Practice Areas
Blog 
Vehicle and Automobile Accidents
- Pennsylvania Car Accident Plaintiff's award of $400,000 Upheld On Appeal
- An unsafe intersection in Athens Township?
- Pennsylvania Superior Court Case Quashing Underinsured Motorist Carrier Appeal
- Pa. Superior Court Allows UIM And Bad Faith To Proceed At Same Time
- People injured in Springfield Township, Bradford County automobile crash
Legal News
Death Benefits Not Mandatory for PA Car Insurance
Armenia mulls banning ATVs on roads
CNN: What To Do After A Car Accident
Fla. Jury Awards $6 Million to Man Injured in Ford Rollover
ERISA Bars Medical Expense Lien Against Child's Trust
Evidence of seatbelt non-use permitted in products liability case involving airbags
Man severely injured in car accident awarded $7.6 million by Delco jury
Legal Library
Vehicle and Automobile Accidents
Vehicle and Automobile Accidents
New case law on obtaining UIM from your employer for a work related auto accident.
On June 4, in Heller v. Pennsylvania League of Cities, the Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court's decision that it is a violation of public policy to exclude anyone eligible for workers' compensation benefits from also recovering underinsured motorist benefits. In Heller, the injured victim was in the course and scope of his employment in his employer’s vehicle when a car accident occurred. The injured worker recovered the third party coverage and then sought UIM coverage on his employer’s policy. There was an exclusion in the UIM provision of the employer's policy and instead of just ruling that the exclusion was not valid under the MVFRL, the trial court found that the exclusion violated public policy. The Commonwealth Court in this 2-1 decision holds that the exclusion does not violate public policy and reversesNew case law on uninsurance when colliding with dirt bike
In the case of Burdick v. Erie Insurance Group, the Superior Court held that an insurance policy that excludes uninsured benefits when the insured collides with off road vehicles, is against public policy and violates the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.
In this case, the plaintiff, while driving his regular vehicle, was hit by a dirt bike on a public road. The defendant dirt bike driver was uninsured. The plaintiff's insurance company denied uninsurance benefits under the plaintiff's vehicle's policy. The Court held this denial was illegal.
New Case Law on stacking of uninsurance and underinsurance by Pennsylvania employees
On May 14, 2008 the trial court in Lackawanna County granted the Motion for Summary Judgment of Donegal Mutual Insurance Company in Reeser v. Donegal. In Reeser the insureds injured were employees of the employer who insured the vehicle. There was a 4 car policy that had only 35K UM and UIM coverage and no stacking. However, the company could not produce the forms requesting lower limits or rejecting stacking so the court held as a matter of law that there was 500K in UM and UIM coverage with stacking.
However, the trial court also held that since there was no policy language entitling a class two insured to stack underinsured motorist coverage, that only a class one insured could stack. In this case, only the individual employer and those family members who resided with the employer could stack as class one insureds but the employees who were injured as occupants of the insured vehicles could not. The insureds attempted to argue that since Section 1738 does not distinguish between classes that there was no longer a distinction between class one and class two insureds. The trial court relies upon Section 1702 of the MVFRL and the line of cases from the 1980s starting with Utica Mutual to hold that there is still a class one and class two distinction, absent a policy provision.
This is a very technical case invovling very specific facts and insurance policy language, or lack thereof. However, it is ultimate proof that an attorney must look at every angle in determining the amounts of insurance coverage, etc. Leave no stone unturned.
Florida Regulator Lifts Allstate Suspension
“Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty ordered a stay of the suspension of the Allstate Companies' licenses to sell new business in the state. McCarty's decision comes as the result of Allstate's submission of an affidavit certifying that it has complied with Florida law by freely providing all documents (McKinsey Documents) requested by the Office of Insurance Regulation as part of its investigation of Allstate's business practices in Florida.
The commissioner's announcement follows the May 15 First District Court of Appeal's opinion denying Allstate's motion for a rehearing and affirming the OIR's action in issuing the January immediate final order. ‘I have stayed the suspension of Allstate, and I have accepted its affidavit as evidence that they have completely and unconditionally complied with Florida law and with our requests for documents,’ McCarty said. ‘I also, though, have made it perfectly clear that failure to cooperate with necessary, ongoing requests from the Office (OIR) will result in an immediate resumption of the suspension.’
Allstate produced hundreds of thousands of pages of documents that OIR staff members have been thoroughly reviewing. Of the more than 825,000 pages mentioned in its affidavit, Allstate produced only 36,000 pages between the Oct. 16 issuance of the subpoenas and the Jan. 17 issuance of the IFO.
See InsuranceJournal.com for the whole story.Man dies in ATV accident
From The Towanda Daily Review:
"A fatal crash occurred in Fox Township, Sullivan County, at 2:12 a.m. on Sunday when Christopher Robinson, 25, of Toughkenamon, was driving an ATV east on Picnic Ground Road, according to state police.
|
|
Police stated that Robinson, who was not wearing a helmet, suffered fatal injuries and was pronounced dead at the scene by Wendy Hastings, the Sullivan County coroner."
***This is similar to my rantings of wearing seat belts. Wearing a helmet while driving an ATV (all terrain vehicle) is such a simple act that might save your life. Riding ATV's can be very dangerous in and of themselves. But, some, like the Yamaha Rhino, are actually defectively designed and are dangerous.
The Yamaha Rhino is excessively prone to roll over during turns even at low speeds because of inherent flaws in its design. Yamaha has been aware for years of serious injuries and deaths of drivers and passengers in rollover accidents, but have yet to modify the Rhino's design to correct for its stability problems.
Three injured in vehicle rollover, two 'badly', in Ridgebury
The Towanda Daily Review:
RIDGEBURY — An accident in Ridgebury Thursday evening left three men injured, according to Ridgebury Fire Chief Glen Leonard, with two “severely critical.”
Leonard said one man was airlifted to Robert Packer Hospital while the other two were taken there by Greater Valley EMS. He thought the accident occurred around 6:30 p.m.
The accident occurred where Wolcott Hollow Road and Chapel Road meet. Ridgebury Assistant Chief Kevin Chapman, who was first on the scene, said that by judging from the skid marks the vehicle was heading south on Wolcott Hollow Road. Wolcott Hollow Road makes a sharp turn near a hill, which is where the vehicle skidded off the road on the northbound side and clipped two trees, then turned onto Chapel Road. The vehicle came to a rest on Chapel Road, where Chapman found the vehicle. The vehicle was facing north towards Wolcott Hollow Road, he mentioned.
Two of the men, Chapman said, had been ejected and were injured from “head to toe.” The third, he added, had gotten out of the vehicle. Chapman told him to sit by the side of the road.
He said all three men had head injuries as they all had blood on their heads. Chapman, who lives nearby, immediately reported that they were serious injuries.
Debris was scattered all over the yard where the two trees stood and included the car’s front bumper, a hat and two shoes."
28 Million Dollar Verdict For A Paralyzed 8 year Old In Philadelphia
A Federal jury, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting in Philadelphia, returned a verdict of $28 Million Dollars for a paralyzed 8 year old boy. The boy was a passenger in the back seat of a vehicle when the Defendant driver was distracted and veered off the road.
The insurance company's defense was that another child in the back seat screamed, thus causing the driver to look in the back seat, thus causing the car to veer off the road.
Congratulations to Eric Weitz, Esquire who was the Plaintiff's lawyer in the case. And also congratulations to the injured boy and his family. Hopefully, Eric will be able to collect something on this judgement to help take care of the child in the future.
I'll post a link to the story once I find it online.
Teen recovers after she's struck by car while crossing road
A teen recovered $390,991 after she was struck by a car while crossing the road one winter evening. Zoe Malinoski was 13 years old when she was crossing the road and was struck by Sarah Fairbanks. Zoe sustained a fractured pelvis, a fractured hip, a fractured tooth, multiple skull fractures and bleeding on her brain. She spent two weeks in intensive care. She was left with cognitive defects and she continues to display memory problems in school. Defense counsel argued that Zoe darted out in front of the car, leaving Fairbanks no time to react. Zoe was also wearing dark clothing that winter evening. Zoe was found 25 percent liable, which reduced her $521,322 award. Of her award, $400,000 was for future pain and suffering.
The case was Malinoski v. Fairbanks.
Contact Verdict Search here for a full report on the case.
Ford pays $6.5M for SUV defect blamed for driver's death
Quick Contact
The Best in Website Design for Attorneys, Attorney Web Blogs That Work, Attorney Search Engine Optimization, Optimized Video Services for Lawyers and Update Your Website Yourself
by Foster Web Marketing - The Best Attorney Website Design & Hosting Firm
Get SEO Tips from The Attorney Internet Marketing Blog