Insurance Dispute Lawyer Blog

If hit by an uninsured or underinsured motorist while at work, an employer’s insurance may not cover the damage. While everyone in Louisiana who has a liability policy is required to have uninsured motorists coverage, they can receive an exception by signing a waiver. This can leave accident victims in the dust with tons of heavy medical bills and debt for making a decision they may not have fully understood. Ecolab, Inc. employee Lyndon Doyle found himself in this situation not this lucky.

On January of 2008, Doyle was injured in a car accident while driving a vehicle owned by Ecolab. His injuries resulted in medical bills totaling over $25,000. The woman who hit him, Aniece Smith, did not have enough insurance to cover all of Doyle’s injuries. Because Doyle’s employer Ecolab had a liability insurance policy issued by National Union, Doyle sought the full policy limit from National Union under the uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) liability provision.

While National Union admitted that a policy covering Doyle existed, they denied that UM coverage was available because Ecolab signed waivers of that coverage on February 4, 2003, and December 18, 2003. Because of the company's prior decision, Doyle had to argue that both waivers were invalid or not executed in accordance with the law. While originally arguing that the February 4th waiver was invalid because it did not contain a policy number nor the company name in the designated place, the plaintiff chose to concede that the waiver was valid, placing all emphasis on the second argument.

In order to win, Doyle had to argue that the second, December 18 waiver was invalid and that it superseded the properly executed February 4th waiver. To argue that it superseded the first, Doyle had to show that it was signed during the original policy term and not in conjunction with a renewal nor change in coverage. National Union admitted that the December 18 waiver was invalid but asserted that it was signed pursuant to a renewal, and thus did not supersede the first, valid waiver. The court finally decided that the second waiver was simply a renewal, and did not supersede the first because the signed waiver forms were identical and the Ecolab representative who signed both, assumed he had signed the second pursuant to a renewal.

Because the second improper waiver was simply a renewal, it did not supersede the first, properly executed waiver. Thus the UM waiver was in effect at the time of Doyle’s accident, and National Union did not have to pay him anything to help with his medical debt resulting from the accident.

This case illustrates an unfortunate reality: the decisions of your employer can gravely affect your ability to recover from an accident. By hiring the best available attorney, you can make sure that no possible avenue of recovery is missed. This may be the only way to get help with the massive amount of medical debt that may result from an accident while working.

Continue reading " Uninsured Drivers Can Affect Payouts in Car Accidents " »

La. R.S. 22:1973B(2) assesses penalties to an insurance company who fails to pay a settlement within 30 days after an agreement is written. In a recent case, Smith v. Bambino, the Fourth Circuit discussed when and under what circumstances will commence the 30-day period.

Th defendant, Bambino, who was driving in New Orleans with the plaintiff, Smith, crashed with another vehicle on January 13, 2007. Smith sued Bambino, his insurer, Erie Insurance Company, and her UM carrier for the injuries she allegedly suffered from the accident. The parties attended mediation, where they executed a “Memorandum of Settlement Agreement” (“memorandum”) on October 19, 2009. Bambino and Erie paid Smith $85,000 approximately 50 days later. After receiving the settlement funds, Smith executed a “Receipt, Release and Agreement to Indemnify,” which released Bambino and Erie from liability. Consequently, the trial court granted Smith's motion to dismiss with prejudice plaintiff's claims against Bambino and Erie.

Subsequently, however, Smith filed a motion to assess penalties for late payment of settlement funds. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Smith, awarding her the $5,000 in penalties she sought. The defendants appealed the judgment to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit (“Court”). On appeal, the Court vacated the lower court's judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for penalties with prejudice.

The Fourth Circuit first addressed whether the defendants violated La. R.S. 22:1973B(2). The memorandum stipulated that the parties agreed to enter into a formal settlement agreement within a reasonable period of time. According to Smith, the 30-day period began on the date the memorandum was executed. The Court disagreed, finding that the language in the memorandum contemplated another writing, the formal settlement agreement. Moreover, the language indicated that the formal agreement would be entered into within a reasonable time. Since neither party submitted evidence on what would be a reasonable delay, the Court declared that the 30-day period would run from the date of execution of the formal settlement agreement or until a “reasonable period of time” expired. Therefore, the Court found that the defendants complied with La. R.S. 22:1973B(2).

The Court then addressed the validity of the release. The defendants argued they were not liable for the penalty since it was covered by the release. Smith challenged the legality of the release, contending that she executed it under economic duress as she was undergoing a financial hardship. Smith's lawyer submitted as evidence an affidavit he signed, which stated that defendants' counsel would not release the settlement funds if Smith reserved her right to claim penalties. Additionally, the affidavit averred that Smith indicated to him that she had “necessary circumstances” and had no option but to accept the settlement funds that were 20 days late. The defendants filed timely objections to the affidavit, arguing it as inadmissible hearsay. Hearsay, an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, is inadmissible evidence unless an exception applies. The Court agreed with the defendants since Smith could not point to any exception to the hearsay rule. Since Smith did not have any admissible evidence to support her claim for economic duress, the release was legally binding.

Louisiana law guarantees, through penalties, that plaintiffs will be paid settlement funds in a timely manner. Smith v. Bandino shows that plaintiffs must be mindful of what constitutes a formal settlement agreement under this law. Issues like this demonstrate why hiring the proper attorney can keep you from filing a frivolous claim.

On May 28, 2005, Brian Smith was delivering a car as a surprise gift to his mother. Chaos unfolded, however, when a trailer came loose in Morehouse Parish from a truck being driven by one of the defendants, Joshua Pruett. The truck, at the time, was being utilized as part of his delivery duties for Broubar, Inc., which was doing business as Acadia Crawfish. The trailer crossed the centerline and collided with the driver’s side of Mr. Smith’s car, and Mr. Smith died as a result of the injuries he sustained in the accident.

Mr. Smith’s mother, Gracie Smith, filed lawsuits against Acadia Crawfish, Pruett, Scott Broussard (the owner of Broubar, Inc.), and Farm Bureau as liability insurer and as Brian Smith’s uninsured motorist (UM) insurer. She later filed a separate lawsuit against Progressive Security Insurance Company and Broubar, Inc. The lawsuits were later consolidated into one lawsuit.

All of the parties to the lawsuit agreed that the defendants were liable for the accident because it was clear that the ball on the truck driven by Mr. Pruett was too small for the trailer hitch and he had not used any safety chains to ensure that the trailer would remain attached to the truck. They went to trial on the issue of damages for survival and wrongful death.

A survival action compensates the survivors for the damages suffered by a victim from the time of injury to the moment of his or her death. The cause of action is “inherited” – it belongs to the victim and is passed on at death. Damages in a survival cause of action can include the victim’s pre-impact fear, and if there is even a tiny amount of evidence showing any pain of suffering by a victim before his death, damages are warranted. The evidence in this case showed that the victim undoubtedly was in great fear as he attempted to avoid the collision. He had massive abdominal and chest injuries, with partial amputation of his lower left leg and hemorrhage in his brain. The Second Circuit therefore ruled that an award of $250,000 was not an abuse of discretion.

A wrongful death action, on the other hand, compensates the beneficiaries, usually family members, for their own injuries which they suffer from the moment of the victim’s death on. In this way, the wrongful death action belongs to the survivors, not the victim. Usually, the plaintiff in a wrongful death action can claim loss of love and affection, loss of services, loss of support, medical expenses and funeral expenses. In this case, Mr. Smith had supported her financially and was very close with her, more so than any of his eleven siblings. Awards for lost future income or support are, however, intrinsically difficult to calculate with absolute certainty and a plaintiff must be able to show an amount with reasonable certainty, not rely on mere speculation. Mrs. Smith was a widow and her only source of income was Social Security. As a result, she relied heavily upon the money her son often gave her. Except for an error in calculating the value of the car that Mr. Smith was driving, the appellate court affirmed all other aspects of the wrongful death action and Mrs. Smith was awarded a total of $584,368 for compensatory damages, loss of support, loss of services, and funeral expenses.

Progressive Insurance appealed the trial court’s determination that it was the primary insurance carrier for a substitute truck and was therefore liable for damages. Mrs. Smith had settled out of court with Farm Bureau for $100,000 under the liability coverage and $10,000 under the UM coverage. Farm Bureau then wanted to be indemnified by Progressive Insurance and filed a cross claim against Progressive. If the truck, which was a temporary truck (a 1998 Dodge) being driven by Mr. Pruett because the one he usually drove was being repaired, was insured by Progressive, then Progressive would ultimately be responsible for paying damages. The 1998 Dodge in connection with the trailer was found to be one vehicle and was a “temporary substitute vehicle” which, under La. R.S. 22:1296 requires insurance companies to extend coverage to temporary substitute motor vehicles. The 1998 Dodge was owned on paper by Broubar, Inc., but was normally used by Mr. Broussard, and he considered it his personal truck. The trial court found that all of the companies that Mr. Broussard owned were operated independently, so the truck could not be seen as an uninsured vehicle belonging to Broubar, Inc. (which would disqualify it from being a temporary substitute vehicle and, therefore, being covered by the policy). An insurance company cannot escape liability by not defining “temporary substitute vehicle” in its policy. The trial court ordered Progressive to pay all the damages, and that determination was upheld on appeal.

Although obviously complex, insurance dispute is a subject matter that attorneys like ours feel comfortable navigating. If you have any questions regarding a matter like this, it is important to consult with an attorney about your legal rights.

Continue reading " Insurance Company to Pay Damages to Mother of Man Killed in Automobile Accident " »

In Oakdale, Louisiana, on March 8th, 2000, a pressurized tank owned by Arizona Chemical Co., Inc., containing a heat transfer fluid over-heated. The tank had a safety shut off valve which failed, resulting in the short-term release of chemical vapor into the air. The vapor, containing biphenyl and phenyl oxide, drifted toward the home of a nearby resident, Ms. Edna Miller. The release was short lived and was contained within 30 minutes but caused very real damages. Edna and Bruce Miller sued Arizona Chemical Co, Inc., for personal injuries following the chemical release. As a result, Edna Miler was awarded $12,5000 in damages. However, Bruce Miller's claim was denied as a verdict in favor of Arizona Chemical was issued.

Both parties appealed the decisions in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed Edna Miller's award for $12,500 and refused to award her additional damages. Bruce Miller's claim on appeal was also denied, and he was awarded no damages. Edna Miller was awarded damages while her son Bruce was not because he could not meet his burden of proof to show that the chemical release caused him any harm.

At the time of the exposure Edna was inside her home. Her son Bruce was at work, as a groundskeeper at a nearby high school. Mr. Miller left work to check on his mother when he heard about the chemical release. He found Edna outside on the lawn, nauseous, and about to leave the area. He helped her into her car and she drove away. Bruce Miler stayed on the property for several minutes, went in the house, had a glass of water and washed his face. He said his eyes and throat were burning and he felt shortness of breath.

Later that day Mrs. Miller visited the emergency room with heart palpitations, shortness of breath and nausea. She was released when she no longer had symptoms from the chemical release. Arizona Chemical company paid her medical bill and the bills of four other people that day who complained of symptoms related to the chemical release. Mr. Miller did not seek medical attention that day. He stated that five hours after the exposure he developed a rash on his hands. This rash was later found to be caused by his taking Celebrex and by his long time smoking habit, not from the chemical release. He has suffered skin rashes many times before in his life.

In order to recover damages for personal injury the injured party must prove that the other party was the primary, if not only, cause of the injury. Mr. Miller's treating family practitioner testified that his breathing problems, rashes, and other symptoms were related to the chemical exposure. However, the physician did not know until the day of trial what chemical the Millers were exposed to, nor the type of ailments that particular substance could cause. The doctor said that the timing of the chemical release and Mr. Miller's symptoms were what led him to that conclusion. The Defendant presented opinions of expert toxicologists who testified that Mr. Miller’s continuing symptoms could not have been caused by the brief transient exposure to the chemical vapor on March 8, 2000. Because Mr. Miller could not show that the cause of his symptoms was due to the chemical release, the Court of Appeals affirmed that he was not entitled to damages from Arizona Chemical Co., Inc.

Showing that an action by one party caused injury to someone can be complicated. The inured party must prove that their injury was caused by the other party and that the injury caused them some harm. In this case Mrs. Miller suffered some harm, but not harm requiring compensation more than the $12,500 the court said. Mr. Miller was not able to meet his burden of proof showing that the chemical release was the cause of his injuries and thus failed at his claim.

If you have suffered an injury due to chemical release or some other action of another party, you may be entitled to damages if you can meet the proper burden of proof. Whether or not a party has met their burden of proof is a question for the judge or jury and is essential to receiving compensation for personal injury. If you or someone you know has suffered an injury due to another party, an experienced attorney can help you determine if you may be able to meet the burden of proof to be awarded damages by the court.

Continue reading " Chemical Release Ruling a Helpful Guide for Recent Spills/Leaks " »