car accident lawyer

Martin v. Powers – Can Rental Car Be Uninsured for UM Coverage Purposes?

November 15, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

People might assume that a vehicle legally owned by a multi-million dollar corporation is adequately insured. But when it comes to rental cars, they may find themselves disappointed.

Approximately 1 in 4 drivers in Florida has no insurance, despite law that requires it. Florida’s vicarious liability laws consider motor vehicles to be a dangerous instrumentality, which means vehicle owners (if different from the driver) can be held responsible for injuries caused – even if the owner wasn’t directly negligent. It used to be that rental car companies were included. However, the 2005 passage of a federal law known as the Graves Amendment eliminated this avenue of financial recovery. The Graves Amendment, codified in 49 U.S.C. 30106, preempts and abolishes any state statute or common law precedent that held rental or leasing agencies vicariously liable for the negligent actions of their drivers – except when the owner was negligent or engaged in criminal wrongdoing.

When drivers rent a vehicle, he or she is given the option to purchase insurance through the rental car company. However, they aren’t required to do so and many don’t. Further, it’s not unheard of for rental car companies to rent vehicles to drivers with no insurance. But that effectively leaves the vehicle with no insurance in the event of a crash. So what’s the best way to protect yourself? Uninsured/ underinsured motorist coverage. Yet even then, as the recent case of Martin v. Powers shows, injured plaintiffs may still find themselves in for a fight. Continue reading ›

Minnegren v. Nozar – Proving Breach of Duty of Care in Crash Case

November 13, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

One would assume that proving someone caused a crash would be sufficient to establish liability to compel them to pay for it. As the case of Minnegren v. Nozar shows, though, that’s not always true.

The driver in this case admitted his error in judgment resulted in a crash that caused plaintiff’s injuries. Open-and-shut liability then, right? But the question became whether he breached his duty of care. The appeals court held that when there is evidence a driver used at least some care, there can be a finding that he may have acted reasonably – and therefore did not breach duty of care – even if his actions ultimately led to a car accident.

These kinds of legal gymnastics show you that there are some really good defense attorneys working in personal injury law – which means you can’t take your chances with a mediocre lawyer to represent your interests. At Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner, Attorneys for the Injured, our experienced traffic accident attorneys are committed to making sure our clients’ rights are protected and that they have the best possible chance at a successful claim for compensation. At the end of the day, those injured in a collision caused by another driver shouldn’t have to be responsible for burdening costs associated with recovery, lost wages or ongoing care. Continue reading ›

$3M Wrongful Death Lawsuit Judgment Upheld Against State DOT in NC

November 11, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

The North Carolina Department of Transportation is still liable to pay $3 million for the deaths of three people on a state roadway where a traffic signal was promised but never installed. That was the ruling handed down recently by the North Carolina Supreme Court in Holt v. N.C. DOT.

The state appealed the trial court verdict that found it was liable, despite the argument that fault rested solely with two drivers who were drag racing at speeds that topped nearly 90 mph. Justices ruled that fact didn’t negate the DOT’s responsibility to install this traffic light – one engineers knew was needed. Although state officials argued they could not anticipated every illegal action that might take place on a public road, the state high court justices found that speeding vehicles was a foreseeable possibility.

Victims in this case include a local professor and her 2-year-old daughter, who were on their way to church, and a 13-year-old boy who was returning from a nearby amusement park. According to appellate court records, the 13-year-old was riding in a vehicle with his 11-year-old friend, driven by a 20-year-old man. When the driver stopped for traffic at one intersection, he and decedent noticed two female friends in an adjacent vehicle. They began joking and gesturing at one another. When the light turned green, both drivers took off at a high rate of speed in the same direction, approaching the intersection where the professor was preparing to make a left turn. The two young drivers were engaging in a race in which speeds reached 86 mph. Continue reading ›

Holiday Motor Corp. v. Walters – Product Liability in Convertible Rollover

September 25, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

The Virginia Supreme Court reversed a $20 million product liability verdict favoring a woman seriously injured when her Mazda convertible rolled over. Justices ruled trial court abused discretion in allowing plaintiff’s expert witness to testify, and further, defendant manufacturer had no legally recognized duty to design or supply a soft top to a vehicle that would provide protection to occupants in the event of a rollover crash.

This was a major decision, particularly given that, with interest, the actual payout in this case would have been well over $30 million.

The injury lawsuit stemmed from a single vehicle accident that occurred when the 26-year-old driver swerved to avoid an object on a dark roadway. The object reportedly flew off the back of a truck ahead of her. She took the risk of swerving because there was no oncoming traffic on the two-lane road. This led her up a slight grassy incline. Her convertible rolled, landing upside down, with the driver’s side up against a tree. The convertible top was up, but the force of impact caused the windshield to separate from the roof. When it collapsed inward, her head was forced down so severely it caused a condition known as hyperflexion. Continue reading ›

Lucca v. GEICO – Judge Grants Motion to Exclude Policy Limits

July 20, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

The U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has ruled that the $900,000 limit and the amount of premiums paid for an underinsured motorist policy is irrelevant to a claim for benefits and breach of contract. As such, that evidence was excluded from trial.

In Lucca v. GEICO, plaintiff suffered injuries after he was involved in a car accident caused by the negligence of another driver.

At-fault driver had a $100,000 bodily injury policy. However, plaintiff alleged this was insufficient to cover all his damages. His car at the time was insured by defendant GEICO. Continue reading ›

Etherton v. Owners Insurance Co. – Bad Faith Insurance After Car Accident

July 17, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Auto insurance companies make lots of promises. They vow to be “on your side” and “like a good neighbor.” The truth of the matter is, when it comes time to pay a claim, they will do anything in their power NOT to pay it – or at least to minimize the amount they will compensate you.

Bad faith insurance action – when an insurance company fails to deal with a customer in good faith – the penalties may be quite severe. If a judge or jury holds an insurer liable for bad faith action, the insured may be paid triple the original damages. This is intended to deter such action in the first place.

Many actions can be categorized as “bad faith,” but we generally see it manifest in car accident claims through claims that are swiftly denied or wrongly delayed or in low-ball settlement offers that are far below what the claim is actually worth. Continue reading ›

Allen v. Montalvan – Florida Car Accident Settlements Involving Minors

June 30, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Motor vehicle accidents are known to be the No. 1 killer of children in the U.S. under the age of 14. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates every year that more than 1,100 children are killed and 167,000 are injured in traffic crashes.

So it makes sense that a fair amount of car accident settlements would involve minors as interested parties. Florida law requires that anytime there is a settlement with a gross amount that meets or exceeds $50,000, the court must appoint a guardian ad litem to ensure the child’s interests are protected. This is outlined in F.S. 744.3025(1)(b). The law also allows the courts to appoint a guardian ad litem in any case for personal injury, property damage or wrongful death that exceeds $15,000 if the court believes it’s necessary to protect the minor’s interests. However, once that gross amount hits $50,000, the appointment is mandatory.

This was a sticking point in the recent case of Allen v. Montalvan, before Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal. This was a tragic case in which a grandmother was killed while her two children (one adult) and two minor grandchildren were injured when a drunk driver slammed into their vehicle. The passengers, including the underage children, all suffered varying degrees of personal injury. Continue reading ›

Alligator Alley Guardrails Criticized

May 15, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Guardrails are intended to keep motorists and passengers safe from careening into embankments, bridge parapets, signs, lights, signal supports, boulders, utility poles, drainage ditches, trees or bodies of water more than two feet deep.

Generally, they do a good job. Cable guardrails, also sometimes referred to as cable barriers, installed on Florida’s turnpike and I-75 on Alligator Alley served to slash the number of canal crashes along those roads significantly, according to reports.

But now, there is concern that new Alligator Alley guardrails will harm motorists, accident victims, workers and emergency responders. Continue reading ›

Wrongful Death in Motor Coach Crash

March 8, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Motor coach accidents are an area of concern for traffic safety experts and the public nationwide. In recent years, there have been a number of horrific motor coach and charter bus crashes, which have led to calls for greater regulatory action.

Just this year in California, two women, ages 51 and 76, were killed in San Jose when a Greyhound bus flipped on its side during a rainy morning commute. The women were thrown from the windows of the bus. The 58-year-old driver was reportedly “fatigued” prior to the crash. And late last year in Virginia, dozens of college students were hospitalized after a charter bus overturned when transported students back to campus. The operator was later charged with reckless driving for taking the ramp too quickly.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is the agency in charge of regulating motor carriers. That includes identifying those that may be unsafe and taking corrective action. But what if the regulators don’t act fast enough to stop a dangerous carrier? Can you sue the federal government? Continue reading ›

Hampton v. County of San Diego – Overcoming Design Immunity in Accident Lawsuits

January 8, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Collecting compensation for injuries sustained due to faulty highway design or construction is difficult in Florida, and it was made tougher by a law passed in 2005, codified in F.S. 337.195, limits on liability.

The statute serves to limit liability for road designers, consultants and contractors and it does so by establishing legal presumptions in their favor in civil litigation. In order to win (and it is possible to prevail), plaintiffs have a tough task of overcoming those strong presumptions in favor of defendants. Generally, it means asserting gross negligence or intentional misconduct that results in injuries or damages. It can also be circumvented when contractors fail to adhere to maintenance of traffic safety plans, as required by the government contract.

Similarly, government entities are protected by sovereign immunity laws, though those have been waived under certain circumstances. Continue reading ›