Plaza Injury Law

Online Auto Accident Injury Calculators are Worthless and Fraudulent Recently I have seen numerous websites that offer the ability to estimate the value of a client’s personal injury claim during the first consultation with limited information concerning treatment value or the full extent of the injuries sustained. I have long been aware that some of my colleagues offer to be able to do the same for clients during the first meeting. The idea that an attorney, during the init...ial consultation with a client and with limited information about injuries and treatment, can accurately predict a settlement value or jury verdict is preposterous. I have practiced personal injury law since 2005. There are many factors that come into play when determining the value of a personal injury claim. Personal injury claims are just that, they are personal. The only appropriate time to assign a value to a client’s personal injury claim is after the attorney has acquired and read all medical records and bills as well as documentation of lost wages, incidental and consequential damages, and other, softer, more human factors have been evaluated. Many times, I have managed claims that, on the medical bills alone, would have been valued quite low, only to have the conduct of the Defendant at the scene of the collision increase the value of the claim many times. When Defendants behave badly, jurors pay attention. I would recommend that, any client who would like to be certain he or she will obtain the highest possible value for a personal injury claim, put their faith, not in an attorney’s ability to speculate, but in the process that an experienced personal injury attorney employs. I tell my clients that working with me will feel a lot like having an attorney.

Motorcycle Accidents Personal bias should not play a role in compensating an injured motorcyclist. Many people distrust -- or even dislike -- motorcyclists, and members of the jury are not immune from prejudice. Juries may be less likely to award handsome verdicts to motorcyclists - compared to the driver or passenger of a car. Insurance adjusters are aware of this bias. For this reason, the burden of making a concrete case, and proving the key issues described in this artic...le, becomes even more important for an injured motorcyclist. During pre-litigation settlement discussion an adjuster may be willing to concede liability. That willingness evaporates when suit is filed. Estimating the result of a motorcycle accident trial is difficult. At trial a jury ultimately decides just how much money the defendant must pay the injured motorcyclist. Even the most experienced attorney cannot climb inside a jury’s head and accurately predict outcomes. Pre-litigation settlement controls risk. A trial is risk. Some personal injury damages, like medical bills and lost wages, are easier to predict because "concrete" costs like these will mostly be based on the amount the plaintiff demonstrates he or she has paid or lost and/or will continue to pay or lose. For subjective, less concrete damages like "pain and suffering," predictions are at best an educated guess based on awards in similar motorcycle accident cases in the past. Because every case and every jury is different, even the best analysis will still only predict pain and suffering damages. How the motorcycle accident affects a particular plaintiff is also key in valuing damages. For example, if a plaintiff is left with a permanent limp, but was formerly a very active person who enjoyed participating in a variety of sports and outdoor activities, his damages based on "loss of quality of life" will likely be higher in the eyes of a jury than if he had been relatively physically inactive before the injury. If the motorcycle accident left plaintiff permanently disabled in a way that does not affect his livelihood, that plaintiff’s damages for lost earning potential will be lower than a plaintiff whose livelihood is affected. Following is some data on the median "average" motorcycle injury verdict, and related settlement and court verdicts. According to Jury Verdict Research (published by Thomson Reuters) the median motorcycle injury verdict (after a personal injury trial) from 1999 to 2006 was $73,700. $1,600,000 settlement after plaintiff slid on loose gravel and suffered crushed vertebrae and nerve damage. $355,000 settlement after plaintiff was killed when defendant’s truck, pulling a small trailer, turned left in front of the motorcycle at high speed. $300,000 verdict for plaintiff after truck turned left in front of the motorcycle. Plaintiff’s injuries were limited to aggravation of pre-existing herniated disc, soft tissue injuries and a torn knee ligament.

The court found that chalking is indeed a "search" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, because government officials physically trespass upon a constitutionally protected area to obtain information. Just as the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that sticking a GPS tracker to a car counted as a "search," so is marking a tire with chalk to figure out how long it has been parked, the court wrote. And that search wasn't reasonable, the court said. The city searches vehicles "that are parked legally, without probable cause, or even so much as 'individualized suspicion of wrongdoing' the touchstone of the reasonableness standard," the court wrote.

NO PAY NO PLAY UNCONSTITUTIONAL RSMo 303.390 prohibits (a)n uninsured motorist from recovering noneconomic loss against a person who is in compliance with the financial responsibility laws of this chapter due to a motor vehicle accident. What this means is that, in the context of a motor vehicle collision, where a party clearly at fault is insured, and the party not at fault is not insured, regardless of the severity of injury (short of death) the injured party is ba...rred from recovery of any consideration (monetary compensation) for noneconomic damages. This section does not apply if it can be proven that the collision was caused by someone operating a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or who is convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The provisions of this section also do not apply to an uninsured motorist whose insurance policy was terminated or nonrenewed for failure to pay the premium, unless termination or nonrenewal of insurance occurred six months or more prior to the time of the accident. Passengers are not effected by this section. Statutes of this nature are commonly referred to as no pay no play statutes. Attorneys who represent injured parties find that phrase to be insulting because the suggestion is that the injured party was playing some kind of game at the time of their injury. The truth is that the injured party is often merely going about their normal day’s routine, picking their children up from school, or going to or from work, when the at fault party disregards a traffic control device or traffic law and causes an innocent actor serious injury. The insurance lobby has successfully gotten so called no pay no play statutes passed in conservative jurisdictions such as Missouri and Kansas by making a specious, time worn, argument that relates higher insurance rates to personal injury claims. The obvious cruelty of the application of these statutes is often ignored. Recently, Constitutional arguments have been used successfully against the application of RSMo 303.390. Article I, Section 22(a) of the Missouri State Constitution guarantees the right of trial by jury. Missouri courts have ruled consistently that RSMo 303.390 violates the inviolate right of trial by jury on the issue of noneconomic damages. Watts v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centers, 376 SW3d 633, 637 (Mo.banc 2012). See more

"(An) insurance company must in good faith view the situation as it would if there were no policy limit applicable to the claim." 67 Harv.L.Rev. at 1148. "The fairest method of balancing the interests is for the insurer to treat the claim as if it were alone liable for the entire amount." Brown v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 314 F.2d 675 (2nd Cir., 1963); citing Bell v. Commercial Ins. Co., 280 F.2d 514, 515 (3d Cir., 1960) and See Keeton, 67 Harv.L.Rev. at 1144-45.

IF YOU ARE SUED FOLLOWING A CAR CRASH AND YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY ASSIGNS YOU AN INSURANCE DEFENSE ATTORNEY, YOU SHOULD STRONGLY CONSIDER RETAINING PERSONAL COUNSEL AS WELL While a plaintiff’s personal injury attorney has a clear duty only to the injured party, a defense attorney retained (paid) by an insurance company to defend an insured (the defendant in a car crash for example) can easily have conflicting interests. The insurance defense attorney’s obligations to both the... insurer and insured are ambiguous. An insurance defense attorney may want to act in the insured’s best interests and find that their employer, an insurance company, also has a stake in the outcome of that claim. The real question in navigating the ethical and legal hazards of that conflict of dual representation is who is the insurance defense attorney’s client? The insurance company, or the insured? Insurance defense counsel often find themselves pressured to make decisions that serve the interests of their employer and not the insured. Bad faith is a state of mind, indicated by acts and circumstances, and is provable by circumstantial as well as direct evidence. Zumwalt v. Utilities Ins. Co., 228 S.W.2d 750 (Mo. 1950). Bad faith liability comes from the contract principle of good faith and fair dealing. This is an implied covenant, which sets out and governs every duty the insurer has towards the insured. A claim against an insurer for the failure to settle is an action based generally in tort for the wrong committed by the insurer in deciding not to accept the offer to settle the claim against its insured within the limits of its policy. SeeZumwalt v. Utilities Ins. Co., 228 S.W.2d 750 (Mo. 1950). One of the most common reasons for bringing a bad faith claim against an insurance company arises when the insurance company has an opportunity to settle a claim against the insured and fails to do so. The four main elements that must be proven in a bad faith claim against an insurer were detailed in Dyer v. General American Life Insurance Co., 541 S.W.2d 702 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976). 1. The insurance company assumes control of negotiation, settlement and defense of the action brought against the insured; 2. The insured has demanded that the insurer settle the claim brought against the insured; 3. The insurance company refuses to settle the claim within liability limits of the policy; and 4. The insurance company act in bad faith, rather than negligence, in refusing such settlement. See more

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA; Pub.L. 104191, 110 Stat. 1936, enacted August 21, 1996) was enacted by the United States Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996. It was created primarily to modernize the flow of healthcare information, stipulate how Personally Identifiable Information maintained by the healthcare and healthcare insurance industries should be protected from fraud and theft, and address limitations on healthcare insurance coverage.