Good news for plaintiffs to start off the week. Rod Gaston, a lawyer in our office, tried a Reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) case in Baltimore County last week
against a State Farm insured. The offer in the case was $37,000. After hearing evidence for three days, the jury returned after an hour with a $663,821.15 verdict.
Here’s another good State Farm verdict in 2013: 35 times State Farm’s settlement offer.
Our firm has spent a lot of time, effort and energy trying to get an honest answer that defense experts sedulously avoid: how much do you make testifying in accident cases and how much have you made from this law firm/insurance company?
I think we have fought this issue as hard as anyone in Maryland, recently getting a helpful Maryland Court of Appeals opinion that makes more clear what Maryland law is on the expert’s obligation to produce financial records.
I know a lot of insurance defense attorneys in Maryland think we do this to harass their experts. I get why they think this. There is too much gamesmanship in Maryland accident cases between plaintiffs’ accident lawyers and the insurance companies. Both sides are guilty of this. But with this expert issue, jurors care more about bias than they do the doctor’s pedigree. We care about this issue so much because we think it makes a difference to jurors.
Paul Luvera discusses a tough issue for Plaintiff’s lawyers: do you clue the jury in during your opening statement how much you will ask for in closing? I struggle with this and often opt for a middle ground. I lay out the foundation of what I will ask for: medical bills, wages, and the formula I think is appropriate (x per day for the rest of her life). This way, I’m getting them used to the idea without having to spit out a number with no evidence.
As Paul points out, a one size fits all rule is difficult because each case depends on different facts. One critical question has to be considered: is the cap an issue? If what you have is a cap case and minimal or no economic damages, you can dial back on the damages argument which might help you avoid the risk of losing credibility. Because every time you ask for money – which is what a plaintiffs’ lawyer does by definition – you do lose some measure of credibility with a jury.
One issue in this post – raising the damage amount in voir dire – is not of much interest to Maryland personal injury lawyers because our voir dire is so ridiculously limited.
In its final day in session, the Maryland General Assembly passed a bill that will place a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November to raise the jury prayer amount in civil cases in Maryland. Any case pled in District Court in Maryland for more than $10,000 can be “bumped up” to a jury trial. This bill would increase that amount to $15,000.
Insurance companies commonly bump up small district court cases filed for more than $10,000. This practice leads to massive numbers of car accident cases before Maryland juries making it hard to argue that we are properly using precious juror time.
Car insurance companies have historically opposed this bill. But this was not your classic “business v. trial lawyers” battle: a lot of support for the bill came from small businesses who dislike having to spend their resources on lawyers battling in Circuit Court that which could be fought much cheaper (for all parties to the litigation) in District Court.
Yesterday, the Maryland Daily Record published the first of a three-part series I wrote with retired Judge Clifton J. Gordy (now a mediator and arbitrator) on mediation in serious personal injury and wrongful death claims. The article is for both plaintiff and defense lawyers looking to make mediations as productive as possible. Look at yesterday’s article, and look in coming editions for the final two parts.
The Maryland Senate passed HB 825 which increases the minimum minimum limits of car insurance liability coverage in Maryland from $20,000.00/$40,000.00 to $30,000.00/$60,000.00. The Maryland House of Delegates has already approved the bill, and we expect the Governor to sign the bill soon. The bill will go into effect next year.
Again, this bill is long overdue and will not provide an actual solution to serious injury and wrongful death cases where there is inadequate insurance. It is a moderate but meaningful step in the right direction.
The Baltimore Sun’s Jay Hancock continues, improperly, to receive a license by the Baltimore Sun to blog about tort claims while having a limited understanding of Maryland tort claims. And maybe it is just me, but this is a terrible idea.
He notes in his blog some great news: traffic deaths for Maryland in 2009 were 550, which is 550 too many but down from 614 in 2007 and 707 in 1990, even though Maryland has many more drivers on the road today than it did in 1990. Hancock assumes that we “can be reasonably sure that traffic deaths are a good proxy for accidents, injuries and lawsuits generally,” concluding that Maryland accident lawyers “want a raise” by increasing minimal auto insurance policies drivers must maintain in Maryland.
The Maryland Daily Record has an interesting article today on the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund (MAIF).
For out-of-state readers, MAIF is a unique animal: a state-run insurance company for drivers that cannot get car insurance from private insurers. Most states deal with this problem by forcing private insurance companies to insure high-risk drivers. In Maryland, we have created a huge state-run insurance company to insure the risk.
To me, MAIF is like stare decisis. I don’t think we would decide all over again to create a state agency. One good piece of evidence: no other state has followed suit and created their own version of MAIF. But now that we have it, there is no inertia to tear it down.
The Daily Record article talks about efforts in the Maryland legislature to essentially stop MAIF from acting as an insurance company. What’s the problem? Insurance companies are threatened by MAIF because they are stealing market share. One of the lobbyists quoted in the article complaining about MAIF works for Agency Insurance, which also insurers a lot of high-risk drivers. This isn’t the first time an insurance company that markets to high-risk drivers has complained about MAIF. (See this September 2, 2008 post.)
These same insurance companies also grab on to the up-with-people populist sentiment against bonuses for anyone connected to public funding, pointing to the $1.2 million in bonuses MAIF paid last year. They jump on the fact that MAIF Executive Director M. Kent Krabbe is the one who recommended the bonuses to the board and that Krabbe got $36,000 for himself.
I’m as big of a MAIF critic as anyone is. I think they are just plain obstructionists for paying valid claims and I think their approach often costs them money. They won’t try a high-risk case, but they also won’t offer their policy limits until after they spend a fortune in legal fees defending the case.
I have said in the past I don’t disagree with insurance companies’ tactics of playing hardball with personal injury lawyers to maximize their profits. Too many attorneys settle at the first sight of money or a potential trial. But hanging around in a wrongful death case – which they have done multiple times with us – when I know they are just going to offer the policy before trial – is just a poor business strategy. Good companies have over one gear. MAIF just has the one. At some point, turning the boat north and speeding up when there is an iceberg in your path is a terrible idea. Particularly when your plan is to jump off when the iceberg gets real close. Continue reading
Tomorrow, the Maryland House of Representatives will vote on House Bill 825 which would raise the minimum limits of automobile coverage from $20,000.00/$40,000.00 to $30,000.00/$60,000.00.
Is $30,000 enough coverage for a significant accident? Of course not. Maryland has had 20/40 limits since 1972. This is 102,000/204,000 in 2010 dollars. But Rome was not built in a day, and this bill is a good step in the right direction.
As odd as it is for me to be carrying water for insurance companies, the only way to protect yourself from an uninsured or underinsured motorist is to make sure you have adequate uninsured motorist coverage. The relatively modest increase in premium is worth the additional protection.
A wrongful death lawsuit has been filed against a Chattanooga, Tennessee bar after a car accident killed a woman just a few days before Christmas. The case is an interesting twist on the classic dram shop case. The suit alleges that the bar gave its employees free alcohol and allowed one man to leave the bar intoxicated. The employee stayed at the bar and drank “free alcohol” after his shift ended at 3 a.m. Around 7:00 a.m., the defendant struck and killed a pedestrian, an employee on her way to work at Unum Insurance. The defendant, stand-up guy that he apparently is, fled the scene and tried to fake a carjacking. Apparently this is an insurmountable stunt to pull off when you are drunk.
What really adds teeth to the Plaintiff’s wrongful death lawsuit is a city ordinance prohibiting bar workers from drinking where they work, even when off duty. Violating the ordinance was a factor in causing this woman’s death. If the case goes to trial, there will be arguments by defense lawyers about the purpose and intent of the statute and whether this was the harm that the ordinance was trying to avoid. But I would suspect it was at least a purpose, if not the purpose, of the statute.
Maryland has rejected dram shop and social host liability in DWI accident claims. Going against the grain as a parent and lawyer who handles accident cases, I have believed and written in the past I oppose dram shop liability claims in Maryland.
I’m not so sure anymore. I would like to see data as to the number of wrongful deaths that occur in Maryland from DWI/DUI accidents where the person became intoxicated at a bar, or even at a bar where they are employed. The more salient question is one on which we will never get a definitive answer: how many deaths have occurred as the result of a server in a bar or restaurant who knows a patron (or employee) is drunk but does nothing to stop them? Continue reading
Maryland Injury Law Center