Legal News

April 9, 2008

Allstate Relents and Produces Internal Claims Documents

Back in January, I wrote about Allstate’s ongoing war with the state of Florida (and Missouri) in which it arrogantly racked up more than $4 million in fines for refusing to turn over documents they received orders to produce and which the insurance commission requested in Florida. On Friday, Allstate not only produced 150,000 pages of responsive documents it had protected as proprietary, but it made the documents available on Allstate’s website.

In defending some documents, a company spokesperson said that many lawyers misinterpreted the documents that refer to how Allstate deals with claims from other parties, not from policyholders. The Allstate spokesperson said many of the documents, the plaintiff’s personal injury lawyers picked apart, refer to claims-handling practices for car accident claims that have been incorrectly assumed to apply to homeowners’ policies.

If this is true, I see Allstate’s point. Accident lawyers whine about Allstate’s poor offers in third party cases. In Maryland car accident cases, I don’t think GEICO, Progressive, Nationwide, MAIF, or State Farm are making offers that are any different from Allstate’s. But that is not my point. The insurance companies have no obligation in third party cases to make fair offers. Insurance companies can do whatever they want. Therefore, we have lawsuits.

March 26, 2008

Personal Injury Lawyer Websites Disguised as Medical Websites

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse issued a press release today pointing out that, according to a new national study by the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, many personal injury lawyer websites disguised as health care websites are jeopardizing public health.

Two entities have been mentioned above. Like our local baseball teams in Baltimore and Washington these days, you can’t tell the players without a scorecard.

Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse sound like a bunch of nice, good folks from someplace like Iowa who want to fight abuses that concern our tort system. Using the word “citizens” helps create that effect. In fact, Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse is a front for corporate America to limit the rights of product liability, accident, and medical malpractice victims (probably in that order for this group). I could write a lot about their funding, but I think this will suffice: Philip Morris is believed to be one of their biggest contributors. I have not looked at their website, but I will guess that’s not mentioned anywhere on there.

February 13, 2008

New Maryland Court of Appeals Opinion

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals decided the Titan v. Advance case yesterday. Titan is a case where the Plaintiff alleged negligent repair of a roof that led to the clogging of a roof drain, which then resulted in the Plaintiff’s premises to flood. It is located on Eastern Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, at Crown Industrial Park. After a three-day trial, the jury found in favor of the Defendants.

As you might have expected, the amount of rain after the job was completed was relevant. Defendants introduced, over objection, a certified copy of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s weather reports from Baltimore-Washington Airport, which reported rain patterns at the airport between the day the roofing work was completed and the date of the flooding off the roof. Plaintiff objected that the weather at Baltimore Washington Airport on that day was not relevant because it was 10 miles from the site.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Arrie W. Davis, found that the documents were relevant because the parties disputed the amount of rainfall. The court further found that despite the length of the documents, the jury could reasonably interpret the recorded rainfall amounts and the court needed no expert opinion to explain the documents. As to the 10 miles between the Baltimore-Washington Airport and the site of the property, the court concluded this went to the weight of the evidence as opposed to admissibility.

December 26, 2007

Videotaping Independent Medical Exams

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

In March, I wrote a blog post discussing whether it makes sense for to videotape medical exams by the defendant’s lawyer’s doctor. Last week, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff who is required to submit to an “independent medical examination” (hereinafter the more honest “defense medical exam”) may videotape the exam.

Here, the doctor had refused a plaintiff’s request to videotape the DME because (1) it would invade the privacy of others in the office; (2) it would be “annoying and distracting” to the DME doctor and his staff; and (3) it would interfere with the doctor’s examination.

Actually, these are not the doctor’s objections. These are the defense lawyer’s objections. The doctor was more than happy to allow the recording of the DME as long as the defendant’s lawyer did not object. These objections are silly. First, obviously, the video should only consist of doctor’s examination of the plaintiff. Second, for $500 an hour, or whatever the doctor is charging, he should be able to bear a minor annoyance and distraction. Finally, there is no reason to believe that videotaping at the DME would interfere with the examination.

October 23, 2007

New Maryland Assumption of the Risk Opinion

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Court of Appeals issued an interesting opinion last week on Maryland’s assumption of the risk doctrine in American Powerlifting Association v. Cotillo.

The Plaintiff, a Prince George’s County police officer, suffered injuries in a powerlifting contest at Patuxent High School in Calvert County, Maryland. He brought a negligence claim in Calvert County against the American Powerlifting Association and the Calvert County Board of Education. Essentially, the Plaintiff claimed that two Patuxent High School students, who spotted the Plaintiff during his effort to bench press 530 pounds, could have prevented his injuries. A Calvert County Circuit Court judge granted the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the Plaintiff assumed the risk of his injuries.

The Court of Special Appeals affirmed on all counts except the negligence claim grounded in allegations of improper preparatory instruction of the spotter. The court’s reasoning was that the Plaintiff did not know the spotters were improperly trained, and because their improper training presented an enhanced risk not normally incidental to powerlifting, Plaintiff could not have assumed the risk.

The Maryland Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the assumption of the risk doctrine barred all of Plaintiff’s claims because any person of normal intelligence knows or should know that one risk inherent in powerlifting is that the bar may fall and injure the participant. Continue reading

October 18, 2007

Allstate Settles Bad Faith Claims in Washington

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that Allstate Insurance Co. will now fairly compensate thousands of Washington drivers for out-of-pocket medical expenses in a class action settlement.

In 2005, a driver sued Allstate for arbitrarily limiting PIP payments for car accident victims. Allstate used Colossus to determine the average pay rate for a procedure in the geographical area and then paid out only 85 percent of what it found to be the average amount. To be clear, they did not pay what they thought was fair; they paid 85% of what they thought was fair. In an unrelated story, Allstate takes 100% of the premiums from their insured. This practice underscores the insurance company’s motto of taking premiums and denying claims.

If any of this sounds familiar to you, I blogged last week about a former Allstate employee’s testimony that revealed Allstate’s alleged systematic bad faith in a first-party bad faith case in Kentucky.

September 25, 2007

$4 Verdict in Anne Arundel County Drowning Case

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Daily Record yesterday reported on a $4 million verdict an Anne Arundel County jury awarded to the parents of a 5-year-old boy who drowned in the Crofton Country Club pool in 2006. The parents of Connor Freed sued D.R.D. Pool Service, Inc, who managed the pool for the country club. The boy was at the pool with some family friend, who found him floating in the pool after a trip to use the bathroom. The suit alleged that the pool was inadequately supervised by only one 16-year-old lifeguard who had 3 weeks’ experience. It further alleged that they incorrectly performed CPR and that they should have used a defibrillator. (D.R.D. filed a cross-claim against the family friend but the jury found him not liable.)

Interestingly, a pretrial ruling dismissed the parents’ claim for the child’s conscious pain and suffering. I do not know all the facts, but unless he was unconscious when he hit the water, I cannot imagine how there could not be a survival action for conscious pain and suffering. [This ruling later was reversed.]

The jury award was 2,000,706 for each of the child’s parents. The 706 represents the child’s birthday of July 6th. That gives me goosebumps. Regrettably, the real recovery will only be about $1,020,000 (plus economic damages) because that is the cap for non-economic damages in a wrongful death case with two or more beneficiaries.

August 16, 2007

1-800-Flowers Lawsuit

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

A man in Texas has sued 1-800-Flowers for $1 million for telling his wife he was cheating on her.

Leroy Greer’s Complaint states that he purchased flowers for his girlfriend through 1-800-Flowers. He claims to have specifically asked 1-800-Flowers to keep his purchase private. Mr. Greer claims they assured him that the company’s privacy policy would protect him. Apparently, 1-800-Flowers pledges not to share personal information with “third parties.” 1-800-Flowers sent a thank-you note to his home, and naturally, his wife saw it and called the company which faxed her a copy of the invoice for the flowers.

Mr. Greer, an insufferable romantic, sent a note to his mistress that said, “Just wanted to say that I love you and you mean the world to me!” How sweet! After learning of the affair, Mr. Greer’s wife demanded a $300,000 divorce settlement besides child support, according to Mr. Greer’s lawyer. Greer’s Complaint seeks $1 million for breach of contract and deceptive trade practices.

June 28, 2007

Bad Faith Settlement

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Princeton Insurance Co. has agreed to settle a bad faith claim for $20,000,000 for a tavern brought on behalf of a tavern that was found liable for $75 million in a Dram Shop Act case. The tavern assigned its rights to pursue the bad faith claim to the plaintiff in the original case after the insurer refused to settle for $1 million. The settlement is the largest to date in a Pennsylvania bad faith case.

June 25, 2007

Roy Pearson v. Drycleaners Verdict: $0

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Justice was served in Roy Pearson’s lawsuit against his dry cleaners today. A District of Columbia judge ruled that Mr. Pearson would get somewhat less than the $54 million he sought in his lost pants lawsuit: less than zero (the judge awarded court costs to the dry cleaners). This news came as a surprise to… well, no one. The case relieved tort lawyers because the complete debacle was making all plaintiff lawyers look bad by six degrees of separation connection.

Mr. Pearson had sued Custom Cleaners because Pearson said the cleaners lost an expensive pair of his pants. His lawsuit claimed that signs in the dry cleaners that read “same day service” and “satisfaction guaranteed” were misleading to the consumers.

It is 2019 now and this case still gets attention.