Automobile Accidents

April 30, 2007

Rental Reimbursement vs. Loss of Use

A question that is frequently asked by people who have been in automobile accidents is "What is the difference between rental and loss of use?"  Jonathan G. Stein of the California Personal Injury and Insurance Blog answered this question by using the following illustration:

Okay, so your car is damaged in a car accident. You can't drive it and it is in the shop. You think you are entitled to a rental car (because you read this blog, you know you are entitled to a rental car). But what about loss of use? What the heck do you get?

This is pretty easy. If you were not at fault, the other person's insurance is going to either pay for a rental car or loss of use. In other words, you cannot collect both. However, if you do not rent a car immediately, you can collect loss of use for the days you do not rent a car.

For example, your accident is on day 1; on days 2 through 5, you do not rent a car; on day 6, you rent a car until day 10.  You would get 4 days of loss of use (days 2, 3, 4, and 5) and 5 days of rental (days 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10). Rental is basically what it costs to rent a similar car to what you had. If you had a luxury car, that is what you rent. If you had a Ford Focus, then you rent a compact car.

Loss of use is generally calculated at $20 per day. For some cars, it may be more. It is usually not less. But, the $20 per day number is a good number to start with.

In the above example, you get $80 plus your actual of out pocket rental expense. They will not pay for gas or the extra insurance (which most people do not need anyway), but they will pay for tax and fees.

Source:  "Car Damaged in Accident? - Rental vs. Loss of Use" by David Brannen, published at his Injury Law Blog.

March 16, 2007

Goodyear Cleared of Punitive Damages in Fatal Van Collision

A jury decided that Goodyear tire company must pay $37 million in actual damages in connection with a van accident, but it will not have to pay punitive damages. The plaintiffs wanted punitive damages because they wanted it to go on record that the tire was the reason for the accident. Attorneys for the plaintiffs expect Goodyear will appeal the verdict.

Source:  "Jury Clears Goodyear of Punitive Damages" by Lynnette Curtis, published in the Las Vegas Review Journal.

March 15, 2007

U-Haul Must Pay Damages For Rollover Crash

A woman who was badly injured in a rollover crash involving a U-Haul trailer will receive $2.6 million in damages.  Her lawsuit claimed U-Haul failed to warn customers of the perils of pulling a trailer. The woman was one of three passengers injured in the rollover accident. 

Source:  "Jury Orders U-Haul to Pay $2.6M" by James McNair, published in The Cincinnati Enquirer.

March 02, 2007

Auto Accidents Are Leading Cause of Teenage Deaths

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, motor vehicle accidents contribute to the deaths of 5,500 teenage drivers or passengers each year. The crash rate among 16-year-olds per million miles driven is almost nine times the rate of the general population. The academy has recommended that parents implement a strict driving contract until teenagers demonstrate an ability to drive responsibly. 

Source:  "For Teenagers, the Car is the Danger Zone" by Jane E. Brody, published in The New York Times.

February 27, 2007

Jury Finds School District Liable for Young Girl's Death

A family in CA was awarded $10.3 million in damages for the death of their 6-year-old girl who was struck and killed by a van in her school's parking lot. The Los Angeles Unified School District and the driver of the van were held liable for her death. The jury also found that the district was aware of the parking lot's dangerous conditions prior to the accident. 

Source:  "Jury Orders L.A. Unified to Pay $10.3 Million in Child's Death" by Charles Proctor, published in the Los Angeles Times.

February 17, 2007

Driving Safety :: Cell Phones and Children

The following article was published several months ago at the Southern California Injury Law Blog:

Have you recently been driving on the road and a driver inexplicably changes lanes, or slows or drives in a manner that gives you very little predictability of their next move or action. When you pulled up to their car or saw the person in the window, were you appalled buy the fact that they were oblivious to you and the danger they posed on the road, talking on their cell phone without a care in the world.

Auto cell phone usage has climbed remarkably in the last several years. So destructive can be the accident or injury when these people are distracted, that recent legislation banned certain behavior and requires more use of earpieces and hand free devices. If it gets bad enough, usage in the automobile might be banned altogether.

But driver distraction is not new to most of us. Have you had the same experience as above, but seen the driver turned, looking at or attending to a child in the back seat of their car. Remember, when I was young I could ride in the front seat, within easy reach of my mother’s backhand. Children and air bags do not mix and we now relegate the back of the car as the child’s playground. Which scenario is worse, the cell phone user focused on nothing but their lovely afternoon discussion or the parent distracted by the unruly child.

They both can be damaging and deadly by our experience representing victims of accidents and as reported in the LA times recently. Mr. Frankie Glass was the victim of a head-on collision with a parent, preoccupied and distracted by children in the car. See the article Unruly kids driving parents to deadly distraction, By Ralph Vartabedian.

Shall we legislate that no person can talk to their child while driving, or that all vehicles occupied by children must have a back seat communication device installed, that allows for hands free and forward facing communication?

I suggest that what we really need is a good dose of common sense. But we feel that is not enough. How do we enforce such a simple requirement of other drivers? We feel better if a random number of people get a ticket for being on their cell phone, but no ticket if distracted by their child.

So what shall we do? My experience is that the penalty for injury is too easily washed away by insurance payments. Oh sorry, I have good insurance, does not get the message to others in similar situations. However, suppose that the penalty for causing an accident when distracted on a cell phone or by a child was twice the amount the victim would be entitled to receive, and the penalty would have to be paid from the personal assets of the wrongdoer, and enforced by automatic attachment to a home, a car or job earnings. Sure it gives the victim a windfall but they are the one suffering, not us.

We do this with drunk drivers, revoke their license, heavily fine and revoke insurance, order restitution and the like. The difference is that many of those people are subject to addictions; I bet the average person would get a high dose of common sense when the bite comes upon them.

Until someone agrees, we will simply watch as the number of injuries rises.

Source:  "Cell Phones and Children Are Causing More Auto Accidents Than You Think" by Jim Ballidis, published at the Southern California Injury Law Blog.

February 15, 2007

Insurance Companies Employ "Deny, Delay, Defend" Strategy Toward Automobile Accident Victims

CNN recently conducted an 18 month investigation into the insurance claims practices of America's largest insurers. Not surprisingly, it found what trial lawyers have known for years, the insurance companies put their own profits over the rights of the injured people.  CNN says that "profit ... is the reason companies decided to play hardball in small accidents."

A former Allstate and State Farm employee says that the insurance companies' strategy relies on the three D's -- denying a claim, delaying settlement of the claim, and defending against the claim in court.  This person says, "The profits are good, and as long as the community, the public allows this to occur, the insurance companies will get richer and people ... will not get a fair and reasonable settlement."

You can read the transcript from Anderson Cooper's segment on 360 Degrees about this topic by clicking HERE or the article, "Auto insurers play hardball in minor-crash claims" by Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston by clicking HERE.

Source:  "Delay, Deny, Defend" by William G. Pintas, published at his Chicago Injury Law Blog and "CNN Exposes On Insurance Companies" by Frank Pasternak, published at the Wisconsin Personal Injury Lawyers Blog.

January 17, 2007

Automobile Accident Checklist

Protect Yourself and Others:

  • Drive defensively.
  • Don't drive after drinking.
  • Make sure you and your passengers wear seat belts.
  • Use appropriate and properly installed car seats for small children.
  • Have adequate insurance coverage.

If An Accident Happens:

  • Stop.
  • Help or get help for injured people.
  • Warn motorists (use flares, hazard lights).
  • Call 911 to contact the police or California Highway Patrol if an injury or death occurs.
  • Take notes on the accident — write down information about the other driver and car, witnesses, passengers, accident location and more.
  • Cooperate fully with law officers, but speak with your insurance company or insurance agent and/or lawyer before accepting any blame.

After An Accident:

  • Call or see your physician if you have any health concerns.
  • Report the accident to your insurance company.
  • Report the accident to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
  • Make a claim with your insurance company and/or the other driver's to pay for your injuries and losses.
  • Contact your insurance company and/or a lawyer if you are sued.
  • Contact a lawyer if you need legal advice or assistance in making a claim or in dealing with the insurance company.

You can also download the pamphlet:  What                         Should I Do If I Have an Auto Accident?

Source:  The State Bar of California

January 13, 2007

One View of the Current State of Accident Litigation

What is the current state of accident litigation in our country today?  The following post by Jim Ballidis of the Southern California Injury Law Blog provides good insight into what accident victims and their attorneys encounter in today's world, when he addresses the question:  Are Auto Accident victims ripping off the system?

Auto accident victims have been under siege in the last 9 to 10 years .... It is not an attack you will read about because it is not news worthy, hidden among the issues of our time. It is not a bludgeoning of victims by a sinister character in a mask. It is however every bit as degrading and hurtful. We are denying those injured in an accident the ability to receive fair compensation. Let’s take an example.

A victim is rear-ender by a cell phone preoccupied defendant. The injury is not significant, but still real. It is called soft tissue injury. While there have been countless medical journal articles written about soft tissue injury, that it occurs, that it is painful, that some heal faster than others, one thing is true about it, it is difficult to prove. We usually have no baseline to compare when we talk of loss of range of motion or x-ray changes, because the person has been healthy. It is a diagnosis largely based upon the findings of pain, a “subjective complaint”, and spasms.

We are tired of paying the cost of insurance, so we have asked our insurance companies to lower premiums. In response they have hired, as employees, a slew of lawyers and adjusters to victimize us with their skeptical eye and costly endeavor to grind from the victim the savings we need. The Defendant’s insurance company will hire an expert (One that always says the same thing on their behalf, even if it is not medically accurate) to say this type of injury should not occur, or that the victim over-treated or that the victim is not entitled to go to a certain kind of doctor or take off of work.

Ten years ago, these claims resolved with little fanfare. The focus of most insurance was the payment of reasonable compensation to the injured person. Avoid fraud, but take care of the victim. No so today and here is the rub. Insurance companies have become more than a processor of claims, they dictate to the victim and society what will be acceptable. That role is dangerously unmonitored, since insurance companies can act without any controls. No longer able to be sued for bad faith adjustment of claims, and reporting the insurance commissioner is a joke, they will act as they want.

An attorney out of necessity will process the victim’s claim because the victim cannot work with the rude and belligerent adjuster whose sole job is to save the insurance company a buck at his or her expense. Since the victim must pay an attorney, the reality is they will not be properly compensated. Trial is expensive and jurors are unwilling to take time from their day to hear such cases.

The Defendant could care less. Protected by bankruptcy from large verdicts, provided a defense by his insurance company, and offered “immunity” from his actions like some reality show on TV, he continues to drive while on his cell phone, or whatever the distraction. The victim is left to solve her problem alone.

The point is that Insurance Companies are not good protectors of our rights or the rights of a victim. What shall we do?

Renew liability if the insurance company acts wrongfully in the adjustment of the claim by making them pay the attorney fee if proven. Or how about making the wrongdoers pay for the insurance company behavior. Imagine if the defendant had to pay for the victim’s attorney fees personally. Wouldn’t the defendant then want to see that his insurance company resolved the issue without attorneys? Imagine that --- a fair system to both sides.  What do you think?

Source:  "Are Auto Accident Victims Ripping Off The System?" by Jim Ballidis, posted at the Southern California Injury Law Blog.