We reported back in February that the Maryland legislature was considering a bill that would increase the minimum amount of MAIF insurance for uninsured drivers to $30,000 (Not Fair: Maryland Law Makes You Carry $30,000 Auto Insurance, But You Might Have a Maximum $20,000 Recovery).
The problem was that just over a year ago, the minimum amount of automobile insurance for all Maryland drivers was $20,000 per person and $40,000 per accident. Those minimums have been in place for over 35 years, and they were increased to $30,000 per person and $60,000 per accident. The law that increased the amount recoverable for Maryland automobile accident victims was missing one thing, though. It forget to mention the uninsured division of MAIF.
MAIF (Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund) is the insurance company of last resort for drivers who are rejected by most other insurance companies. They insure the uninsurable. MAIF also performs another function–when someone is involved in a Maryland automobile accident with someone who does not have insurance, or in a hit-and-run accident, MAIF will step in to help. They don’t step in voluntarily–usually it takes a lawsuit, but if there is no other insurance available, MAIF will cover the accident up to the minimum amount. Even after the 2011 change, MAIF was still only on the hook for $20,000/$40,000.
Continue Reading ››
Trending: Lawsuits Against Employers For Encouraging Distracted Driving
Posted on June 23, 2012 in Automobile Accidents
The scourge of distracted driving is so bad that I predict many attorneys will be adding to their lawsuits complaints against employers for failure to have policies, procedures and protocols to discourage distracted driving. First, a little bit about agency.
An agent is someone who is working for someone else. When an employee gets in his car to go do something for his employer, he is the agent of the employer. When the driver negligently causes a Maryland auto accident, both the driver is responsible and the employer is responsible.
Because distracted driving is such a big deal right now, employers are jumping on the bandwagon to come up with policies about when their employees can and can’t use cell phones while driving. Some companies are prohibiting the use of handheld phones; others are prohibiting all cell phone use, even hands-free conversation. Where an employer does not take the step to set a policy, they are setting themselves up for more liability in the event of an accident. Realistically, they will be on the hook for any auto accident injuries regardless of whether the company was negligent, but it gives one more reason for the judge or jury to decide that the company is responsible. Also, it puts forth negative conduct by the company, which makes a jury more likely to decide against them if the question of liability (whether the employee was negligent) is unclear.
Continue Reading ››
Distracted Driving: Test Your Skills
Posted on June 20, 2012 in Automobile Accidents
A driving simulator called One Simple Decision, made by Virtual Driver Interactive http://www.driverinteractive.com/index.php is attempting to show driver’s the short and long-term consequences of texting and driving. It starts with the driver driving, and then instructs the driver to begin texting. When the (hopefully) inevitable collision occurs, the driver goes through a first-person interrogation by police, medical personnel, and a judge in an attempt to show chronic texters the real-life consequences of distracted driving.
The allure of a simulation like this is the desire to beat it, like any videogame. I know the dangers of texting and driving, but (I suspect like most people), I think that I can do it relatively safely. So what happens when a driver beats the simulator? Is that a license to text and drive? I’d like to know the simulators statistics.
Regardless, it is clear that in a controlled situation, the driver is going to bring his or her A-game. In real life, there will be less attention to detail, and a higher likelihood of a distracted driving accident.
Continue Reading ››
Colossus: Using Artificial Intelligence To Value Automobile Accident Injuries
Posted on June 12, 2012 in Automobile Accidents
Colossus is a software program used by many insurance companies to determine the value of automobile accident claims and lawsuits. The software program gets a bad rap from plaintiff’s lawyers–probably because it undervalues those claims. Now, a former Allstate and Encompass Colossus expert and a former Texas insurance commissioner are informing the Consumer Federation of America’s latest report, Low Ball: An Insider’s Look at How Some Insurers Can Manipulate Computerized Systems to Broadly Underpay Injury Claims.
That report details the means by which adjusters can use the software to produce lower evaluations of claims. Insurance adjusters can discount medical bills, evaluate injuries differently than doctors, ignore the likelihood of future medical care, and decide that the claimant/victim was partially at fault for the auto collision.
Continue Reading ››
Trucking Sleep Rules: Exceptions Are Dangerous
Posted on June 08, 2012 in Automobile Accidents
The federal government has closed a loophole that was the cause of untold numbers of trucking accidents. Truck drivers who hauled material to and from oil drilling sites were limited to spending 14 hours of work before resting–the problem is that the former rule did not include time at the drilling site. So, truck drivers could spend 14 full hours on the road, and any amount of time on duty loading, unloading or performing truck maintenance at the site. Other duties could easily increase the time between significant rest periods to 15, 16 or 17 hours.
The New York Times wrote about the problem a few weeks ago, and included heartbreaking stories of preventable deaths. In one, the driver had been working for almost 21 hours straight. The data is striking: one-third of all oil worker deaths are caused by highway crashes, compared to one-fifth in all industries combined. That article may have motivated the Department of Transportation to change the rules, and hopefully save some lives.
Continue Reading ››
Savings Lives By Restricting Teenage Licenses
Posted on June 04, 2012 in Automobile Accidents
The Washington Post published an article last week, Graduated Licenses Can Save Lives, Says IIHS. It discusses the process for teenage drivers to receive a license. Here’s the data:
- Teenage driving fatalities are down over the past few years
- Estimate: with stronger laws, twelve states could cut their fatal teen driving rates by half or more (500 lives saved, 9,500 collisions prevented)
All states and the District of Columbia now use graduated driver licensing (GDL). This means that teens start learning to drive with a supervised learner’s permit, then have approval to drive in non-high risk situations after passing a road test, then receive full privileges.
Data from all states were analyzed, and it turns out that the states with the most restrictive GDL laws have the fewest fatalities. Some suggestions include:
Continue Reading ››
Lawsuits Against Text-Message Senders: Conclusion
Posted on May 29, 2012 in Automobile Accidents
Our last post on Distracted Driving Lawsuits: Suing the Sender ended with one question: what will happen?
As predicted, the New Jersey trial judge dismissed the sender of the text message. The judge stated that it was reasonable for text-senders to assume that text-receivers will act responsibly. He also noted that drivers must deal with numerous distractions: phones, GPS devices, and road signs, to name a few.
Were I to extend this duty to this case, in my judgment, any form of distraction could potentially serve as the basis of a liability case.
The basis for the judge’s ruling is important–it rests on the premise that a text-sender has no duty of care to other drivers. Under Judge Rand’s interpretation, it would not matter if the text-sender knew that the driver was driving at the time, and it would not matter if the text-sender knew that the driver would read those messages while driving. I think that’s the right decision, but it would have been easier for the judge to rely on the specific evidence in this case–the receiver was himself sent the last message, so reading a message did not cause the collision.
Continue Reading ››
Distracted Driving Lawsuits: Suing the Sender
Posted on May 24, 2012 in Automobile Accidents
In a distracted driving lawsuit where phone use is the culprit, the recipient of the e-mail or the text message is obviously at fault, and a proper defendant. Drivers must use reasonable care, and if they are not able to pay attention to driving, and that lack of attention causes an accident, then they are responsible for any injuries or damages.
What about the sender of a text message that, when read by the driver, causes inattention long enough to lead to an accident? Does the sender have some duty toward the injured victim, and did the sender violate the standard of care expected of a reasonable texter?
One lawyer, Stephen Weinstein, thinks there might be a case here: David and Linda Kubert filed a lawsuit against text-receiving driver Kyle Best and his girlfriend, text-sender Shannon Colonna. No one can argue that the injuries aren’t significant: Mr. and Mrs. Kubert, riding a motorcycle, each lost a leg in the accident.
Continue Reading ››
