In 2011, the Maryland Legislature decided that the minimum limits for automobile insurance, which were over 35 years old, needed to be increased. The limits were $20,000 per person/$40,000 per occurrence. They were increased to $30,000/$60,000. Not quite a cost-of-living adjustment (one inflation calculator told me that $20,000 in 1972 would be $107,626 in 2011 dollars). But, it’s something, anyway.
The goal of the 2011 legislation was further protect Maryland drivers. Healthcare costs and lost wages following a Maryland automobile accident can be high. The increase eases the pain a little bit. The problem with the 2011 change was that it did not include the uninsured division of the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund (MAIF).
Not only does MAIF insure (the otherwise uninsurable) drivers of Maryland (who are now required to have $30,000/$60,000), but it also provides protection to people who are in accidents with uninsured motorists, when the victims have no other source of insurance. For example, pedestrians hit by uninsured drivers; and people in bus accidents or taxi accidents who are injured in hit-and-run accidents. In order to pay those claims, MAIF collects a little bit of money from other insurance policies. So, a portion of my Allstate insurance premium goes to the MAIF fund.
Continue Reading ››
Don’t Settle With Honda: Small Claims versus Class Actions
Posted on February 08, 2012 in Product Liability
Hop on over to our other blog, Charm City Lawyer, for a series on the product liability lawsuit brought by one consumer against Honda over problems she had with her Hybrid. The judge just issued an opinion, and awarded her nearly $10,000.
Continue Reading ››
Cutting Bigger Big Rigs Off At The Pass
Posted on February 06, 2012 in Automobile Accidents
We recently reported about the Transportation Industry’s bright idea to make behemoth trucks even more monstrous (Big Rigs Getting Even Bigger?). If approved, it would not be uncommon to see 100-foot long triple-tractor-trailers sharing our roads with family vans, smart cars and Mini Coopers. To put it in perspective, two basketball courts side-by-side have a width of 100 feet.
The trucking industry is now asking Congress to permit them to increase the national weight limit on tractor-trailer trucks almost 20% from 80,000 to 97,000 pounds.
Well, the House committee on Transportation and Infrastructure said no, for now, at least. They are stalling the request, and mandating that trucks stay the same size, for now. Over the next three years they will study the costs associated with increased truck sizes. The committee was primarily concerned with the costs of repairing and replacing beat up roads (especially those costs to local governments and taxpayers). However, many people who are against the increase for safety reasons will take this opportunity to rally their forces for the next time this request is made.
Continue Reading ››
Phantom Vehicles: Is Help As Fictional As Ghostbusters?
Posted on January 31, 2012 in Automobile Accidents
Many people come to us because they’ve been in an accident, but they are unsure what their options are. This is rarely more true than in the phantom vehicle case. This is where there is an accident, but no sign of the person who caused the accident. These cases are sometimes hit-and-run accidents, though phantom vehicle cases can happen where the phantom vehicle takes the right-of-way from another motorist, causing that motorist to hit a third motorist (while the phantom vehicle goes merrily along its way). In many cases, these are pedestrian hit-and-runs.
What can be done? Fortunately, Ghostbusters aren’t needed. There are usually two options.
First, if you have uninsured motorist (UM) protection on your automobile insurance policy, you can file a claim against your insurance company, which will stand in the place of the phantom vehicle. You will have to prove your claim, either to the insurance company’s satisfaction or to a judge/jury. In some cases, though, your testimony alone may be sufficient proof (independent witnesses who saw the phantom vehicle wouldn’t hurt your case, however).
Continue Reading ››
Settling A Child’s Maryland Automobile Accident Lawsuit
Posted on January 26, 2012 in Automobile Accidents
The State of Maryland protects minors. In lawsuits, the State has established rules to help ensure that children (age 18 and under) who receive money, by settlement, have protection against misuse of those funds.
First, if the minor is receiving less than $5,000 (not including attorneys’ fees or costs), the check may be made out to the child’s legal guardian. Typically this will be written something like “Hester Prynne, mother and natural guardian of Pearl Prynne-Dimmesdale.” The parent may deposit the check in their bank account without any special arrangements, and may use the money as they see fit for the child’s benefit.
If the minor receives $5,000 or more (again, exclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs), the State has decided that special protections must be observed. There, the check would read like this: “Hester Prynne, trustee under Title 13 of the Estates and Trusts Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, for Pearl Prynne-Dimmesdale, minor.” The trustee is anyone who will be responsible for the money–there is no other court paperwork required to create a trustee. That check must be deposited into an account set aside for the child–it cannot be deposited into the parent’s or trustee’s account. The money must be held in the interest-bearing account until the child turns 18, at which point the child gets sole access to it.
Continue Reading ››
Why Don’t Buses Have Seatbelts?
Posted on January 23, 2012 in Automobile Accidents
I’ve wondered this question ever since grade school. Back then, we didn’t have to wear seatbelts, but I remember dutifully doing so and chastising my parents when they didn’t (probably something we learned in school). In Maryland, we weren’t required to wear seatbelts until July 1986, and that was only for front seat passengers.
Buses were always an anomaly. School buses and commuter buses alike had no seatbelts. Even worse, you are allowed to stand up on commuter buses. There’s a bit of a bias against commuter bus accident victims (probably stemming from the stories we all hear about people rushing onto a bus after an accident to try to get a piece of the insurance pie); but common sense suggests that bus passengers, not tethered to their seats, may very well sustain more injuries. If not, then what are seatbelts for?
We’ve been told by our safety leaders that school buses are safe because of the design of the seats–they are well anchored, padded and high enough so that injuries are rare. Essentially, our children are compartmentalized to prevent injury. These improvements were a result of a UCLA study from about 35 years ago. However, that study also recommended the following that have never been implemented:
Continue Reading ››
Proving Your Maryland Auto Accident Case
Posted on January 12, 2012 in Automobile Accidents
Because of television legal dramas, most people know about the burden of proof. For criminal cases, the burden of proof is usually “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In civil cases, like car accidents, truck accidents and medical malpractice, the standard is “more likely than not.”
Lawyers often use the “scales of justice” example. If you have a scale in perfect balance, and you place all of the victim’s evidence on the left, and all of the defendant’s evidence on the right, a victim wins if her side is ever so slightly heavier than the other side. 50.0000001% is a plaintiff victory. In a criminal case, the prosecution’s evidence must be much “heavier”–basically, they have to be pushing it down to the ground.
That’s all very abstract. Let’s use a common scenario. Say you provide evidence at trial (say, your own testimony and testimony of an independent witness) that you are stopped at a red light for 30 seconds. You also provide evidence that the defendant crashed into the back of your car. Unless the defendant can provide some evidence that, for example, you backed into him, he will lose because your evidence indicates that it is more likely that he crashed into you. This is one reason why most rear-end collisions result in a plaintiff’s verdict.
Continue Reading ››
