting to me.
Insurance is set up for the greater common good by spreading out the risk of catastrophe to the many. It is a social mechanism designed to protect consumers – not take advantage of them. Insurance helps us in two ways – We are either the recipients of catastrophe (I’m trying not to say victims) or as citizens who are liable for the negligence of our actions.
Thus, insurance is to provide some comfort in the time of need. It is in all of our interests for others to be well insured. Insurance should be affordable and available to all. However, insurance companies recently have utilized credit ratings to raise or in a rare case lower insurance premiums. Many of us Dave Ramsey fans, of less debt being better debt, often pay the penalty by having not-so-good credit ratings because of the lack of debt.
Just because one has a good credit history does not mean they have a good credit score. Insurers should not penalize individuals who do not use debt to raise their insurance premiums. Next time I shop for my automobile insurance and homeowners insurance, I will be sure to ask if the proposal carries with it a credit score check.
Contact Harper Law, PLLC if you have any insurance questions or concerns.
‹‹ Newer Entries | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | Older Entries ››
We Are Here to Help
Although our office does not handle all types of cases, we hope you will contact us regarding any legal issues you may encounter. We will answer your questions, or refer you to another quality and trustworthy attorney if we are unable to assist you.
