Car Accident

Smart Phone Use by Teens While Driving Indicates an Increased Risk of Other Dangerous Behaviors

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

A recently published news report discussing an insurance industry study of teen driving behaviors indicated the unsurprising finding that teen drivers who use their smart phones while driving are more likely to engage in other dangerous driving behaviors as well as be involved in an accident. According to a survey conducted nationwide by State Farm on teens aged 16 to 19 years, over 80% of those surveyed admitted to using their smart phone to make calls, send or read text messages, or even watch videos while behind the wheel. Although a large majority of teen drivers admitted to at least some smart phone use while driving, those who admitted to using their phones the most often also reported being involved in the most accidents.

The Link Between Smart Phone Use and Other Dangerous Driving Behaviors

One interesting finding mentioned in the article is the correlation between teen drivers who use their smart phones while driving and other risky or dangerous driving behaviors that may lead to accidents. Many of the teens who have been involved in an accident and admit to using their phones while driving got into an accident due to causes unrelated to cell phone use.

Notably, the article discusses the results of a self-reported survey, and the respondents may not have been completely forthcoming about their smart phone use while driving or the details of any previous accidents, but a clear and significant pattern remains. Teen drivers who tend to use their smart phones while behind the wheel are also more likely to speed, drive while impaired, and drive without wearing a seatbelt.

Appellate Court Rejects $885,000 Verdict Against Educational Institution in Auto-Pedestrian Accident Case

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

The California Court of Appeals recently published an opinion reversing a jury’s verdict in favor of a 14-year-old boy who was injured in a 2012 auto-pedestrian accident involving an instructor employed by the defendant who was driving home from work when the accident occurred. The lawsuit, which was originally filed against both the driver and his employer, alleged that the employer was liable for the injuries caused by the driver because he was acting within the course of his employment when the crash occurred. Although the verdict against the employer was reversed, the pretrial settlement that the plaintiff reached with the driver of the vehicle will remain in effect to help compensate him for the injuries that were suffered in the crash.

Teen Plaintiff Is Struck by Culinary Instructor as He Returns From Work

The plaintiff in the case of Jorge v. Culinary Institute of America was a boy who was 14 years old when he was struck by a vehicle while walking with his girlfriend and suffered serious injuries. The driver of the car that hit the boy was employed as an instructor at a culinary institute that was operated by the defendant, and he was returning to his home after his workday when he injured the plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed an auto-pedestrian accident claim against both the driver and his employer, arguing that the driver was returning from work “in service of the employer” when the accident occurred. After the jury found that the driver was negligent in causing the accident, his auto insurance company negotiated a $30,000 settlement with the plaintiff before the jury determined the total amount of damages to which the teen was entitled. After the partial settlement was reached, the Culinary Institute was the only remaining defendant in the case and was unable to have the claim against them dismissed.

State Appellate Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Claim of Bad Faith Against Insurance Company in Auto Accident Case

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

One state’s supreme court recently published a decision affirming a district court’s ruling in favor of the defendant in a personal injury claim. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, an insurance company that represented the other driver involved in an accident, had unreasonably rejected her initial claim for damages related to injuries that she suffered in an auto accident. The state supreme court ultimately decided that the defendant had reasonable grounds to challenge the plaintiff’s claim because there were conflicting accounts of the accident itself, as well as the source of the injuries the plaintiff claimed to have suffered in the crash. Although the high court affirmed the ruling favoring the defendant concerning the plaintiff’s bad-faith claim, the plaintiff may still be entitled to compensation from the defendant for her injuries.

The Plaintiff’s Vehicle Is Struck by Another in the Parking Lot of an Apartment Complex

The plaintiff in the case of Holloway v. Direct General Insurance Company is a woman who was involved in an accident with a driver who was insured by the defendant. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff and the other driver gave conflicting accounts of the accident, and police were never called to report on the crash. Although the accident occurred at a low speed, and the damage to the vehicles was relatively minor, the plaintiff allegedly suffered serious injuries from the crash. The plaintiff made a claim with the defendant for $125,000 in damages suffered in the accident.

The Defendant Disputed the Insured Was Responsible for the Collision and Denied the Plaintiff’s Claim

Based on the conflicting accounts of the accident, the defendant denied that the driver it insured was legally responsible for the injuries allegedly suffered by the plaintiff in the crash and eventually denied the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant to obtain the compensation requested in her initial claim, and she also requested additional damages from the defendant, alleging that the defendant unreasonably denied her claim and acted with bad faith.

Court Upholds Verdict in Icy Road Car Accident Case

Published on: September 23, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Alaska recently decided to uphold a jury’s verdict in favor of the defendant in a personal injury claim. The plaintiff had sought damages from the defendant as compensation for injuries that she allegedly suffered in an auto accident caused by the defendant’s failure to stop on an icy road. As a result of the court’s ruling, the plaintiff is unlikely to receive compensation for her personal injury claim.

The Plaintiff’s Vehicle Was Struck From Behind by the Defendant

The plaintiff in the case of Marshall v. Peter is a woman who was allegedly injured when her vehicle was hit by the defendant’s while she waited to perform a left turn. The defendant responded to the complaint and denied that he acted negligently, testifying that he had left adequate space between his vehicle and the plaintiff’s vehicle and that the accident was caused by the icy road conditions. The jury considered the plaintiff’s claims and testimony at trial and decided the defendant was not negligent or responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries.

The Plaintiff Appeals to the Alaska Supreme Court

The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s rulings to the state supreme court, arguing that the claim should not have been rejected by the jury as a matter of law. The appellate court favored the defendant’s arguments, noting that the jury reasonably could have found that the defendant was exercising due care when operating his vehicle and was not negligent in failing to prevent the accident. The Court additionally entered a judgment against the plaintiff for part of the defendant’s attorneys fees after the plaintiff failed to reasonably consider a settlement offer made by the defendant during pre-trial negotiations.

Court Ruling Favors Accident Plaintiff Who Initially Sued the Wrong Defendant

Published on: September 13, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

One state’s supreme court recently published a decision reversing two lower court rulings that had thrown out a car accident case initially filed against the wrong defendant and later amended by the plaintiff to include the actual driver of the other vehicle, but only after the statute of limitations for a personal injury claim had expired. The most recent appellate opinion interpreted the state procedural rules to allow the plaintiff’s claim to proceed against the actual driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident because the plaintiff was reasonably mistaken as to who was in control of the vehicle at the time of the crash. Since the dismissal of the plaintiff’s case has been reversed, the plaintiff’s negligence claim against the driver of the other vehicle will proceed toward a trial or the settlement of the plaintiff’s claim.

The Plaintiff Suffered Injuries After Being Rear-Ended by a Vehicle with Several Occupants

The plaintiff in the case of Sellers v. Kurdilla is a woman who was injured after her vehicle was rear-ended by a pickup truck in January 2010. According to the facts discussed in the recent appellate opinion, the truck contained at least three occupants when the accident occurred. Based on the identification and insurance information that the vehicle’s driver furnished to the plaintiff after the accident, an attorney filed a personal injury claim on her behalf against the vehicle’s owner shortly before the statute of limitations for such a claim expired.

In response to the plaintiff’s lawsuit, the truck’s owner claimed that he was not driving when the accident occurred, although he was riding in the truck. The plaintiff then amended her claim to add the man who was driving the truck as a defendant to her lawsuit, although the amended claim was not filed until after the statute of limitations had expired.

Federal Court Awards Additional Damages to Plaintiff Based On Insurance Company’s Bad Faith

Published on: September 9, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently published an opinion affirming a federal district court’s ruling awarding a plaintiff triple damages in a breach of contract case filed against his insurance company. The plaintiff sued his insurer after the defendant refused to honor an underinsured motorist claim made by the plaintiff after another driver caused a car accident, resulting in injuries to the plaintiff. In addition to the damages initially requested by the plaintiff, the trial jury also awarded him $1.5 million in special damages because of the defendant’s unreasonable delay and denial of his initial claim. Based on the Tenth Circuit ruling affirming the jury’s award, the defendant will be required to pay the full amount to the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff Suffered a Back Injury in an Accident with an Underinsured Driver

The plaintiff in the case of Etherton v. Owners Insurance Company is a Colorado man who was injured in an auto accident in 2009. The at-fault driver was insured with $250,000 worth of liability coverage, although the plaintiff claimed to have suffered at least $1 million in damages from the crash. The plaintiff filed a claim with the defendant, his own insurance company, seeking compensation through his underinsured motorist policy for the $750,000 deficiency between the accident expenses and the other driver’s policy limit. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s claim, noting “serious questions of causation” in the plaintiff’s claim and offering only a $150,000 settlement to handle the issue. After subsequent negotiations failed, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant to enforce the insurance policy.

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.