Minimal Liability for Auto Insurers in Nevada

      This post is a follow up to the previous post discussing the situation where a driver does not cooperate with their insurance company. Since that topic covered some issues, I think it would be helpful to go into more specifics. One important point of discussion is the minimal liability in Nevada. In Nevada NRS 485.185 sets out that all drivers must have a policy of at least $15,000 per person and $30,000 per vehicle to cover bodily injury or death.
      Another important issue topic is that of absolute liability. NRS 485.3091(5)(a) sets out that an insurance company has complete liability whenever injury or damage occurs to another driver as far as the requirement to pay at least in the amount of minimum required coverage, which is as of this time $15,000 per person, and $30,000 per vehicle despite any statements that are made by the person covered under the insurance policy. So this means that if person who is covered under the insurance policy is found to be at fault for an accident then their insurance company will be required to pay out at least the statutory minimum amount of insurance despite what statements their insured makes.
    The Nevada Supreme Court just ruled on this issue in Torres v. Nev. Direct Ins. Co., 131 Nev.Adv.Rep.54, 2015 Nev. LEXIS 61 (July 30, 2015). Basically in that case an insurance company argued that they should not have to pay anything to a person who was injured by their insured another drive who is found not be at fault in an auto accident because their insured did not cooperate with them or give them a statement. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the insurance company is still required to pay out the minimum policy limits in Nevada regardless of whether or not the driver under their policy cooperates.
    So at least $15,000 per person and $30,000 per vehicle will be available for someone who is wrongfully injured by someone else who has an automobile insurance policy, even if that person does not cooperate with their insurance company. There may also be more money available depending on the particular situation.

If your or someone you know has been injured in a auto accident please visit our main website at www.accidentawardslasvegas.com or call us at 702-343-0494.

Insurance Companies in Nevada are always responsible when their insured cause an accident that is their fault

      It happens occasionally that when someone drives their car negligently and hits someone else causing them injury they will not notify their insurance company about it. This is a big problem because the main reason for having automobile insurance is that the insurance company will pay for it if one of their insured causes injury to someone else with their vehicle. Although the insurance company doesn't always pay out everything for a case depending on how big the policy is, this is what happens in the overwhelming majority of these situations.
    The problem is that if the insurance company is not notified of an accident, they can't take the steps necessary to handle the claim, and make sure the case gets resolved. Ideally, an insurance company will resolve a case before their insured has to get personally involved in it. Most of the time they can avoid having their insured be sued by settling the claim quickly and fairly.
    The good news is that the insurance company will still be responsible for paying out under the policy if their insured driver was at fault for the accident, even if the driver does not notify them. This has been clearly set out in the Nevada Statutes, and confirmed by the Nevada Supreme Court this year. So as long as the person that caused the accident has an insurance policy, that insurance policy must pay out.

If you or anyone you know has been involved in an accident please visit our website at http://www.accidentawardslasvegas.com or call our number at 702-343-0494.

STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS

     A structured settlement is basically where a settlement or award is given out in increments instead of being given out all at once. Usually an insurance company is used for these. These payments can be made either weekly, monthly or other such period as the client agrees on.
     The benefits of a structured settlement are that it can act like an annuity or retirement for a client to get periodic payments rather than one lump sum. It can essentially be used as a supplemental income. There can also be some tax advantages to doing a structured settlement that a tax advisor could elobarate on based on each person's unique circumstances.
     A structured settlement can also be especially helpful for minors who may not be able to handle a relatively large sum of money after turning 18. For all of these reasons a structured settlement is something that should be discussed with an attorney after receiving an award, and it is important that clients are aware of this option.

Expenses of going to Trial

       One thing that I asked about often as a personal injury attorney is how much it will cost to go to trial. Going to trial can be pretty expensive. The biggest expense with trial is hiring expert witnesses. In cases where the Defendant denies that they are at fault you usually are required to hire expert witness that can show that the Defendant is at fault. The price for such a witness can add up. Typically they charge at least one hundred dollars an or more, often times much more for their testimony. You not only have to pay them this rate for their testimony at trial but also for their report which lays out their opinion. This report usually takes several hours to complete, and their bill will rack up that whole time.
    However, the most expensive expert witness is almost always a doctor, and most personal injury cases will require a doctor to give expert testimony. These doctors typically charge about 500 hundred dollars an hour for their time, and they must give an expert report. That is why getting a doctor for personal injury case is usually the biggest expense of taking a case to trial.
   On top of the expert witness costs there are numerous other costs such as court costs like filing fees, and the costs of doing depositions, etc. This is one reason why most personal injury cases settle. Neither side wants to keep paying these expenses. These expenses are a very important factor to be taken into consideration when the decision to file a lawsuit or settle a case is being made.


Check out our website at www.accidentawardslasvegas.com for more information on personal injury cases.

Employer's liability for employees purposeful actions

One interesting area of personal injury concerns where someone is injured by the intentional acts of an Employee of a business while they are on the job. If an employee injures a member of the public by his or her own intentional conduct then the business itself can be held responsible for the injury. The Nevada Legislature passed NRS 41.745, which is used to determine if an employer can be held liable for the intentional actions of an employee. This statute states that 1. an employer is not liable for harm or injury caused by the intentional conduct of an employee if the conduct of the employee: a) Was a truly independent venture of the employee; b) was not committed in the course of the very task assigned to the employee; and c) was not reasonably foreseeable under the facts and circumstances of the case considering the nature and scope of his or her employment.
So determining whether the employer is liable or not basically comes down to how far the action deviated from the performance or duties of the job. For example, a bouncer beating up a customer at a bar when there was no justification to do so, would probably create liability for the business owner. This is because the bouncer is hired to use force to protect other customers or the business, so using force to wrongfully harm someone is close enough to the job task, and it is foreseeable to the business owner that this may occur. Overall, whether an employer will be liable for the acts of an employee is usually a contentious issue and really depends on the facts of each individual case.

The Short Trial Program in Nevada

In 1999 the Short Trial Program was first enacted in Nevada. Since then it has become mandatory in certain cases. For personal injury cases it will be used for cases that are deemed to have a total value of less than $50,000 or if the parties agree to be in the Short Trial Program. Trials in the Short Trial Program can only last one day in length and have less jurors than a typical trial, and also less strict rules of evidence. However, the only problem with the Short Trial Program for Personal Injury cases is that Personal Injury Attorneys need more time to basically explain to the Jury that most personal injury claims are not fraudulent and that the Plaintiff is not faking injuries to get money. This is especially true for these smaller cases where the damage to the vehicles in the accident are not that great. Unfortunately, the public has this general perception that in many of these cases the Plaintiff is exaggerating their injuries or even making them up. This is not true at all. So few of these cases are like that its not even worth considering. However, the insurance industry spends vast sums of money convincing the public otherwise, and it is working. So for that reason I try to avoid the Short Trial Program when possible. Sometimes it may not be possible to avoid it though and this is a tough situation that you must be prepared to face. In these situations you just have to prepare as best you can and do as much as possible to try to weed out the members who will be on the jury.  Although the Short Trial Program may be great for certain types of cases it is not suited for personal injury cases at all.

How cell phones have affected personal injury cases

THE USE OF CELL PHONES HAS DRAMATICALLY CHANGED LITIGATION IN PERSONAL INJURY CASES

      Because cell phone use has become so common on roadways. It is becoming increasingly commonplace for attorneys to check the cell phone records of drivers involved in an accident. This is yet another reason why talking or especially texting on a cell phone is such a bad idea. If you were using your cell phone near the time of an accident you were involved in, there will be a presumption that you were not paying attention to the road and were at fault for the accident. On the other hand if you were in an accident and you believe someone was using a cell phone before the accident you will most likely be able to get their cell phone records and prove it. Therefore, it is very important to be aware that while driving if you use your cell phone this can be easily traced back to you.Another issue with cell phones is that sometimes people may use a “burner,” which is a cellphone that is bought with pre-paid minutes and its usage can’t be shown with records from the phone company.

If you or anyone you know has been involved in accident that was not your fault give our law firm a call at (702) 521-3794 or visit our website at www.accidentawardslasvegas.com.

Discount on hospital bills for people who do not have health insurance

NRS 439.260 allows for people who do not have insurance to have their hospital bills reduced by 30%. This law makes sense because Insurance companies routinely pay a discounted amount to hospitals for services that their insured receive. For a person to be eligible for this discount they must not have an insurance at the time of the hospitalization. So even if they get insurance after they leave the hospital they can still qualify for this discount. Unfortunately, even a 30% discount is still going to be less than the typical discount an insurance company will get for one of its insured. However, this will still go a long way in helping to settle a case and to make sure that the client ends up with a good amount of money at the end of the case. When a case has settled or a Trial Award has been rendered, we then need to pay back the medical providers that the client has treated with. At our law firm making sure that our clients end up with as much as money as possible is our number one priority. To do this we try to negotiate the amounts owed to medical providers so that our clients pay the least amount possible so that they end up with more money in their pocket. If you have been injured due to another person's actions please call us at 343-0494 for a free consultation or visit our main website at www.accidentawardslasvegas.com

Standard for Self Serve Businesses

Slip and fall cases involving self serve restaurants and other businesses are required to ensure that customers do not create dangerous conditions for other customers. This is arguably a high standard because it means that employees of a business should regularly check the premises to see if a customer left something on the floor that someone could slip on or some other hazard like that. In these types of businesses, employees may have to take extra steps to ensure the safety of customers because some members of the public can be especially careless and pose a danger to other customers.
This differs from other types of businesses that are not self serve because in those cases it can be very difficult to prove that the business is at fault for something that another customer did. In those cases it is much easier to prove fault when an employee has created a dangerous condition.
So if you were injured in a self service type restaurant like a buffet or other self service type business it is good to keep in mind that it may be easier to prove the business was at fault as long as you can show the employees were not taking the proper precautions to keep the business safe.

Article that shows the importance of modern safety features in Cars

This article from the Moose Jaw Times Herald titled:
Mexico's booming car industry sells unsafe cars at home, safe ones for export to US, Europe Published on November 28, 2013

Explains how Mexico doesn't incorporate the same Safety standards at home as it does for cars it exports overseas, and the effect that this is having on Mexico. This excerpt from the article explains this in some detail "In 2011, nearly 5,000 drivers and passengers in Mexico died in accidents, a 58 per cent increase since 2001, according to the latest available data from the country's transportation department. Over the same decade, the U.S. reduced the number of auto-related fatalities by 40 per cent. The death rate in Mexico, when comparing fatalities with the size of the car fleet, is more than 3.5 times that of the U.S." This article further explains "The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said air bags and electronic stability control have prevented tens of thousands of injuries in auto accidents and reduced fatal crashes by as much as a third in the U.S."

This goes to show how important it is take advantage of safety features to prevent injuries on the road. If you or anyone you know has been involved in a car accident please call our law firm at 343-0494 or visit our main website at www.accidentawardslasvegas.com  

Article about injuries from horses

 

Local News

Are Horses “Naturally. . . Vicious?”

September 23, 2013 6:38 PM

 

Filed under

Court, Local News, News

Related tags

horses, Supreme Court

STEPHEN SINGER
Associated Press

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — After a horse named Scuppy bit a boy in the face, a Connecticut court came to a conclusion that threw animal lovers: Horses are a naturally vicious species.
Horse owners and farmers are mobilizing as the state Supreme Court hears an appeal in the case Tuesday. Such a classification — the nation’s first, if it stands — would make owning horses uninsurable and jeopardize the state’s sizable horse industry, farmers and horse owners say.
“You could not pair children and horses, the core equestrian business nationwide that it’s all about,” said Doug Dubitsky, a lawyer who represents farmers and horse businesses.
When the boy tried to pet the horse at Glendale Farms in Milford in 2006, according to court papers, the animal stuck his neck out from behind a fence and bit the child on his right cheek, “removing a large chunk of it.”
In February 2012, the mid-level Appellate Court overturned a lower court ruling and said that testimony by Timothy Astriab, whose family owns the farm, demonstrated that Scuppy belongs to “a species naturally inclined to do mischief or be vicious.”
Although he had no knowledge of Scuppy biting anyone before, Astriab testified that Scuppy was no different than other horses that would bite if a finger was put in front of him. “Significantly, Astriab acknowledged his concern that if someone made contact with Scuppy, whether to pet or feed him, they could get bit,” the justices said.
The injury suffered by the boy was foreseeable and the owners of the farm had a duty to use reasonable care to restrain the animal to prevent injury, the Appellate Court ruled.
Astriab did not return a call on Monday seeking comment.
If allowed to stand, Connecticut would be the first state to consider horses as inherently dangerous, said Dubitsky.
Horse farmers and equine enthusiasts, who cite 2005 statistics saying that the horse industry contributes about $221 million a year to the state’s economy in boarding, training, lessons and breeding businesses, are asking the state Supreme Court to overturn the Appellate Court’s decision. The Connecticut Farm Bureau and Connecticut Horse Council filed a friend of the court brief saying that under common law viciousness generally is judged individually according to age, breed and gender, not as an entire species.
Fred Mastele, acting president of the state’s horse council, said it is encouraging horse owners to attend the hearing Tuesday and support the Astriab family.
“In our opinion, horses are not vicious animals,” he said. “They are certainly not attack animals.”
Astriab had won at a lower court in 2010, when a New Haven judge sided with the horse’s owner and ruled that the child’s father, Anthony Vendrella Sr., failed to prove the owner knew of previous incidents of aggression by Scuppy.
The Superior Court judge said Astriab testified that neither he nor anyone else had ever seen Scuppy bite a person before and that in 28 years, none of the horses at the farm bit or injured anyone.
“Cats have a tendency to scratch and horses have a tendency to bite, but the plaintiffs have failed to show, as they must, that the defendants were on notice that Scuppy specifically, and not horses generally, had a tendency to bite people or other horses,” Judge Robin Wilson ruled.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

This is a great article found on CBS Connecticut. It is a good illustration of some of the issues there are with lawsuits coming from recreational activities. Although in this article the injury happened from a child being bitten by a horse while petting it, this case can have a big impact on the liability of many business that run horse riding operations and other business like that where the public interacts with horses. Now the general rule in most jurisdictions is that a person assumes the risk of an activity like horseback riding and mere negligence is not enough to prevail in a personal injury suit against a business owner engaged in a business like this. However, if a Court rules that horses are inherently dangerous then this will hold businesses that run horse riding operations and other such operations that have horses to a higher standard of care. I have gone horseback riding myself, and I know how dangerous an activity it can be so it will be interesting to see how this case turns out when the Connecticut State Supreme Court rules on it. 

Article about a case in Ireland from the Herald.ie where an unborn baby was given an award for damages

Girl gets €18k for injuries as a baby

Ray Managh – 11 October 2013 02:30 PM

A BABY, who was injured in a car accident two days before she was born, has been awarded just under €18,000 in the Circuit Civil Court for personal injury damages.

Judge Matthew Deery heard that Aoife Sheehan, now aged 14, was still in the womb when the accident in which she was injured occurred in April 1999.
Barrister John Martin said Aoife's mother, Martina Sheehan, was pregnant and driving her car when another car crashed into her at Templeroan Road, Rathfarnham, Dublin.

Induced
He said the crash had induced an early onset of labour which had resulted in a pre-term birth leading to Aoife having immediately suffered respiratory distress syndrome.
Mr Martin told Judge Deery that within hours of birth the child had been admitted to intensive care in the Coombe Hospital.
By the evening of the birth, April 15, 1999, the severity of her respiratory distress had increased and mechanical ventilation had to be initiated.
Aoife, through her mother Martina, who lives at Scholarstown Road, Rathfarnham, had sued the owner of the other car involved in the crash, Elaine O'Connor of Orlagh Rise, Scholarstown Road.
Mr Martin said the defendants had proffered a settlement of €15,000 general damages together with €2,800 special damages and he was recommending approval of the offer by the court.
Judge Deery, approving the settlement, accepted there could be substantial difficulties with liability, given the medical evidence available to the child's legal team.
hnews@herald.ie



Despite the fact that this article took place in Ireland this shows how a Plaintiff can be compensated for injuries that may not be apparent to most people. Although in this case the unborn baby was actually awarded the damages, I can see how an argument can be made that the mother would be entitled to compensation for the complications of her pregnancy. This case is also a good illustration of the complexities that arise when dealing with children, babies, and pregnant women in personal injury cases. There are extra steps and procedures that must be followed in these cases. That is why it is important to hire a law firm with experience in such matters. Our law firm has handled several such cases.
 Please visit our website at www.accidentawardslasvegas.com.

A recent case that illustrates liability for further injuries that occur after an initial injury

Nebraskan's lawsuit alleges Wal-Mart's plastic bag broke, leading to fatal injury to his wife

By Associated Press

5:25 a.m. CDT, August 28, 2013

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — An eastern Nebraska man has sued Wal-Mart, saying the failure of an overfilled

plastic shopping bag led to the death of his wife.

The Lincoln Journal Star reports (http://bit.ly/17jlnjJ) that the Sarpy County lawsuit filed by William Freis, of Plattsmouth, has been moved to U.S. District Court in Omaha.

---

The lawsuit says the bag failed on April 16, 2010, outside a Wal-Mart store in Bellevue. A can inside fell onto the right big toe of Freis' wife, Lynette, breaking and cutting it. The lawsuit says the injuries led to an infection that spread through her body "and ultimately resulted in her death on March 12, 2011."

The lawsuit seeks more than $656,000.

A Wal-Mart spokesman declined to directly comment on the lawsuit's allegations.

___

Information from: Lincoln Journal Star, http://www.journalstar.com 

 

 

This article above, which was reported in KSPR abc 33 News gives a good example of a lawsuit where one injury occurs, which then leads to another injury that is possibly more serious. In this case the woman suffered a severe infection from a cut, which is rare, and not usually expected. However, it is generally the case that the person or entity whose negligence caused the harm to the person will be liable for all the injuries they suffered as a result of that harm even if the later injuries suffered after the initial injury occurred seem unlikely or are hard to predict. Basically the reason for this is that it is a good policy to hold the person or entity responsible for all injuries suffered from their negligence because otherwise the burden of paying for treatment of the injury and other aspects of the injury will fall on the injured person or society at large. Therefore, it is just fair that the person who caused the harm should pay. This policy makes sense even though it may seem a little hard to see how some harm that comes to a person after the initial injury will be part of the injured person's original case.

THE DANGERS OF BOATING

All the news recently about the Bride to be and the best man that were killed in a boating accident shows just how dangerous boating can be. Although people don't really think of boating as dangerous it definitely can be, and this is one reason why boating accidents occur. Many people think if they are just going out on the open water driving a boat it is okay to have a few drinks. These same people may not do the same when it comes to driving a car. Well the problem is that operating a boat in the water can be more tricky that driving a car in the street given how difficult it can be to maneuver, and all the hidden dangers that can be in the water.
Even though it may appear to most people that they are unlikely to hit another boat with all the open water there are so many dangers in the water that it is not any safer or easier to operate boat than a car. That is why it is never a good idea to have a few drinks before operating a boat. Accidents in lakes and oceans caused by drunk boaters occurs a lot more often than people realize, and when they do they are often very severe and end up in death or permanent injuries. Our law firm has experience with these types of cases, and we realize how serious the injuries from boating accidents can be. That is why it is important to operate boats with at least the same amount of care you would use in operating a car or other vehicle, and not let your guard down because you think it's large open water and somehow safer.

If you have been the victim of a boating accident please call me at 521-3794 or visit our website at:

www.accidentawardslasvegas.com

INSURANCE COMPANIES AND SETTLING CASES

I have noticed for some reason that many times insurance companies will not settle a case until after a lawsuit has been filed, and the case has been in litigation for a while. This seems to be a huge waste to me because after spending a lot of time and money fighting out a case in Court we often end up settling for the same amount that would have settled at the beginning of a case. Often times the client and us would have happily taken the amount we ultimately settled for at the beginning of the case. However, the insurance company will often deny liability for any number of dubious reasons, and refuse to pay us anything, so we just go ahead and file a lawsuit. If these insurance companies only agreed to settle in the beginning it would  save everyone involved a lot of time and money. This shows me that some insurance companies should definitely re-evaluate the way they do business.

If you believe you have a personal injury claim please call 521-3794 to speak to me directly or visit our website at:

www.accidentawardslasvegas.com

Automatic Door Injuries

       Injuries that come from an automatic door can be quite complex. People are sometimes injured when an automatic door slams shut on them while they are passing through. Although it seems like the building owner should be at fault for the injury, and bringing a case like this should be easy it is anything but. This is because with automatic doors and similar machinery there will almost always be different companies that installed the door, have done repairs on the door, and/ or did maintenance on the door. Then it can become a complicated issue trying to determine what caused the door to malfunction. Experts may be hired to try to determine this. Then several companies may have to be brought into the lawsuit because it can't be determined who exactly is at fault for what happened.
     Because so much is involved with these cases they require a dedicated, and knowledgeable attorney. So if an injury like this ever happens to you or someone you know be sure to give our law firm a call.

Interesting article about a man shot on a toilet

Below is a very interesting article published in The Southeast Texas Record.

Man shot while on toilet sues Remington

November 2, 2012 1:32 PM
By David Yates

A hunter who was shot while sitting on the toilet at a hunting club two years ago has filed suit against Remington Arms, alleging the rifle that shot him had misfired.

Watts

Chad and Dusky Hall filed suit against Remington on Oct. 29 in Jefferson County District Court.
According to the lawsuit, on Oct. 23, 2010, Chad Hall and Michael Biesiada were hunting at the Cedar Creek Hunting Club in Trinity County. Around 5:30 a.m., Biesiada, while in his cabin, began to check his Remington 700 to determine if the rifle was loaded.
“When Biesiada touched the handle of the bolt, the rifle discharged and the bullet traveled through the wall,” the suit states. “Chad was sitting on the commode when the bullet … exploded through the wall.
“Chad heard the explosion and glimpsed debris flying and immediately attempted to avoid injury by pushing himself off the commode … however, when Chad put his right hand on his right thigh, (the hand) entered a hole in his right quadriceps that extended from nearly his knee to his torso.”
Chad was rushed to hospital and underwent multiple surgeries.
He currently suffers from nightmares and flashbacks about the shooting, resulting in depression and lose of hope for the future, the suit states.
The suit further alleges Remington is strictly liable to the Halls for designing, manufacturing and placing into the stream of commerce a defective rifle.
On top of exemplary damages, Hall is suing for his alleged past and future medical expenses, mental anguish, pain, impairment, disfigurement and lost wages, plus all court costs.
Houston attorney Joseph Watts of Adair & Myers represents the plaintiffs.
Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court, is assigned to the case.


This article touches on a controversial area of the law, which is lawsuits stemming from guns mis-firing. It can be difficult to prove that the gun misfired rather than someone just mis-used the gun.This can be especially true for cases involving more powerful guns and attachments. That is why these cases will often come down to the testimony of a gun expert. This case also shows that an injury can occur anywhere, even where you least expect it. So be careful out there!

Case No. E193-495

Medicare Liens

When a person is injured and they have Medicare coverage it can make for a difficult situation. That is because Medicare is entitled to be reimbursed for any expenses it paid for the medical expenses of someone who is injured and is covered by Medicare. The problem with is that Medicare often tries to claim that it is entitled to far more expenses than it ever actually paid for an injury. Often times when somebody is injured they may have other health problems as well that are not related to the injury, and continue to treat these problems along with their injury. It seems common for Medicare to then try to claim that it should be reimbursed for all medical treatment given to the person at a certain time even if it is not related to their injury. Medicare has no right to do this, and is only allowed to be reimbursed for the medical expenses incurred as a direct result from an accident or injury. However, Medicare will still make these claims, and then these claims must be disputed. It is a long arduous process disputing these claims with Medicare because of the size of this agency, and the long slow process you must go through. Although negotiating the lien amount with Medicare is a difficult and very time consuming process, at Reed & Mansfield we will go through this process, and make every effort to keep the lien as small as possible so that our clients can ultimately get more money from their case.

Why trying to handle a car accident case by yourself is not a good idea

It seems like more people are trying to handle car accident cases on their own because they think that they can get the same result that a lawyer can. Well this is a big mistake for several reasons.
The first reason is that many people severely underestimate how much is actually involved when negotiating a settlement with an insurance company stemming from a car accident. When you negotiate one of these cases with an insurance adjustor you need to be able to present your case properly, and with the constant threat that you will bring a credible lawsuit if a decent settlement is not reached. Without an attorney an insurance adjustor may offer you something out of the fear that you will come back with an attorney and be able to present a credible case. However, the insurance company will offer you a much lower settlement amount than if you had an attorney. I have spoken to people who have taken what the insurance companies have offered in these kinds of situations when they did not get an attorney, and the amount offered by the insurance company is a mere fraction of what they would have been able to get if they had an attorney represent them. The ironic thing is that people actually think they are saving money by not getting an attorney, and giving up a percentage of their settlement to an attorney. What they don't realize is that they would actually end up with more money in their own pocket if they hired an attorney because the much higher settlement, or award if a lawsuit is filed, that an attorney would be able to get in the end will net the person significantly more money even after the attorney's fees are taken out of the settlement.
This is true considering that most attorney's take a 1/3 contingency fee for a car accident case. However, this is especially true when a client comes to us because we will only take a 25% fee for a car accident case where the police report states that the other driver is fault. This 25% does not go up if we file a lawsuit either.
Overall, when an insurance company deals with someone without an attorney they know that they will have to pay much less than if the person has an attorney or even nothing at all. They also know that the person will be stuck with whatever they offer because if that person ever tried to file a lawsuit on their own, the insurance company knows that they will almost certainly lose. Filing a lawsuit, any lawsuit, is a complex process that a non-attorney should never try on their own. When a lawsuit is filed there are so many procedures and rules that have to be followed correctly that someone without the proper legal training would not be able to follow these properly and have the lawsuit dismissed on technical grounds.I suspect that some people watch t.v. and think that the court cases they see on t.v. where witnesses are presented at the day of trial, and everything is slapped together at the last minute are an accurate representation of how real lawsuits are handled. Well nothing can be further from the truth. Most of an attorney's time when litigating a case is just preparing the case, and gathering and presenting evidence properly. For each hour an attorney will spend in a Court arguing a case, at least several more hours are spent preparing the case properly. All the while all the rules and proper procedures must be followed strictly. Someone who thinks that they can just stand up before a judge or arbitrator, and make a pretty speech and win a case will be in for a quite a shock.
On the other hand if a person has an attorney and the insurance company is not offering a fair settlement then the attorney can just file a lawsuit, and often times get much more money in the end than what was offered by the insurance company. For someone without an attorney this is almost certain to not be the case. Therefore, there is really no good reason not to get an attorney, and getting an attorney will almost certainly get you more money in the end. This is especially true if someone comes to our law firm, The law firm of Reed & Mansfield, with our 25% contingency fee for auto accident cases where the other driver is found to be at fault.

Daily Herald Article

Elmhurst to pay $4.16 million in personal injury suit

• Article
• Comments (0)

text size: AAA

• Share Facebook Twitter
• E-mail
• Order reprint
• Print

By Daily Herald Report

A DuPage County jury on Friday found that the city is liable in the Nov. 12, 2009, accident in which Joshua Jaeger was hurt.

Jaeger was injured while on a city forklift platform that fell from 16 feet in the air. Jaeger was at the city’s public works garage, 985 S. Riverside, to provide an estimate for a broken garage door. Due to the fall, Jaeger said he fractured his leg and injured his back, according to his lawyer Joshua Weisberg of Rapoport Law Offices, P.C.

Advertisement

According to Jaeger’s lawyer, the jury on Friday awarded the plaintiff $1.86 million for lost earning capacity, $1.3 million for pain and suffering and $1 million for loss of a normal life.

Weisberg said the verdict is a DuPage County record for a nonmedical malpractice personal injury verdict 

This article from the Daily Herald touches on an interesting issue. That is one of sovereign immunity. Some local city and state governments have made themselves immune from lawsuits so that they can't be sued. However, it seems clear that the City of Elmhurst has no such immunity. That is why it is always important to check to see if a local government or state government has made itself immune from a lawsuit if you were injured from the result of some government action or where the government was involved in some manner.