Maryland Injury Law Center

August 26, 2011

Interesting Opinions This Week

In what I would like to be a regular feature, I have provided a summary of opinions in the last week or so that may interest Maryland tort attorneys. Maryland opinions are important, but I think reading opinions from other jurisdictions also give a better understanding of the arguments and issues in areas of unsettled law in Maryland or wherever you are practicing. Half of the issues that come up in a case, during discovery or at trial, are issues of first impression. Reading case law formed elsewhere on personal injury issues helps lawyers not only understand the arguments they might want to bring, but it also helps spot issues in the first place.

With that pious, self-referential speech now complete, here are the opinions:

Bad faith claim in Alaska fails

August 23, 2011

Interesting Plaintiff’s Lawyer Tactics in State Farm Bad Faith Claim

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Something interesting has come out of Alaska that does not involve Sarah Palin, oil, or snow. No, really, it’s true.

In Whitney v. State Farm, the Plaintiff had a serious injury case that far exceeded State Farm’s 100/300 policy. (Yeah, State Farm is writing those in Alaska too.) State Farm tendered the policy limits. Plaintiff’s counsel had an admirable but goofy theory why there were stacking policies on the risk where UM coverage applied.

Plaintiff’s accident lawyer then did something very interesting. He settled the case with the Defendant far in excess of the policy limits. This gave him a chance to skip a trial and immediately test his theory, bringing a bad faith claim under Alaska’s version of a use plaintiff. I’m sure he had some side deal with Plaintiff on collecting the settlement. I’m amazed the defendant’s State Farm lawyer – whose bills are being paid by State Farm – had the guts to craft a settlement was in the client’s best interests but not State Farm’s.

August 22, 2011

Indiana State Fair Lawsuits Begin

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The first lawsuit has been filed over the Indiana State Fair stage collapse that killed six people last week. The suit claims that flimsy stage construction and failure to heed warnings of “severe thunderstorms” caused the injuries and deaths that ensued.

Ultimately, and I have written this before, I think it is hard to gather all the facts and figure out all the defendants in a case like this within a week. Besides getting some good publicity for the lawyers who file the case, I think there is rarely wisdom in racing to the courthouse steps after an accident.

August 22, 2011

Jurors and Insurance

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

While preparing our client to testify at trial on Tuesday, I had a hard time getting her not to mention that she had received workers’ compensation benefits. So many of her choices were pushed by what workers’ comp would or wouldn’t do. When you are coaching someone to be as honest as possible, it’s hard. Tell the truth about EVERYTHING… oh, but not this.

Jurors are not told about the existence of insurance, either health insurance or liability insurance. There is good reason for this in theory: jurors are more likely to increase their award if they don’t know an insurance company is behind the defendant and they also will not award medical bills that they assume were paid by insurance. They are also not told that health insurance companies and workers’ compensation insurers expect to be paid back if the jury awards plaintiff compensation.

Thankfully, our client did well – no mention of the workers’ compensation insurance that paid her medical bills and lost wages. Then the president of the defendant company testifies and promptly blurts out that his company has had few accidents, which is why their insurance premiums are so low. For good measure, he repeats himself. One juror later told us he remembered that he let insurance slip but quickly added, “We figured there was insurance.” Another juror chimed in, “This case was more like a workers’ compensation claim.” This figured in their math too. They figured she would not pay $151,000 in medical bills back to her doctors although they awarded it anyway because good jurors follow the law.

August 11, 2011

Trial Preparation and Blogging

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

I promised in my last post to write more about our $2.5 million medical malpractice verdict on Monday, a post I will enjoy writing. But preparations for trial on Monday – the worst ankle break I have every seen suffered by maybe the sweetest client I have every taken to trial – has trumped this blog this week. But I will be back shortly…

August 8, 2011

$2.5 Million Malpractice Verdict in Montgomery County

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Our clients were awarded $2.5 million in a Montgomery County wrongful death medical malpractice case earlier tonight.

It is late. I’ll have more thoughts tomorrow, including my thoughts on just how seriously this jury took the idea of public service. Just a great story. In the meantime, congratulations to our wonderful clients who tragically lost their husband/father, Rod Gaston who worked up and tried the case for us, and to the lawyer who referred the case to us.

August 3, 2011

How and How Not to Reduce Drunk Driving Accidents

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Virginia is making great strides in cutting the number of drunk driving accidents. The path to success is not a secret: aggressive enforcement.

Virginia officials also cite increased driver education. This is bunk, and everyone knows it. Government officials must get performance incentives for citing education as the cure for everything.

Malcolm Gladwell’s book The Tipping Point underscores how bad this paradigm fails elsewhere. Gladwell cites a study that shows that the average smoker overestimates how many years smoking will take off their lives. Smokers think it will cost them 9 years when the real answer is probably more like 6. Paradoxically, education may make these people less risk-averse to smoking. Continue reading

August 1, 2011

Dean Closius Resignation: Miller & Zois Will Donate $10,000 If Closius Returns

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

I was surprised at the media response to the University of Baltimore School of Law Dean Phillip J. Closius’ resignation/firing last week. The story was on the front page of the Baltimore Sun on Saturday. My blog post on this on Friday received a tremendous amount of traffic.

I really believe that Dean Closius and University of Baltimore School President Robert L. Bogomolny ought to sit down – with a mediator – and try to resolve their differences. Obviously, there was tension between these two men that ran deep. But they both want what’s best for the law school. They just need to get on the same page.

If Dean Closius returns as Dean to the University of Baltimore Law School, Miller & Zois will donate $10,000 to the school. I’m hoping other Closius supporters make a similar pledge.

July 29, 2011

UB Dean Closius Resigned? Seriously?

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Daily Record reports that Dean Philip J. Closius has resigned as the University of Baltimore School of Law Dean, citing differences with University President Robert L. Bogomolny over the amount of law school revenue the university keeps.

Dean Closius came here with a reputation as a guy who was not particularly, how should I say, politically delicate. I think he left on bad terms with the University of Toledo College of Law after doing a great job moving that school up in the food chain. But am I shocked that he resigned and that President Bogomolny asked for Closius’ resignation? Yes.

I don’t follow the UB law gossip much. I had no idea that there was some battle over whether Steve Snyder would have the law school named after him. Is there a legal drama in Baltimore that does not involve Steve Snyder?

The Daily Record says Closius will take one year of administrative leave before returning to the UB law school as a full-time faculty member. I can’t imagine that it will come to pass.

I’ve been on the faculty at UB for 13 years. We have had more false starts at that school. “Here were go, we are rising up!” only to fall back to exactly where we were. Under Dean Closius, we really started making real, substantive, measurable progress.

July 27, 2011

New Underinsured Motorist Opinion

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Mealy’s reports on Jones v. Penn National, a North Carolina uninsured motorist case where the Plaintiff brought a bad faith claim against Penn National, the underinsured motorist carrier, in a case where the at-fault defendant – insured by Allstate, naturally – did not tender their policy. The court said that the Defendant has no obligation to offer UIM coverage before the exhaustion of liability insurance. I think a Maryland court would make the same ruling.

That’s the nutshell. You can stop there. Perhaps I could interest you in an overview of uninsured motorist coverage. Is that something you might be interested in? (Entourage devotees enjoy the joke. Everyone else looks annoyed.) Or we can break it down a little further.

Plaintiff gets into a serious accident. The defendant driver is killed. Allstate, who insured the defendant, offered $7,500 of its $30,000 policy. Plaintiff takes the case to verdict and gets a $185,000 verdict. Typical Allstate.

Plaintiff then brought a bad faith claim invoking North Carolina’s UIM statute and its Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Maryland has a similar law. Plaintiff’s lawyers claimed that Penn National was bound by a statutory duty — following the car accident and before Allstate tendered its policy – to evaluate the case fairly and honestly. In other words, they argue that Penn National is not as dumb as Allstate and knew the claim was worth more. Continue reading