Maryland Injury Law Center

August 29, 2012

Are We the Worst Drivers in America? Yes and No.

So, Allstate has published its eighth annual report of cities with the worst drivers. Given the publisher of the study, I immediately began searching for some hidden bias.

Apparently, we are in the eye of the storm. Washington D.C. is ranked first – which means worst – with Baltimore City right behind in second.

Allstate studied the auto insurance claims frequency of America’s 200 largest cities and found that residents of our nation’s capital were found to get into collisions on average once every 4.7 years. The typical driver in the U.S. is involved in an automobile accident once every ten years. If you aced math class, you might realize that this means D.C. drivers are 112.1% more likely to be a party to an accident than the typical driver in the U.S. For Baltimore drivers, they are 89.7% more likely than the average driver. Rounding out the top five, Providence Rhode Island ranks third, Hialeah, Florida fourth, and Glendale, California comes in at fifth.

Where might you want to live? Sioux Falls, South Dakota. For the fifth time out of the report’s eight-year history, Sioux Falls, South Dakota ranks as the safest place to drive, with drivers being 27.6% less likely to be involved in an accident than the typical driver.

Okay, so what does this study mean? You want to avoid Washington, D.C. and Baltimore streets at all costs? Ironically, I think Washington, D.C. and Baltimore might be among the safest streets to drive on in America. Why? Because car accidents are one thing and car accidents that cause serious injury and death are another. In Maryland, Baltimore County has almost twice as many fatal accidents as Baltimore City. Continue reading

August 28, 2012

New Maryland COA Venue Decision

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

You can call it a sad but true fact if you want: the value of a personal injury case in Maryland might double (or be cut in half) based on where the case is tried. I provide here our thoughts on where each Maryland county and Baltimore City ranks on the food chain of preferability for venue in personal injury cases.

Defense lawyers want to go back to olden days when plaintiffs did not forum shop, they just filed where it was most convenient and advantageous to the plaintiff. Defense lawyers are big into restoring traditions that never existed. I’ve never seen a stitch of evidence to suggest that venue has not been a battlefield since the Industrial Revolution. There are more opportunities where reasonable minds can differ as to the venue in 2012 because we are so much more cosmopolitan today. Just about every tort that arose 150 years ago was on some guy’s farm. So while the analysis is more complex now, there have always been different communities that had different values and this impacts the lens with which they view personal injury claims. Continue reading

August 27, 2012

Can the Defense Expert Say the Plaintiff Is Lying? No, But Maybe You Should Let Him Anyway

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Defense lawyers are reluctant to say that the plaintiff is lying. They will insinuate, suggest, intimate, and any other verb you can think of to lead that horse to water, but they will rarely come out and say it. It is largely a trial tactics decision, but it is also because defense lawyers are human. (No, really! It’s true!) It is uncomfortable to call someone a liar or a bad person, so most defense lawyers avoid it. The strategy for many is to turn it over to their medical expert, hoping that packaging it in a white coat makes it more credible.

Medical experts should not be testifying as to the plaintiff’s credibility. Under both Maryland and federal law, the credibility of a witness and the weight to be accorded the witness’ testimony are for the jury and, it is “error for the court to permit to go to the jury a statement, belief, or opinion of another person to the effect that a witness is telling the truth or lying.” Stated by the Maryland Court of Appeals: “It is the settled law of this State that a witness, expert or otherwise, may not give an opinion on whether he believes a witness is telling the truth. Testimony from a witness relating to the credibility of another witness is to be rejected as a matter of law.” Continue reading

August 23, 2012

Sane State Farm Adjuster

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

I just had a great talk on settlement with a State Farm claims adjuster. No, really. It is true. I am not kidding.

I made a demand. She said she asked for authority right about what I was asking for, but the settlement authority she has is “X”. The adjuster wryly pointed out that she did not own the company and suggested I take the offer back to my client and find out whether he wants to sue or settle.

I’ll recommend to the client we sue. He has a serious injury and will make an unbelievable plaintiff at trial. But I appreciate a reasonable State Farm adjuster who did not swallow the Kool-Aid and just lays it out straight.

August 21, 2012

Maryland High Court Flips on Pit Bull Dog Bite Law

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Now, this is a shock. The Maryland Court of Appeals ends its summer of avoiding personal injury cases with a vengeance by reconsidering and overruling its own controversial ruling on strict liability for pit bull attacks. The court reversed course and decided that the ruling should only apply to purebred dogs in Tracey v. Solesky. Wow!

“The majority (of which I was a part) erred in gratuitously applying strict liability to crossbreds when that issue was never in the case,” Judge Alan M. Wilner wrote in rescinding the court’s order. Judge Wilner also pointed out how rare it is for an appellate court to grant a motion for reconsideration. (Note

Wow. This move deserves at least two “wows.”

August 16, 2012

Progressive Takes Another Shot at Public Relations

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Here is the email I got from Progressive’s PR people today:

In response to your story involving Progressive Insurance, please see the below updated statement on behalf of Progressive:

For the past week, Progressive has been in active settlement discussions with the family of Kaitlynn Fisher. Though there was considerable public interest in this case and we know many of you saw mentions of it on social media and news outlets, we also believed it was inappropriate to share further details while those discussions were ongoing. As of this morning, an agreement has been reached with the Fisher family to settle the claim. Prior to that, we were cautious with our responses, but now that the agreement has been reached, we’d like to further clarify Progressive’s role in the trial.

Ms. Fisher held a policy with Progressive that included Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage, which protects drivers in the event they’re struck by an at-fault driver who’s either uninsured or doesn’t have enough coverage.

Under Maryland law, in order to receive the benefits of an underinsured driver claim, the other driver must be at fault. Sometimes this can be proven without the need for a trial, but in Ms. Fisher’s case, there were credible conflicting eyewitness accounts as to who was at fault.

A trial was necessary so that a jury could review all of the evidence and come to a decision. In those circumstances, under Maryland law, the insurance company providing the Underinsured Motorist coverage is considered a defendant. As a defendant in this case, Progressive participated in the trial procedures on our own behalf while Nationwide represented the other driver.

On Thursday, August 9, a jury determined that the other driver was at fault in the accident involving Ms. Fisher. In accordance with that decision, Progressive worked with the Fisher family and their legal representative to resolve the claim.

This was a tragic accident and our sympathies go out to the Fisher family.
Statement posted here: http://www.progressive.com/understanding-insurance/entries/2012/8/16/update_on_the_kaitl.aspx
————————————————–
[name deleted] | Account Manager
Allison+Partners for Progressive
71 Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor | New York, NY 10003
Direct: [deleted] Mobile: [deleted] [more personal information deleted]

August 16, 2012

Wrong Experts Means Bye-Bye Million Dollar Verdict

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

In Bailey Lumber & Supply Company v. Robinson, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed a $1 million award in a slip and fall case, finding that while plaintiff’s medical expert – an internal medicine doctor – could testify about the plaintiff’s hip problem, he did not have the expertise to offer the opinion that the slip and fall aggravated the man’s osteoarthritis, causing hip replacement surgery. This opinion is a good reminder for personal injury lawyers in Maryland that, when in doubt, make sure you have an expert that is qualified to give the opinions you need at trial.

This case is a pretty good slip and fall case on liability for the plaintiff. The defendant operated a building-and-lumber-supply retail store. Plaintiff needed paint. Defendant’s employee says, “Follow me back to a dark, creepy and dangerous room” (I may be paraphrasing) that was for employees only. The room was dimly lit and the plaintiff tripped over a two-inch step in the doorway’s threshold between the two rooms. Plaintiff says the defendant’s employee said we “should have fixed that floor a long time ago.” (To me, this sounds made up.) Plaintiff drove himself home.

I’m not feeling a million verdict at this point. Are you? Oh, yeah, and he has osteoarthritis, eventually causing hip surgery. Continue reading

August 16, 2012

Progressive Tempest Comments

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

I have gotten a lot of interesting comments on the “Progressive did not tender policy limits in wrongful death case in Baltimore” Internet firestorm. One fascinating idea set forth from one commenter is that this becomes the insurance industry’s McDonald’s coffee case. The commenter dismisses the notion, but it is interesting. Could anyone have predicted that case would still have legs 17 years later?

Is it okay to frame the whole insurance industry for this? They are guilt of plenty. Wouldn’t the ends justify the means? Not for nothing, I think Martin Luther King would disagree that the ends would justify the means. He attacks the issue in a lot more serious context than uninsured motorist coverage, I’ll tell ya that.

August 15, 2012

The Internet Hates Progressive Insurance.. But Should It?

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Internet is hammering Progressive Insurance for defending an uninsured motorist wrongful death case. Just hammering. It’s wild. And I’m really enjoying it. Should I? Progressive has committed many crimes against humanity . But in this case that has caused the Internet to explode, Progressive is being framed for a crime it did not commit, at least on the facts on which Progressive is being hung by the mob.

Update #1: Progressive’s PR people sent me an email explaining themselves further.

Update #2: It is 2014. Who is still talking about this case? Absolutely no one. It is amazing to me how these social media storms blow over as quickly as they come.

Did Progressive defend an indefensible case?

Before I defend them, let’s talk about why I don’t like Progressive. Because I don’t. I talk about this here where I both rant and explain how to beat them at trial.

I feel a little bad saying that I don’t like them because I really like some of their adjusters, many of which are really nice people. But it is an awful company to deal with on car accident claims. They write pathetically small policies unlikely to meaningfully compensate anyone who is seriously injured. They write a lot of $30,000/$60,000 policies which are the minimum in Maryland – the exact reason they can brag about their pricing. Yes, practically no coverage at all is cheap.

Just as annoying, Progressive gives awful settlement offers until you sue, because they can always pony up their piddly little policies at the last minute and avoid exposure. (I complain about this here.) Because they can always pony up their piddly little policies at the last minute and avoid exposure. Thankfully, Progressive has a small in-house counsel’s office in Maryland which means once a lawsuit is filed, they dramatically change their tune. I’ve had Progressive claims adjusters tell me to file suit so they can increase their offer.

Anyway, the thing that is causing this hubbub is a case where a beautiful young woman – a Progressive insured – is tragically killed in a car accident in Baltimore. Nationwide Insurance, the at-fault carrier, at some point tenders their policy limits. Progressive refuses to waive its subrogation rights against the at-fault driver. So it claimed that it was not obligated to pay because the young woman was at-fault for the accident. Her brother wrote a really well written piece, underscoring his anger and frustration with Progressive, and then the Internet did what the Internet does.

Was this a good faith belief? I have my doubts. Progressive most likely only had a $100,000 policy. So it had nothing to lose in rolling the dice and trying the case. This is the garbage they do all the time (which is why Maryland needs a first-party bad faith law with real teeth). We have had plenty of verdicts against insurance companies in uninsured motorist cases because they were not motivated to settle because they knew no matter what the jury awarded, they would only have to pay the policy limits. Continue reading

August 15, 2012

Is Calling Someone a State Farm Claims Adjuster an Insult?

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

I sent State Farm a demand package on March 29th. Now, admittedly, I don’t have State Farm “good neighbor” posters in my room, but I’ll give credit where credit is due: State Farm turns demand letters into offers pretty quickly. I’ll tell clients to expect an offer with 60 days, but I’m under-promising and over-delivering – I expect to get an offer much sooner.

Well, it is now almost five months later, and we have gotten nothing but the runaround. So, I got a supervisor on the phone today. He admits the original adjuster is a problem child. To the supervisor’s credit, he read the file in a few hours and called me to argue about it. Usual stuff, he had degenerative changes prior to the accident (setting aside that he had no problems or needed, ah, surgery which he needed after the accident). I’m cool with that; I don’t mind the “your case sucks” banter. The game is the game. Continue reading