Archive for the ‘Motor Vehicle Accidents’ Category

Pennsylvania Car Insurers May Prorate Deductibles

Thursday, July 1st, 2010

            If you are in a motor vehicle crash and you have collision coverage with your automobile insurance company, your insurance company may pay for the damages to your vehicle regardless of who was at fault. This is often done as a matter of convenience and to expedite payment.  If another driver or entity is at fault, your insurance company will then make a claim for reimbursement against the other driver and his or its automobile liability insurance company.  This is called subrogation. 

            In Pennsylvania, your insurance company will include in its subrogation claim your deductible, if any.  If your insurance company collects less than the full amount of the damage or has to hire an attorney to collect the damages, it is permitted to reimburse you for only a proportional share of your deductible, according to the Pennsylvania Insurance Regulations. 

            A potential class action was recently filed in Pennsylvania challenging the applicability of this Pennsylvania insurance regulation.  In Jones v. Nationwide, 2010 Pa. Super. 90, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently upheld this regulation, relying on a federal court decision.  Hence, insurers are still entitled to prorate reimbursement of your deductible under the appropriate circumstances.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Motor Vehicle Accidents | Comments Off

Jury Finds for Plaintiff in Highly Contested Allegheny County, PA Motor Vehicle Accident

Friday, April 2nd, 2010

            I was recently successful in securing a favorable verdict for an Allegheny County, PA motor vehicle accident victim.  Alhaj v. C&K Industrial Services, Inc. and Keeder, No. GD08-001439 (Allegheny County, PA February 5, 2010).  

            This motor vehicle wreck occurred in Munhall Borough, Pennsylvania. As the plaintiff pulled his car into an intersection, he was struck on the passenger side by a truck coming up the intersecting street on his left.  The plaintiff had a stop sign, but the truck driver did not.  This presented a challenge in proving that the truck driver was responsible.  

            An accident reconstructionist, an engineer, testified for the plaintiff.  He explained to the jury that based on his observations and measurements at the scene and the damage to the vehicles, he was able to recreate the path of the two vehicles.  There was no dispute that the plaintiff had stopped before entering the intersection.  According to the engineer, because of the unusual configuration of the intersection, the plaintiff’s view to his left was limited.  The truck, on the other hand, was speeding as it approached the intersection. If the truck driver had been traveling the speed limit, he would have had an opportunity to stop before impact.  

            The plaintiff was taken by ambulance to the hospital.  They found that he had a broken acetabulum (hip socket).  He missed several months of work as a cook in two local restaurants.  He had extensive follow up treatment for his injuries. 

            The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for almost $65,000.  The jury also determined that the defendant was 70% at fault while the plaintiff was 30% at fault.  

            The trial judge denied the defendants’ appeal.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Motor Vehicle Accidents, Personal Injury | 2 Comments »

Lawrence County, PA Court Rules in Favor of Limited Tort Auto Accident Victim

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

            Harlan’s car was struck in the rear by a Pennsylvania State Police car.  Harlan sued the Pennsylvania State Police for injuries.  The state police asked the court to dismiss Harlan’s lawsuit because Harlan’s claim was governed by Pennsylvania’s limited tort law.  

            Under Pennsylvania law, an auto accident victim with limited tort can only recover for out-of-pocket expenses unless he has a serious injury.  A serious injury is a serious loss of a bodily function.  

             Here, Harlan had three surgeries and forty physical therapy sessions.  He missed work and could not fully participate in certain recreational activities such as archery, hunting, fishing and working on automobiles.  The court decided that there was a legitimate question whether Harlan suffered a serious injury. Harlan’s case will go to trial.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Motor Vehicle Accidents, Personal Injury | 4 Comments »

PA Supreme Court Refuses Appeal on Important Underinsured Motorist Case

Friday, March 26th, 2010

            Amanda Pusl was injured in a car wreck through the negligent driving of Matthew Means.   After a two-day trial, a jury awarded Pusl $100,000 in damages for her injuries.  Before trial, Pusl had already received $75,000 for these injuries from her own underinsured motorist insurance company, State Farm.  $75,000 was the limit of Pusl’s underinsured motorist coverage with State Farm.

            As requested by Means’ attorney, the trial judge subtracted the $75,000 from the $100,000 jury verdict, reducing it to $25,000.   Pusl filed an appeal.

             On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, clearly misreading the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, sustained the trial judge’s decision.  Section 1722 of the Financial Responsibility Law prevents an injured plaintiff from recovering from a negligent defendant money paid as first-party benefits (typically payment for medical expenses or lost wages), workers’ compensation or benefits similar to first-party benefits.  The Superior Court incorrectly concluded that underinsured motorist benefits fall within this section. Underinsured motorist benefits, in fact, are treated separately in a different subchapter of the law.   The end result was that Means and his automobile insurance company got the benefit of the $75,000 paid by State Farm, not Pusl. 

            The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has recently denied Pusl’s request to take a further appeal.  Therefore, this poorly reasoned decision by the Superior Court remains the law in Pennsylvania.  It will have a wide ranging affect on future plaintiffs who have claims against both a negligent driver and an underinsured motorist insurance company.

             For more information on underinsured and uninsured motorist claims, check out my Car, Truck and Motorcycle Accident Practice Area on this website.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Motor Vehicle Accidents, Personal Injury, Uninsured / Underinsured Motorist | 1 Comment »