Parker | Scheer LLP Blog

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.