Accident and Injury Law Blog

A Jury Verdict Research study found that the median award in Minnesota in personal injury cases is an even $30,000. Minnesota personal injury plaintiffs receive an award in 67 percent of cases that go to trial.

The median compensation in Minnesota is somewhat below the national median of $38,179 and I suspect Minneapolis, St. Paul and Rochester verdicts inflate that average a bit. But because Minnesota has no fault coverage (or PIP) in car accident cases up to $40,000 ($20,000 for medical bills and $20,000 for economic loss) that is subject to the collateral source rule, Minnesota personal injury lawyers tend to few small cases in Minnesota. In other words, Minnesota law provides that personal injury awards are offset by collateral source payments (if the source of reimbursement does not have a subrogation right). So the gap between the Minnesota median verdict and the national median verdict is probably wider than the numbers reflect. Not surprisingly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found Minnesota juries to be the "15th best" which means the 15th worst for personal injury victims.

Interestingly, Minnesota personal injury recovery probability is 67% compared to the national average of 53%. I would think that the fewer amount of smaller claims would lead to a lower recovery probability because Minnesota personal injury lawyers bring less smaller cases which typically do not involve a liability dispute which you would think would actually lower the recovery probability. Accordingly, it is fair to infer from the data that Minnesota juries are inclined to believe Minnesota plaintiff's claims as to how/why the accident/medical malpractice/injury occurred.

Although Minnesota juries are rather conservative, the big complaint that defendants' lawyers and drug and device companies have about Minnesota is that its laws are favorable to personal injury victims. Last year, there was an ABA Journal article, Lawsuits Travel Up North: Land of Ten Thousand Lakes Is Flooded With Thousands of Out-of-State Filings, that discussed the benefits of filing products liability claims in Minnesota, including Minnesota reasonable six-year statute of limitations in products liability cases. While lawyers rarely have seriously injured clients in a car accident that come to them years after the cause of action arose, this is a far more common occurrance in products liability cases because it sometimes takes a while for people to understand the connection between the negligence and their injuries, even if that information is available under the "know or have reason to know standard."

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Minnesota

Bookmark:

A U.S. District court jury in Missoula, Montana awarded a Bigfork doctoral student $5.3 million, finding Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company acted in bad faith. This verdict, which included $3.5 million in punitive damages, is the largest bad-faith insurance verdict in Montana history.

Plaintiff, a 32 year-old salmon ecologist, suffered brain injuries in a head-on collision. Her insurance policy included $1.5 million in uninsured motorist benefits.

Why did the jury find bad faith in Fireman’s Fund’s refusal to pay? Well, in the four years after Fireman's Insurance received notice of plaintiff’s, it did virtually no investigation at all. Fireman’s Fun collected one lousy page of her medical records, never sought a statement from the Plaintiff, or requested an IME or did anything to support their denial.

I’m as cynical about insurance companies as the next personal injury lawyer. But I have to believe that this case fell below the radar of Fireman’s Fund and this was the act of a few isolated claims adjusters because this case is just the classic definition of bad faith. This case reads like John Grisham’s book Rainmaker. Insurance companies just do not act this way in jurisdictions that have first party bad faith because they know that they are inviting this kind of claim and publicity.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Montana

Bookmark:

Broward County, Florida Judge Jay Spechler abruptly resigned Monday after the chief judge barred him from the courthouse. Chief Judge Victor Tobin had reassigned Judge Spechler last week to traffic and parking matters at satellite courthouses until his resignation Monday.

Judge Spechler was in a war with United Auto who sought to disqualify him from cases involving the Florida-based carrier because the judge had a “pre-disposition, prejudice and bias” against its auto accident lawyers who were defending no fault (PIP) cases in Florida. Judge Spechler estimated that two thirds of his cases are PIP disputes with this insurance company. State Auto is the market share leader in car insurance in Florida. When you put two and two together, you get a lot of acrimony.

Apparently, Judge Spechler made more enemies that just State Auto. Courthouse sources said County Court Judge Jay Spechler’s reassignment came after he got into a verbal altercation with fellow Florida County Court, making comments about the judge’s sexual orientation. The impression I get is that new Chief Judge Tobin was no fan of Judge Spechler, who was closely aligned with former Chief Judge Dale Ross, who resigned last May.

Judge Spechler is apparently going to a mediation firm. Let me make a guess: he won't be handling a lot of State Auto mediations.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Florida

Bookmark:

A plaintiff who is required to submit to an "independent medical examination" may videotape the exam according to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Click here for more on this ruling.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Oklahoma

Bookmark:

Jeremy Roebuck of The Monitor in South Texas writes an interesting article about, unlike Friday's blog post, Allstate going on the offensive against abuses in the personal injury system.

In this case, Allstate has brought a fraud lawsuit against a group of Rio Grande Valley chiropractic clinics and their lawyers, claiming that they improperly recruited personal injury victims, suggested patients undergo unnecessary treatments and then persuaded their patients to file personal injury lawsuits against Allstate.

Allstate alleges the clinics, Chiropractic Strategies, has telemarketers that encourage people to visit their clinics for a free evaluation. Once there, Allstate claims they were are diagnosed with injuries they did not have and overtreated for the injuries they did have. The article does not say but I’m assuming they are calling people who have been in auto accidents based on looking at police reports or some other means to find injury victims.

In what certainly is a smart tactic, Allstate also sued the South Texas personal injury lawyers that received the referrals from the chiropractic group, including one easy target that has an extensive history of disciplinary reprimands from the State Bar of Texas and has been convicted of theft and conspiracy to commit barratry - a third-degree felony charge aimed at lawyers who improperly solicit clients.

It is worth nothing nether Texas or local authorities in South Texas have brought fraud charges against this chiropractic group or these lawyers which calls into some question the strength of these claims. But, for once, I’m rooting for Allstate to put these guys out of business if these charges are true. I hope Allstate enjoys its brief time on the other side of the v.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Texas

Bookmark:

California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner has ordered Allstate to reduce its auto insurance premiums in California by 15.9 percent. Commissioner Poizner's order follows a lengthy dispute between the Allstate and the California Insurance Commissioner.

For more on Allstate's problems elsewhere, click here and here.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: California , Car Accidents

Bookmark:

The West Virginia Record has an editorial about how the three of the top verdicts in the country came from West Virginia and derided plaintiffs’ lawyers as “tort barons” destroying industry in West Virginia and through the country.

Okay, the problem is West Virginia personal injury lawyers (tort lawyers). Just for fun, let’s look at the fact and see about all of these tort claims. The big verdict was a $404 million award in Roane County v. Columbia Natural Resources. In that case, 10,000 other royalty owners who questioned the price they were being paid for natural gas produced from their property. This is not a tort claim. This is a company stealing from people. Exactly how should such a claim be handled? Should the plaintiffs have allowed this to go on without question for the “good of industry?” How many folks on the Editorial Board of the West Virginia Record would have refused payment if they were in the class? It is just plain silly.

The second case cited, a $251 million verdict against Du Pont in Clarksburg was not a personal injury case but a lawsuit over Du Pont’s handling of the environmental cleanup created by a West Virginia zinc-smelting facility. This is was not a single insured person. This was a lot of people who had been hurt by a very large company in a case where the jury found they did not give due consideration to the environment or the surrounding property owners. Approximately 7000 people suffered harm to their property and we subjected to significant health risks. What would the Editorial Board of the West Virginia Record do if they sat on the jury in this case?
The final verdict in the top 10 was a $219 million verdict against Massey Energy. The Plaintiff was another big company who was suing for breach of contract. Perhaps if one big company breaches a contract against another big company, they should not be able to sue for breach of contract. Wonderful logic.

This West Virginia Record’s editorial is pathetic. I could argue their position better than they did. There is an intellectual argument that can be made calling some aspect of our tort system in question. I don’t agree this argument – I think it is dead wrong - but it can be made based on facts and it held by reasonable people. This argument is just plain silly and is an embarrassment to the West Virginia Record and the people it has misled.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Medical Malpractice , Nursing Home Abuse , Product Liability , Truck Accidents , West Virginia

Bookmark:

Most jurisdictions leave the the judge's discretion whether to admit photographs from a car accident for the purpose of demonstrating the extend of the injuries of the occupants of the car. In Davis v. Maute, 770 A.2d. 36 (Del. 2001), the Supreme Court of Delaware took a minority view, holding that a party in a car accident may not directly argue that the seriousness of the injuries from an auto accident correlates to the extent of the damage to the cars, unless there is testimony from an expert witness that makes a correlation.

Accordingly, lawyers in Delaware may not argue by implication what the lawyer could not argue indirectly and attempt to suggest that the lack of property damage reflects the minor injuries.

This is great for Delaware plaintiffs' lawyers in car accident cases who have minor property damage and claim injuries. Still, our lawyers prefer the majority rule because if you have a serious injury/serious impact case, you want to get the pictures to the jury to show the severity of the injuries and the Davis v. Maute holding can backfire on plaintiffs.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Delaware

Bookmark:

A truck driver whose wife was tragically killed at a crossing at a Mississippi truck stop failed to allege facts sufficent to defeat a motion for directed verdict, Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision. Plaintiff's lawyers had alleged that the truck stop operators negligently failed to provide adequate lighting and had placed a propane tank and advertising in its parking lot, obstructing the view of pedestrians and drivers of oncoming traffic. But the Mississippi Supreme Court found that the danger of crossing the public roadway should have been obvious to the truck driver's wife. Four of the judges disagreed, finding that even though the truck stop did not own the area in question, there was testimony at trial that it was generally known that truckers parked in the area, even those that were not customers at the truck stop. Unfortunately for the Plaintiff, he was one judge short.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Mississippi , Truck Accidents

Bookmark:

The TortsProf Blog reports that state legislatures in Colorado and Oregon are considering increases to their caps on noneconomic damages. Colorado is currently debating a bill that would raise the cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases from a measly $300,000 to a less measly, but still ridiculously low, $450,000. The bill was voted out of committee on Monday and will now be sent to the Senate floor for debate. The details are here.

Oregon is wrestling with a last year’s Oregon Supreme Court ruling that caps on damages payable by the state was unconstitutional as applied. The task force has been set up in Oregon to study the issue of raising the cap on noneconomic damages.

In the history of caps on noneconomic damages, the door has swung only one way - toward adding caps or decreasing the amount of the cap. Hopefully, this news for the clients of personal injury lawyers, that the door will begin to swing in the other direction.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Colorado , Medical Malpractice , Nursing Home Abuse , Oregon , Product Liability , Truck Accidents

Bookmark:

The Insurance Journal reports that a Pennsylvania jury awarded $10.2 million to a teenager who paralyzed in a drunken driving crash while wearing a lap belt in the backseat of a Volkswagen.

The verdict assigned 51 percent of the liability to the drunk driver, 39 percent to Volkswagen and 10 percent to the utility company who owned the pole utility to the pole that the driver hit.

There is no way to be sure but I suspect this case was all about Volkswagon. The drunk driver I’m sure already tendered their policy of insurance, whatever that was. The utility company also settled before trial. But Volkswagen owes Plaintiff over $3.9 million. This sounds like a lot but she has already incurred about $5 million in medical bills.

Plaintiff injury’s in this case is called submarining. This is where the accident victim, usually a child or smaller adult, slips underneath the lap belt during a car accident, causing the belt to ride up on the abdomen leading to internal injuries. Typically, this person is sitting in middle of the backseat. Because the middle seat is infrequently used, it has largely been ignored by car manufacturers with regard to passenger safety in car accidents. Finally, the federal government stepped in and mandated that new cars sold after September 1, 2007 in the United States must have a combination lap and shoulder belt in all back seat positions, including the middle seat.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Pennsylvania , Truck Accidents

Bookmark:

The Ohio Supreme Court has concluded that Ohio’s statutory caps on damage awards in personal-injury lawsuits are constitutional in a 5-2 decision today.

Like most states with caps, the cap applies to pain and suffering damages and other intangible injuries. The Ohio cap is particularly restrictive: $350,000 unless the injured person lost a limb or bodily organ. Ohio also has a punitive damages rule that restricts punitive damages to twice the amount of damages awarded as the judge or jury awards in compensation for the plaintiff’s injuries, minus any reductions as a result of the cap on pain and suffering damage. (Actually, the formula is a little more complicated than that but this is the gist of it.)

In this case, the plaintiff filed a product liability case against Johnson & Johnson claiming she suffered blood clots as a result of having used the Ortho Evra Birth Control Patch, a hormonal birth-control patch.

Two justices dissented. Justices Paul E. Pfeifer wrote that, "Today is a day of fulfilled expectations for insurance companies and manufacturers of defective, dangerous or toxic products that cause injury to someone in Ohio… But this is a sad day for our Constitution and this court. And this is a tragic day for Ohioans, who no longer have any assurance that their Constitution protects the rights they cherish."

Interesting, Justice Pfeifer also noted that in deciding to cap damages, the Ohio legislature relied on studies which were not "peer-reviewed" or "published in a scholarly journal." While this might not be a reason to ignore the legislative intent, because presumably the legislature can decide what they decide for any reason they want, it does underscore the faulty data that insurance companies and big business uses to rig or construe the data in such a way to create a crisis when one does not exist. For a great example of this from medical malpractice insurers, click here.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Medical Malpractice , Nursing Home Abuse , Ohio , Product Liability , Truck Accidents

Bookmark: