Parker | Scheer LLP Blog

The Auto Insurance You Thought You Purchased - But Didn't

               When an individual is seriously injured or killed in a motor vehicle accident, the general practice is to first look to the insurance coverage available under the automobile insurance policy covering the party responsible for the accident. This coverage is called “Bodily Injury Coverage” and must be purchased before a car, truck or motorcycle can be legally registered in Massachusetts.  Bodily Injury Coverage is the insurance coverage that would be available to you or your household members in the event of a serious accident. The minimum amount of Bodily Injury Coverage required to legally put a car on the road in Massachusetts is currently just $20,000. This means that if a negligent driver causes serious injury or death to you or a member of your household, the most you could recover from that driver’s insurance company would be $20,000. While in very rare instances the personal assets of the negligent driver may supplement this coverage, in the overwhelming percentage of motor vehicle-related injury claims, Bodily Injury Coverage is the only source of financial recovery available to the victim.

            There are however two other “parts” of the standard Massachusetts automobile insurance policy that provide additional coverage to you and your household members in the event they suffer serious injury or death as a result of an UNDER-insured or UN-insured motor vehicle operator. The problem is most victims of motor vehicle negligence don’t realize that they lack this coverage until after the accident takes place. 

            In recent months, Parker Scheer has been retained by a growing number of clients seriously injured in motor vehicle accidents where no under-insured or un-insured coverage was available to the victims. Nearly all of these drivers were under the false impression that they had purchased “the maximum insurance” at the time of the accident. It was not until we met with these victims, following their accidents, that we had the unpleasant duty to inform them that what they had purchased was actually the minimum coverage needed to register their vehicles – that there was no additional coverage available to them.

            We believe that the current economic downturn has created a very dangerous climate for Massachusetts drivers. It is our belief that current conditions have lead a growing number of Massachusetts drivers to decrease their motor vehicle insurance coverage limits as a means of reducing general household expenses; a dangerous mistake with potentially catastrophic consequences for both those who cause injuries to others as well as to those who suffer serious injuries or fatalities.

            What is perhaps most frustrating of all is just how little it costs per month to increase your under-insured and un-insured motorist coverage limits to the maximum coverage your auto insurance company is legally required to sell you. That answer can be easily obtained through a single telephone call to your automobile insurance company.           

            Don’t wait for a serious accident to occur before you take this important step. Call your automobile insurance company today and learn what it costs to increase your un-insured (Part 3) and under-insured (Part 12) coverage limits to $250,000 per person ($500,000 per accident) levels. Increasing Part 3 and Part 12 coverages to these recommended limits may require you to increase your Part 5 (Optional Bodily Injury to Others) coverage to equal limits, but the increased cost is greatly outweighed by the potential future benefits.

            If you have any questions about any of the recommendations contained in this advisory, do not hesitate to call us directly. There is absolutely no charge to discuss this important issue with one of our experienced trial attorneys. Or telephone your automobile insurance company or agent to learn more about your options and costs.

            Our hope is that neither you nor any member of your household ever needs the insurance coverage described in this letter. But should events occur which would make such coverage available to you or a family member, we hope you never find yourself without it.

      

Massachusetts Insurance Commissioner Reverses Plan to Kill Auto Surcharge Appeals

In a last minute reversal of a plan which would have ended the right to appeal an automobile insurance "surcharge", Massachusetts Insurance Commissioner, Nonnie Burns, killed the idea, which - for now - leaves the Appeals Board intact. All I can say about this is: "Phew"!

Massachusetts is already among the most pathetically anti-consumer States in the Country, with $20,000 caps on liability for deaths caused by hospitals and their employees, and $100,000 caps against any governmental body found liable for negligence resulting in serious injury or death. So it was not exactly out of step for the Commonwealth to consider yet another way to strip its citizens of their legal rights - all in the name of saving money.

Under current Massachusetts law, the operator of a motor vehicle who suffers or causes at least two thousand dollars in property damage, and is believed by his insurance company to be a least 51% at fault for the accident, is "surcharged" a fee which remains payable for a number of years after the accident, even if the surcharged driver does not have another accident. The proposed elimination of the Surcharge Appeals Board would have left a wrongly surcharged driver without any reasonable right of appeal.

But what makes the Commissioner's original plan particulary scary, is the fact that approximately half of all surcharges are actually dismissed by the Appeals Board. Fifty percent! Think about that for a second. Here you have the Massachusetts Appeals Board tossing-out half the cases brought against Massachusetts motorists - and an insurance Commissioner who believes Massachusetts motorists don't deserve to have their appeals heard by a neutral party.

Even if only 10% of all appeals were overturned, that alone would - in my opinion - be more than sufficient to justify the right to an appeal hearing. Under Commissioner Burns' original plan, a motorist hit with a surcharge would have to request an appeal from the very insurance industry which stood to collect the surcharge. How "Massachusetts" is that? But alas... Commissioner Burns evidently responded to the outcry and left the Appeals Board breathing... at least for now.

Thinking About Reducing Your Auto Insurance Coverage? Think Again!

It happens every time the economy falters: people look for ways to reduce their household expenses and motor vehicle insurance coverage tends to find itself on the chopping block. While nobody can successfully argue against the practice of eliminating wasteful spending, reducing automobile insurance coverage as a means of trimming expenses is not the answer. In fact, as economic conditions weaken, the stronger the argument becomes for actually increasing your automobile insurance coverage.

When you or a household family member are involved in a serious motor vehicle accident, your motor vehicle insurance policy may provide those injured with valuable insurance benefits. Two examples of such benefits are"Under-insured motorist coverage" and "Un-insured motorist coverage" (commonly referred to as "U-Coverage"). U-Coverage becomes available to you  - under your own auto policy - in the event the operator of the vehicle that caused the accident has insufficient coverage to fully compensate the victims for the injuries suffered. In a sense, your coverage actually becomes the coverage of the "at fault" driver, and is available to compensate you when the at fault driver has insufficient coverage. Because it takes just $20,000 in bodily injury insurance coverage to legally put a car on the road in Massachusetts, the argument for higher U-Coverage limits is extremely strong.

That argument grows even stronger when you consider just how many people in Massachusetts operate motor vehicles with only the minimum required insurance coverage. And in difficult economic times, the number of people who choose to operate their motor vehicles without any insurance coverage, in direct violation of Massachusetts law, rises dramatically. In the event you or a household members suffer serious injuries as a result of an under-insured or un-insured driver, the only policy you will likely turn to for coverage will be your own. The more coverage you own at the time of the accident, the more likely you will be fully compensated. In short - reducing U-coverage during difficult economic times is pound foolish. Increasing U-coverage to guard against the under-insured or un-insured driver may be the smartest decision you could make.

__________________________

Eric Parker is a highly experienced Massachusetts personal injury lawyer, and concentrates in serious motor vehicle related cases. Reach him at ejp@parkerscheer.com or call toll free seven days a week 866-414-0400. There is never a fee to discuss your potential case.

Supreme Court Hands Down a Major Victory For Victims of Bad Drug Labeling

In one of the most closely watched cases by personal injury trial lawyers, The U.S. Supreme Court, in 6-3 decision, upheld a six million dollar jury award to a woman who suffered the loss of her arm due to poor drug labeling by the pharmaceutical giant, Wyeth. In the 80 page decision in the case of Wyeth v. Levine, The Court ruled that Wyeth, makers of the drug known as Phenergan, was liable to the plaintiff who suffered the loss of her arm after the drug was accidentally injected into her artery rather than the intended vein during a procedure known as "I.V. Push". The plaintiff had argued at trial that the drug's labeling materials failed to provide stricter warnings to the plaintiff's physicians against the use of the I.V. Push method when administering Phenergan due to the relatively high risk of gangrene.

The case is important because it represented an aggressive effort by the pharmaceutical industry to insulate itself from liability for injuries caused by insufficient warnings contained in drug labeling materials. Lawyers who represent victims of pharmaceutical negligence worried that a ruling in favor the the drug industry in this case would prevent such cases from being decided by juries in State courts - a practice known as "Federal Preemption". 

This case represents a major victory for all persons who have been injured or killed as a result of insufficient drug labeling, and is a major setback for drug makers seeking the protection of Federal Preemption. Without adequate labeling and warnings, doctors are denied information which would likely protect patients from risks known to the manufacturer.

If you or someone you know suffers a serious injury as a result of a pharmaceutical manufacturer's negligence, contact us toll free seven days a week at 866-414-0400. There is never a charge to discuss your potential case.

Hey! Where's My Airbag?

As if you didn't already have enough on your mind, here's another one to worry about: Does your car really have an airbag behind the steering wheel? In most cases, the answer is yes - particularly if you purchased your car brand new, from a authorized dealer. It's when you bought your car used, from - say - a less reputable dealer that "missing airbag syndrome" may be of greater concern. Here's why...

When a motor vehicle equipped with an airbag is involved in a front-end collision, sensors located in the vicinity of the front bumper are tripped, leading to the deployment of the driver's side and/or passenger side airbags. Once deployed, airbags can not be reused. Instead, new airbag components must be purchased and reinstalled in the vehicle by trained technicians. The cost is considerable. A typical airbag replacement (not including "shell" damage to the dashboard) can run anywhere from $1000 to $3000 or more per airbag to replace. So it's not hard to imagine some less reputable used car dealers choosing to stuff a few rags back into the airbag compartment in order to save costs.

While many States prohibit the sale of a used car known to contain fake or inoperative airbags, our research did not disclose any Federal laws requiring a deployed airbag to be replaced with a new system. Eric J. Parker, a Massachusetts attorney who routinely represents individuals seriously injured in Massachusetts car accidents, believes the problem may only get worse during these difficult economic times. "In tough economic times, some people cut corners, risking human life in the name of personal profits" says Parker. "As the saying goes - caveat emptor".

So what's a used car buyer to do? For one thing, research the car's vehicle history as carefully as possible. Companies like "Carfax" for a fee offer a printed history of the vehicle based on the car's unique V.I.N. (Vehicle Identification Number). Such reports often provide information on prior insurance claims involving the vehicle. While these reports may not prove whether your used car contains a functional or fake airbag, it is fair to assume that the more accidents the car was involved in, the higher the potential for fraud. Again, buying from reputable dealers is likely to decrease your chances of buying a car with a missing airbag system.

If you or someone you know has been injured as a result of a car accident involving airbags that failed to deploy, call us at 617-886-0500 seven days a week. There is never a fee charged to discuss your potential case with one of our experienced attorneys.

Leaving Your Car Unattended Can Spell Disaster... For You!

Every year in Massachusetts hundreds of cars are reported stolen. Many of these thefts occurred because the vehicle owner left the keys to the unattended car or truck in the ignition. According to Massachusetts General Laws chapter 90 section 13: "No person having control or charge of a motor vehicle, except a person having control or charge of a police, fire or other emergency vehicle [...] shall allow such vehicle to stand in any way and remain unattended without stopping the engine of said vehicle, effectively setting the brakes thereof or making it fast, and locking and removing the key from the locking device and from the vehicle".

A violation of this law could arguably be offered as "evidence of negligence" in a civil case against the vehicle owner in the event an idling vehicle was stolen and subsequently involved in an accident involving injury or death to a third person. 

To avoid potential liability for injuries or death resulting from the theft of your car or truck, always remove the keys from the vehicle after shutting the engine.

Owning a Dog Could Get a "bit" Riskier

Insurance companies that insure Massachusetts homeowners have quietly been reducing, if not altogether eliminating insurance coverage previously available to dog owners. The trend began several years ago when a number of homeowner's insurance companies began "black-listing" certain breeds they labeled as "highly dangerous", including Pit Bulls, Doberman Pinschers, American Bull Dogs, and other breeds believed to be more dangerous to humans than other breeds. More recently, however, owners of breeds not listed as "dangerous" have discovered that their homeowners' insurance policies provided a substantially lower limit of coverage for claims asserted against them when their dog did cause injury. Unfortunately, discovering low (or no) limits of coverage after your dog causes injury to another person, can be almost as painful for the dog's owner as it can for the dog's victim.

In Massachusetts, the owner of a dog who bites or otherwise causes injury to another person is considered "strictly liable" for the injuries caused by their dog. The only defense available to the dog owner arises when the victim of the dog attack was shown to have been "teasing or tormenting" the dog at the time the attack occurred. In the absence of evidence of teasing or tormenting by the victim, if your dog bites - you pay! And in some cases, you pay big!

Even a person who does not legally own a dog, but is deemed a temporary "keeper" may be held liable under Massachusettsts' so-called "dog bite law".

If you are the owner of a dog, or you "keep" a dog owned by another person, be sure to speak with your homeowner's insurance company or insurance agent to confirm whether you indeed have coverage for dog-related claims, and exactly how much coverage is available to you "per claim". If the amount of dog-related coverage is lower than the limits of coverage available to you for other categories of claims, be sure to ask your insurance company or agent whether you can purchase higher limits for dog-related liability. If not, consider moving to an insurance company that can provide you with higher insurance limits.

Parker Scheer attorneys have significant experience representing adults and children seriously injured by dogs. If you or someone you know has been the victim of a dog-related injury, contact us seven days a week at 866-414-0400. There is never a charge to discuss your case. [Read More]

Recent Crane Accident Raises Issues Involving Fall Protection and May Give Rise to Multiple Claims

Each year thousands of hard working people are needlessly injured due to a lack of adequate fall protection.  Fall protection is not limited solely to protection of employees from falls from scaffolds, from scissor lifts or cranes, or through uncovered holes in roofs and floors at construction sites.  Fall protection is also required to prevent construction materials and tools from falling from above onto employees working below.  When an employee suffers an injury that results from a lack of fall protection there are potentially a number of different claims that may be made.

 The most obvious claim is a workers’ compensation claim that will cover the injured worker’s medical bills and pay him or her weekly compensation while unable to work as a result of the injuries caused by the lack of fall protection.  In many cases involving fall protection there are other claims that can be made.

 Massachusetts workers’ compensation law generally shields employers from tort liability caused by their negligent failure to provide fall protection.  However, there are instances in an injured worker may be entitled to have workers’ compensation benefits to pursue a number of different claims against the various parties involved in the accident.  These cases are difficult to prove, and require a careful examination of the circumstances surrounding the lack of fall protection in order for an injured worker to successfully pursue such a claim.  Regardless of whether these circumstances will support a doubling of benefits, at the very least, the injured employee is entitled to weekly compensation and the payment of medical expenses associated with the injury.

 In many instances, an employee injured on a Massachusetts construction site can also pursue claims against those responsible for the erection and/or maintenance of the fall protection.  Such claims may be made against a scaffold erector that failed to properly install toe boards, against general contractors that failed to adequately inspect the site to be certain that OSHA and industry safety standards are met; and against those who may have taken a piece of fall protection down to perform work on a project, and then failed to (properly) reinstall it; or those who failed to be certain that the equipment used for a particular job was properly selected.

 The examination of the issues associated with all working conditions has been the subject of numerous appellate decisions as insurers and employees alike seek to distinguish the facts of each case.  Cases involving employer misconduct pose obstacles that an experienced Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation lawyer can help an injured worker overcome.

 If you or someone you know has suffered an injury at work which involves dangerous work condition that was caused by negligence, Massachusetts workers’ compensation payments for disability and/or medical care may be avaialbe.  Speak with a highly experienced workers’ compensation lawyer, by clicking here, or call us seven days a week, toll free at 866-414-0400. There is never a fee to discuss your case, and all information furnished will be kept strictly confidential.

 

A Child Dies Following a Fall from A Window. More Can Be Done to Save Lives.

A nine month old Boston boy died on September 18th, 2008, after apparently falling four stories from an open apartment window where the child lived with his parents. No window bars or window guards had been installed at the building, and a bed was reportedly located directly beneath the window from which the child fell.

 

As crazy as it may sound, the City of Boston does not currently require property owners to install window guards in apartments containing children under the age of six. An inexpensive window guard, preventing the window from opening more than four inches, may well have prevented this tragedy.

 

The failure on the part of the City of Boston to require the installation of window guards is particularly distressing in light of well publicized statistics. For example, according to a report published by the American Association of Pediatrics, after motor vehicle related injuries, falls of all kinds are the second leading cause of death from unintentional injury in the United States.

 

Fatalities occur most often when children fall from heights greater than 2 stories (22 feet) or when the head of a child strikes a hard surface, such as concrete. Boys are statistically more likely than girls to fall from a window.

 

Boston must take immediate steps to update the current law to require property owners to install window bars or window guards in every apartment where children under the age of 10 reside.  

Are the New CVS "Minute Clinics" a Prescription for Disaster?

I guess it was bound to happen. With thousands of people walking around without any heath insurance, it was only a matter of time before some chain store retailer decided to get in on the "medical action". Well, today that retailer is CVS (a.k.a. "Consumer Value Stores") and its newest "isle" is the "Minute Clinic", which just recently launched at their Medway, Massachusetts location. Minute Clinics, which are slated to open through out Massachusetts in coming months, will offer limited medical examinations and services to patients at fees ranging from $59 to look at your sore throat, to $110 for a vaccine administration.

In speaking with colleagues at my law firm, there was mixed reaction about the concept. I, for one, see the concept as one fraught with potential nightmares. The "Minute Clinic" says it all - in quick - out quick. Fast food is bad enough. Fast medicine is worse. And that "minute" will not be spent with a physician who attended four years of medical school, followed by an internship and multi-year residency. Rather, it will be spent with a nurse practitioner who may - or may not - have the knowledge and experience necessary to distinguish between symptoms of the flu or a more dangerous and potentially life threatening condition. Listen - I have the utmost respect for nurse practitioners. They undergo extensive education and training and they are required to work under the supervision of a licensed physician. But how comfortable would you be undergoing a physical examination by a nurse practitioner in the middle of strip-mall drug store, knowing the "supervising physician" was twenty miles away smacking a ball around a country club golf course? It's one thing to have nurse practitioners working alongside physicians in a private office, with the ability to immediately summon a physician when needed, but let's not confuse the two. This is medicine by proxy, and I think it's dangerous.

But others argue in favor of the concept, believing that simple ear infections and other routine illnesses can be more efficiently and cost-effectively treated at a CVS, than by sitting in a crowded doctor's office or emergency room, only to pay three times the price. And when it comes to price, it's no surprise that 19 of Massachusetts leading health insurance companies are in favor of, and will cover the fees charged by Minute Clinic. We all know that health insurance companies only want what's best for us.

So for now, the jury is out. Will Minute Clinics prove to be a cost-saving remedy for an ailing economy, or a haven for medical malpractice. Only time will tell.