.aspx)
Mark C. Ladendorf
Did You Know?
By Mark Ladendorf, Ladendorf and Ladendorf Law
As people who work in the legal arena and are uniquely aware of the issues that our clients face, we have an obligation to our legal profession and the third branch of government – the court system – with which we are familiar.
Make a movie date for this coming Monday evening, June 27th, at 9pm. You don’t even have to leave home (so long as you get HBO).
For years we’ve heard about the need for “Tort Reform,” the numerous frivolous lawsuits clogging up our court systems and greedy trial lawyers as being “what’s wrong with this country.”
The evidence: A lady spills hot coffee in her lap, sues McDonald’s and gets millions of dollars.
From that one case, the Stella Liebeck Awards were born and each year other such “frivolous” cases are showcased for the mock-“award.”
The only problem: Stella Liebeck did not get millions for spilling hot coffee on herself and all of those other cases cited each year as “what’s wrong with our country” NEVER happened, but are fabricated non-sense. The sad thing: America believes it and has strong opinions about the need to limit people’s right to access the court system.
On Monday evening, watch the HBO Documentary that fights back. That tells the truth. Not just about Stella’s case, but three other cases as well. That exposes the power of money behind not only our Executive and Legislative branches, but this two-decade long attempt now to control the courts as well.
What do mandatory arbitration clauses and the McDonald’s coffee case have in common?
Though not an issue – at least – yet in Indiana, what role does (big) money serve in elections to the highest courts in other States around the country? Is it an act of “free speech” or corruption.
Where is the line drawn?
Share with your family and friends … invite them to watch the movie. Post a link on your Facebook page to the website for the movie and the movie trailer.
Some folks are tempted to take a quick settlement offer from an insurer when they are injured through the negligence of another. There can be several reasons why a quick settlement seems like a good idea. These reasons include: avoiding the need and expense of an attorney, putting all of the money directly into the injured person's pocket; getting money quickly and easily. But, if you stop and think about it, why would the insurance company want to settle a matter quickly? It's not because they are losing money by leaving a claim hanging open. In fact, if they prolong things, they continue to make more interest on their investments. No, they opt for quick settlements when they feel that it will benefit them over the injured party by closing the door to future recovery.
What benefit will an insurer get from a quick settlement with an injured party? There are several that might apply, depending upon the facts of a given case. First and foremost, an insurer typically tries to quick settle in the hopes that the injured party will accept a low-ball offer either because they are desperate for cash or mistakenly undervaluing their claim. Either way, the adjuster is allowed to settle a potentially high value claim for a low-ball amount if the injured person accepts.
Another reason why adjusters want to settle claims early, especially claims with solid liability and severe injuries, is that they may avoid dealing with an attorney. Attorneys are restricted by our ethics rules from directly contacting accident victims for a certain period of time (currently 30 days). Therefore, insurers can contact an injured party make a low-ball offer, engage in a short round of negotiation, and then settle a claim before a personal injury attorney can even contact the injured party and notify them of their rights or offer advice. This is important to adjusters because personal injury attorneys know how to properly evaluate cases and utilize the facts and the law to maximize a client's recovery. Insurer's also like to settle claims early because an injured party may not have completed their treatment or know the full extent of their injuries. This means that the insurer will likely escape paying for the full extent of the harm suffered by the injured person. This scenario is always a win-win for the insurer.
There is yet another reason not to take a quick settlement in an injury case - subrogation. Subrogation gives certain groups, like an injured person's own automobile and health care insurers or even Medicare/Medicaid, a right under the law to seek repayment for the benefits they extended to an injured person when that a recovery is made from an at-fault party for those injuries. Repayment must be made by the injured person through the settlement proceeds. Failure to repay these subrogation claims can result in a denial of future benefits and/or a legal action to collect the debt. Additionally, certain health care providers, like hospitals and ambulance services, may assert liens against an injured person's settlement proceeds for reimbursement of their services. Failure to repay these liens can lead to collections action, including a lawsuit. Getting an attorney involved early in your case can help alleviate lien issues and minimize the amounts to be paid back. This is because Indiana law offers attorneys several legal tools to reduce liens. For example, most lienholders must reduce their liens by one-third when an attorney is pursuing a matter for an injured person. This reflects the lienholder paying their fair share of the attorney fees, because the attorney is collecting money not just to compensate his client for his pain and suffering, but also to repay the client's medical and other accident-related expenses. At Ladendorf Law, this one-third reduction is refunded back to the client, providing additional compensation that he or she would not receive without an attorney.
These are just a few of the things that an injured person should consider when contemplating whether to take a quick settlement from an insurer or to retain a personal injury attorney. Navigating legal issues such as this is a lot like traveling in unfamiliar conditions, it is always safer to slow down and proceed with caution!
One of the biggest obstacles we face as personal injury attorneys trying to recover compensation for our injured client, is the lack of insurance by at-fault parties. This has been such a problem in the past that Indiana instituted a financial responsibility statute (Indiana Code 9-25-4) requiring that persons registering motor vehicles or operating motor vehicles on public highways provide financial responsibility at mandated minimum levels, typically in the form of auto insurance or a self-insured bond. The minimum coverage levels are $25,000 for bodily injury or death of one individual, $50,000 for bodily injury or death of two or more individuals in a single accident, and $10,000 for property damage caused by a single accident.
Drivers failing to provide for these minimum levels of financial responsibility are subjected to harsh penalties when an accident occurs and they are discovered, including the suspension of the operator's driving license and/or vehicle registration, typically for 90 days, and a requirement that the operator immediately surrender their license or registration to Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Oddly, despite the common understanding that a driver must have auto insurance, these penalties often come as a surprise to violators who believe that they either won't be caught or won't be punished because they were not at fault for an accident.
It is important to note that the State directs the BMV to request evidence of financial responsibility, unless it was previously provided, from any party listed as a driver on an accident report regardless of the fault of the parties. If the BMV does not receive a certificate of compliance signed by an insurance agent/representative showing valid state required coverage was effect at the time of the accident within 40 days after mailing their request for evidence, the Bureau will immediately suspend that driver's operator's license and/or vehicle registration, and require that person to surrender their documents to the Bureau. Reinstatement of the license or registration after the required 90 day suspension costs a one-time fee of $150 for the first suspension, $225 for the second suspension, and $300 for the third or subsequent suspension. While this fine is substantial, what disturbs people the most is the inability to drive or use a vehicle for an extended period of time. This 90-day suspension severely curtails a person’s ability to work, transport others, and travel to and from important appointments.
Given the financial and legal problems that will result if you cause a serious accident while driving uninsured and the added complications you will suffer for violating the State’s financial requirements, it just doesn’t make sense to drive uninsured. Obtaining insurance to cover your liability in an accident is not only the smart thing, it’s the right thing to do and more importantly it’s the LAW.