Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog

We sent Progressive Insurance a demand letter in a case where the client had some pretty serious injuries, including 50 staples in her head to close a scalp laceration. Progressive faxed us a letter stating it cannot conclude its investigation until we obtain different bills from the medical providers that are on certain health claim forms, because Progressive wants the individual CPT codes for every visit. CPT codes are numbers assigned to every task or service a doctor may provide to a patient.

Are CPT codes necessary for Progressive Insurance to determine whether medical care rendered was fair, reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the car accident? I think the best way to frame the question is to ask whether a jury can render a verdict without CPT codes. The answer, of course, in that I have never in my life heard testimony that included CPT codes at trial.

Continue reading "Progressive Insurance = File Suit" »

The Governor signed yesterday a bill that allows auto insurance companies in cases where the at-fault driver has insufficient insurance coverage to consent to settlements against the at fault driver without (1) limiting their right to raise any issue relating to liability or damages in an action against the insurer; and (2) admitting as to any issue raised in an action against the insurer.

The Maryland General Assembly made history with the bill: nobody is mad. Insurance companies are ecstatic and trial lawyers are largely indifferent.

You can read about the genesis of this bill here.

State Farm recorded another win in a family use exclusion case this week in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, in Stickley v. State Farm.

This is an awful case. Plaintiff was a passenger in a car accident in Montgomery County in which her husband was killed. Plaintiff suffered catastrophic injuries. Plaintiff and her husband had coverage with State Farm, which provided typical coverage for State Farm, at least in Maryland: $100,000 per person/$300,000 per accident. Plaintiff also had a $2,000,000 umbrella policy with State Farm. Plaintiff's lawyer obviously wanted to get to the umbrella.

Regrettably, the State Farm umbrella policy included an exclusion for personal injury claims that result from the negligence of another insured. Plaintiff's lawyer sought a declaratory judgment, claiming that her Umbrella Policy constituted "private passenger motor vehicle liability insurance," voiding the family use exclusion regardless of the unambiguous language of the policy.

The question, ultimately, is whether the personal liability umbrella policy is a policy of “private passenger motor vehicle liability insurance,” thereby requiring an insurer to offer coverage under the umbrella policy for a claim made by a family member in the same amount as the coverage made by a nonfamily member, pursuant to Ins. § 19-504.1.

Continue reading "State Farm Family Use Exclusion: A New CSA Opinion" »

Last week, in Hendrix v. Burns, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals dealt with the question of what plaintiffs' lawyers can admit into evidence in a car accident case when the defendant stipulates to liability.

In car accident cases, many defense lawyers loathe to admit responsibility. There is always a chance that the jury will hate the plaintiff and accept some insane version of how an accident happened. But, the best thing that can happen for the plaintiff is for the defense lawyer to deny responsibility in a case, because it diminishes the defense lawyer's credibility on the scope of the plaintiff's injuries. If you are a car accident lawyer, you want to get the jury mad at the defendant. Jurors give more money when they are mad. This is hard in car accident cases because it is hard for jurors to get mad at a negligent driver who makes what they can perceive to be an accident that they could easily make themselves. Good car accident lawyers frame the case not as an accident, but a choice the defendant made. "The defendant in this case chose not to pay attention." But, still, we all know that we have failed to pay attention while driving and it could have, under the wrong circumstances, lead to a car accident.

In Hendrix, the call to stipulate to liability was a no brainer for State Farm who defended the case. The defendant was drunk. He tried to flee the scene of the accident, but his damaged car wouldn't let him. He was in the middle of some sort of road rage dispute. A picture perfect bad guy defendant for the jury to hate.

State Farm did what they should do, file a motion in limine to exclude the introduction of evidence that the defendant was drunk, that he had been involved in a “road rage” incident with another driver and was crazily chasing that driver when he ran the red light, that defendant attempted to flee after the accident, and also that his criminal record included DUI convictions.

Plaintiff's lawyer did what good plaintiffs' lawyers do in a case like this. He brought a battery case for the road rage, arguing that has been put to bed since law school doctrines like transferred intent. He brought a negligent entrustment count. He also smartly argued that a part of Plaintiff's pain and suffering was seeing the defendant drunk and trying to flee the scene of the accident. This lawyer was doing everything he could to put his client in a position to maximize her damages.

Does this have anything to do with the appropriate level of damages in a personal injury case? It depends on your world view. If you think damages should be calculated in a hermetically sealed box, it shouldn't be admissible. From this perspective, it shouldn't matter whether the defendant was a crackhead on his 6th DWI or a nun with a 40 years history impeccable driving.

Yet, somehow, the fact that she was a nun would come out on direct. Why? Because the insurance defense lawyer is trying to minimize damages by suggesting that this nun is a sweetie and she is going to have to pay this verdict out of her pocket.

Why do we let the nun say she is a nun? Context matters. But once you agree that the fact that she is a nun should be admitted, doesn't the dam break open when the defendant is drunk. Isn't that context - like the nun - that the jury should consider?

Continue reading "Defendant Was a Drunk Driver: Should That Be Admissible" »

I wrote last week about a bill pending in the Maryland House of Delegates that would authorize punitive damages against drunk drivers who caused "injury or wrongful death while operating a motor vehicle." For whatever reason, the House of Delegates Judiciary Committee rejected the bill which means it is not happening in 2012.

New Res Ipsa Opinion

I was planning to take the week off of blogging this week. The Maryland Court of Appeals rejected this plan by publishing its opinion in District of Columbia v. Singleton. In a quiet but meaningful protest, I'm going to make this post a little rambling and disjointed. Just know this is an intended effect. So here we go.

In Singleton, plaintiff was on a bus with his 8 year old son in Prince George's County, traveling on Route 50. They were going on a school field trip to Six Flags. While plaintiff was asleep, the bus went off the road and hit a tree. Plaintiff suffered injuries in the accident, but I think this was nothing more than a soft tissue injury case.

At trial, plaintiff and his son were unable to provide testimony as to why the bus went off the road. Plaintiff's lawyer did not call the bus driver or any other witnesses. Plaintiff's obvious problem: where is the proof of negligence? Plaintiff attempted to solve this problem by relying on res ipsa loquitur, using the simple logic that buses don't crash into trees in the absence of negligence. The trial judge disagreed, finding that there were “too many leaps of faith that a reasonable fact finder would have to take” in order find that the bus driver's negligence was the cause of the accident.

In an unpublished opinion, the Maryland Court Special Appeals reversed, finding that plaintiff's testimony that he was sleeping and woke up to see the bus had hit a tree "raised a rebuttable presumption of negligence on the part of the driver." The CSA relied on longstanding Maryland law that “the failure to maintain control of the vehicle presents a prima facie case of negligence.”

The issue on appeal, according to the Maryland high court, was whether plaintiffs may use res ipsa loquitur in a single-vehicle, motor tort negligence action arising from the vehicle leaving the road, where the plaintiff was unable to recall the circumstances of the accident and "failed to produce other reasonably accessible and probative evidence to attempt to determine the cause of the accident."

I love this issue statement. It is like me asking one of my kids, "Should you be allowed to play Fruit Ninja on the iPad when you have not eaten you dinner and have acted completely inappropriately all evening?" You know how the opinion is going to come down by the way the they loaded the question.

Continue reading "New Maryland High Court Ruling on Res Ipsa in Car Accident Cases" »

The Maryland House Economic Matters Committee will be voting today on House Bill 715, from the insurance lobby, to reverse the rule in Maurer v. Pennsylvania National Mutual, that waiving subrogation in underinsured motorist cases is conclusive of the at-fault drivers liability in causing the accident. I wrote about this bill last week, pointing out that this may be a rare instance where car insurance companies and auto accident lawyers might be able to agree although, clearly, this bill matters more to the car insurance companies that it does to Maryland accident lawyers.

Continue reading "Uninsured Motorist Bill Up for Committee Vote Today" »

There is a bill pending in the Maryland Senate to overturn the Maryland Court of Appeals opinion in Maurer v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance six years ago. This bill allows car insurance companies who have underinsured exposure, because the at fault driver has insufficient insurance coverage, to consent to settlements against the at fault driver without (1) limiting their right to raise any issue relating to liability or damages in an action against the insurer; and (2) admitting as to any issue raised in an action against the insurer.

Continue reading "Underinsured Motorist Coverage Maze: A New Bill to Clean Up (a Little)" »

The Maryland Special Court of Appeals issued an opinion last week in a case that should be read by every Maryland personal injury lawyer who is putting up or cross examining expert witnesses at trial.

In Yiallouro v. Tolson, the plaintiff was injured in a car accident while in the scope of his employment. The case went to a Montgomery County jury who awarded the the victim and his wife $925,000.

After the verdict, the trial judge made two conclusions that blew up the jury's verdict. First, the judge concluded that he had made a mistake in letting plaintiffs' vocational rehabilitation expert testify about plaintiff's lost wages at trial - over $400,000 - because her opinions were speculative and without sufficient foundation. The trial judge also concluded that the pain and suffering damages were excessive and perhaps influenced by the testimony of the vocational rehabilitation expert.

This ruling put plaintiffs' lawyer into a box: trial judges have a lot of discretion to vacate verdicts that the court deems excessive. So he did the only thing he could do: try the case again. He even got the vocational rehabilitation expert back, getting her past a Frye/Reed hearing.

The defense lawyers - channeling their inner Bill Belichick - did something real smart: they learned from the first trial. Most trial lawyers will tell you that accident reconstruction experts usually are a waste of time. The jury draws it own conclusions and ignores the expert, according to the conventional wisdom.

The defense lawyers in this case ignored this conventional wisdom and brought an accident reconstruction expert to testify about his measurement of ground distances and his estimations of speed, stopping time, and stopping distance—including his assumptions of average reaction times. Defense verdict. Contributory negligence. Game over. Riches to rags. Thankfully for the plaintiffs, the Maryland Special Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Albert J. Matricciani, reversed the trial court, finding that the expert had been appropriately qualified.

Future lost wage damage claims present challenges because there are no way to determine the future and, on some theoretical level, an expert who offers future lost wages is guessing. Still, Maryland law allows for damages for future lost wages, if for no other reason than the incredible injustice that would ensue if the law just dismissed future lost wage claims as speculative on their face.

So plaintiffs' lawyer used the three step game plan good accident attorneys use when claiming future lost wages. Get an expert opinion from an orthopedic doctor, have the voc rehab expert translate plaintiff's limitations into lost income, and then have the economist give the jury the real value of the lost stream of income.

Continue reading "New Maryland Expert Opinion Ruling" »

U.S. District Court Judge Catherine C. Blake issued a fascinating opinion this week in Allstate v. Warns, denying a former Allstate adjuster's motion for summary judgment in a "we think you stole our documents and provided them to the plaintiffs' lawyer" case. The facts are juicy. It is more than worth the time to lay them out. Get some popcorn and head back over here.

Welcome back. Defendant was an Allstate claims adjuster for 33 years, handling only lead paint cases during the last 5 years of her Allstate tenure. Seemingly, the very definition of a company gal. I would think that if you stay at Allstate for 33 years, you would be ordering extra glasses of the Colossus Kool-Aid and all the other noxious potions they are concocting in the lunch room over there.

The first clue that this adjuster had fallen of the wagon is that she invited a number of plaintiffs' lawyers - including the plaintiffs' lawyer, that is going to hire her in a second, who she had ongoing lead paint cases with - to a party at her house. Allstate, probably monitoring the cameras it has installed at the homes of all its employees, found out and confronted the adjuster. Later, Allstate - alleges anyway - that this same plaintiffs' lawyer had sent her flowers, gifts, and cards while she was at Allstate. Allstate says the adjuster quit, claiming she was going through personal issues. The adjuster was next seen by Baltimore Housing Authority lawyers, no strangers to controversy themselves; passing what someone thought was a confidential Allstate instruction manual on lead paint cases at the trial table of the flower/card/gift sending plaintiffs' lawyer. (That might not be exactly how Allstate found out. Humor me. The story reads better that way.) So Allstate sued her.

Continue reading "Allstate v. Former Allstate Adjuster" »

Lawyers do not have a natural affinity for checklists. Lawyers have egos that compare with any profession and checklists are a reminder of your mind's limitations. "I'm not making mistakes in working up cases so why would I need a checklist?" But, sometimes, a new wave of studies are showing, you do not know that you are omitting important things that you have to do to work up an accident case unless you are reminded to do them by a checklist. When do lawyers figure this out? Trial. Most accident cases are settled before trial. So you don't even have the constant reminders of your errors from not having a checklist.

Continue reading "Car and Truck Accident Case Checklist" »

John Bratt writes on the Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog how defense attorneys in car accident cases are using assignment and authorizations to cross examine plaintiffs' experts. "You have a vested interest in how this case turns out, don't you?" or "In a sense, you have a contingency fee agreement with this client, don't you, doctor?"

I don't think think the fact that the expert's office signed an A&A with the client should be admissible at trial. But not every judge is going to agree with me on that.

Punitive Damages Against Drunk Drivers Who Cause Car Accidents in Maryland?

There is a bill in the Maryland General Assembly that would authorize punitive damages against drunk drivers who caused "injury or wrongful death while operating a motor vehicle." Punitive damages would be available against drunk drivers: (1) With a blood alcohol concentration of over .15; or (2) With a blood alcohol concentration of over .08, and was driving on a suspended or revoked license or had entered a plea of nolo contendere or received probation before judgment within the last 5 years.

The Maryland Chamber of Commerce opposes this bill. Why? I really think it is because the Maryland Chamber is run by the true believers who care about some issue far more strongly than furthering the interests of Maryland businesses. That mission includes a strong opposition to anything their gut tells them that Maryland personal injury lawyers might support. Seriously. If Maryland trial lawyers put out a statement that Jeremy Lin should be the focal point of the Knicks' office even when Carmelo Anthony returns, the Maryland Chamber of Commerce would immediately put out a statement renouncing Lin (citing the fact that Carmelo is from Baltimore or something). It is just silly. (Minority Report: their opposition makes perfect sense. They are worried about the slippery slope of punitive damages affecting Maryland businesses and they are two steps ahead in the chess match. Personally, I don't give them that much credit.)

So let me set the Chamber's mind at ease. Economically, Maryland car accident attorneys would get no real benefit from punitive damages in drunk driving injury and death cases. Why? Because punitive damages are not covered by insurance. Which means the drunks have to come up with the cash themselves. My firm has collected $0.00 from people individually over the last ten years. Collecting money from people individually is just very difficult. In almost every case, the juice is not worth the squeeze unless the defendant goes by the name John Rockefeller. Lawyers handling car accident cases will not see their revenues rise a half of a percent by getting drunks to pony up punitive damages.

Continue reading "Punitive Damages for Drunk Drivers in Maryland " »

There is a big new Maryland Court of Special Appeals' opinion. The Exxon case? Oh yeah. But that is 322 pages. I have not read it yet. I'll throw up something briefly on this case later. In the meantime, let's talk about the Maryland Court of Special Appeals' opinion in Garrity v. Injured Workers' Insurance Fund, an opinion issued this week that every Maryland car accident lawyer should read, particularly those like me who don't handle workers' comp cases.

If you are a plaintiff's accident lawyer, you need to be able to spot the issues with workers' comp claims. If you can't, you may be leaving your client's risk-free money on the table without ever knowing that your client had another source of compensation. While comp claims are a huge hassle for lawyers handling car accident claims, because dealing with the comp lien can be a nightmare, you have to know whether your client might have a claim. One big step forward towards understanding what you need to know is an appreciation for the "comings and goings" rule and its exceptions. This opinion, written by Judge Michele D. Hotten, should help get you there. (I'm not sure how serious the accident, was but the good news is that plaintiffs' attorney's brief to the court indicates that he is now back to work at the courthouse.)

The plaintiff in Garrity, a part time bailiff at the District Court for Baltimore City, was involved in serious car accident as he was driving back to the courthouse during the workday. The case starts off comically enough, the plaintiff wore a Christmas tie to work in the spring and had to go home to change his tie. He also spills something on the tie; it comes off like a classic episode of Three's Company. But the good humor ends when the plaintiff gets into a head-on car accident - an accident caused by the other driver - and ends up on shock trauma.

Plaintiff's lawyer made three arguments in an effort to get this car accident covered by workers' compensation. All three would fail. But it is worth taking a look at the arguments.

The first argument was that while injuries incurred while going to or coming from the place of employment are not generally not compensable, Plaintiff was on a "special mission" exception to this rule. Under this rule, if the employer requires a worker to undertake a special journey for the benefit of the employer, injuries which occur en route are compensable even if the trip may be only to or from the employee's usual place of business. This argument failed because the bailiff did not have express or implied authority to leave the courthouse.

Continue reading "Baltimore Car Accident: New CSA Opinion" »

LawyersUSA has an article out today on the struggles that personal injury attorneys have had in getting fair compensation for their clients in accident and malpractice cases. The article contains a few quotes from me.

There are a couple of leitmotifs lawyers deal with when representing injured people who are either illegal immigrants or appear to be. First, if they are legally here in this country, you have to get that out on direct. There are some jurors who - let's face it - are going to view anyone with an accent as an illegal immigrant. In the real world, there is a prejudice against illegal immigrants. If you can kill that perception, do it.

Conversely, you need to move in limine to bar any evidence, suggestion, or argument regarding the immigration status of plaintiff (or any witness, for that matter) simplly because it is prejudicial. Put in front of a jury that the plaintiff is legally working in this country, yet suppress any mention of immigration status if the plaintiff is undocumented? Is firing off these two seemly contradictory statements in the span of seconds lawyer double talk or even duplicitous. Actually, it is not. Juries don't say "Gee, we have a documented immigrant, let's open up the checkbook" but they might discriminate against a plaintiff because they don't think he/she belongs in this country. Doors don't always swing both ways.

Continue reading "Illegal Immigrants in Personal Injury Cases" »

When picking a jury, peremptory strikes are a big deal. There are almost invariably a few prospective jurors that are high up on the roll call that you just know are anti-plaintiff. I don't know how I actually know this - you get just a glimpse of Maryland jurors in voir dire - but I just do. They have this indescribable "I assume the plaintiff's case is garbage and I can't believe I'm here" look. Defense lawyers have a similar fear, of course, terrified of the "I can feel your pain to the point where I'm able to set aside logic and reason" look. Both of these jurors get rooted out by peremptory strikes. And the "look" is fair game as long as it is not based on race, religion, or gender. In Maryland, you get four peremptory challenges plus one peremptory challenge for each group of three or less alternate jurors to be impaneled. So, generally, you get 5 strikes.

Maryland car accident lawyers on both sides of the aisle now assume that Maryland law, after Maurer v. Penn National, is that if an uninsured motorist insurance company waives its subrogation interest in a case when the at fault driver offers her policy limits, that insurance company cannot contest liability at trial.

Plaintiffs' attorneys in Maryland disagree as to whether this is a good rule. Clearly, the problem with the rule for plaintiffs is that insurance companies are less likely to waive subrogation when the underlying insured offers policy limits. This means you have to deal with two sets of defense attorneys which means almost twice the hassle. Insurance companies are also doing side deals now, where the underinsured motorist carrier waivers subrogation on the DL (that's "down low" if you were not cool ten years ago), presumably with a pinky promise.

What does this have to do with jury strikes? Well, defense lawyers try to parlay this double lawyer albatross into double strikes. Can they do this? Maryland Rule 2-512 (h) says that multiple plaintiffs or defendants should be considered a single party unless the court finds that "adverse or hostile interests between plaintiffs or between defendants" justify separate challenges.

In uninsured and underinsured motorist cases, it is hard to claim that the interests of these parties are anything other than the same. But I got broadsided with this argument a few years ago during a trial in Baltimore County. It was a tough case anyway, I was in Baltimore County and, over strenuous objection, both the at-fault driver and the underinsured motorist carrier (MAIF and GEICO) were given strikes. I don't have to tell you how it turned out: awful. (Yet, still, it was more than the settlement offer which pretty much summarizes dealing with MAIF and GEICO).

Continue reading "Jury Strikes Matter" »

In Maryland, and in most states, there are immunities for police, fire and rescue agencies and personnel from civil liability for negligence. There is an exception for intentional torts and a "grossly negligent act.” Of course, this begs the question of what is a "grossly negligent act"?

In Markevicz v. Garcia, U.S. District Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. issued an opinion reminding car accident lawyers (who did not get the memo provided by the last zillion cases on this topic) that the bar to get to a "grossly negligent act" is pretty high.

In this case, a fire truck operator allegedly did some pretty dumb things in what I think was an effort to get to the car accident scene. The opinion does not spell it out but I'm assuming the fire truck ended up hitting the vehicle during the rescue. Plaintiffs' Complaint and the driver defendant both alleged that the fire truck driver contributed to plaintiffs' injuries when they drove the wrong way on the Beltway, dangerously jockeyed for position in an attempt to pass through a gap in the median that was too small, and so forth.

Judge Williams said that even if true, these facts fall short of gross negligence, citing Boyer v. State for proposition that gross negligence is inflicting injury with such indifference to "to the rights of others to the extent of acting like the victim had no rights at all." I'm paraphrasing and I still don't know what that means.

Continue reading "Gross Negligence Bar Is High Hurdle" »

Does Maryland Need a Dram Shop Law?

(Note: In a crazy coincidence, I wrote this blog post just moments before the Maryland Court of Special Appeals decided Troxel v. Iguana Cantina, a dram shop/premises liability case which reverses a Baltimore County trial court's finding of summary judgment for the defendants essentially because Maryland has no dram shop law. The Court of Special appeals reversed, calling the case a premises liability case. The court lays out the the sometimes hazy line between premises liability and a dram shop claim. At least this is what I think the opinion does I just glanced at the case, amazed by the coincidence. But, boy, this case looks teed up for the Maryland Court of Appeals to impose dram shop liability if that is where the court wants to go.)

The aptly named "Club Blaze", a Georgia strip club, was hit with a $1.75 million verdict in a wrongful death car accident case in Georgia.

These facts read like a preposterous hypothetical concocted by someone intent to prove that every state needs a dram shop law. A man went to a strip bar and managed to drink himself to a .398. Five times the legal limit in Georgia (and Maryland). I bet I have ever been half that drunk in my entire life. I also bet you he had a tab for one at the strip club, making it painfully obvious how he was getting home. So he left the strip club and did what is exactly par for the course when your BAC is .398: he killed himself and two young women, one of which left behind two small kids.

“Fatima did not die in vain. This case will bring awareness about the long-term effects of a drunk driving. This has devastated our family,” Bird's mother, Lisa Mitchell, said in the news release. “Fatima was my daughter and my friend. We honor her by using this award to send her children to college so they can become the best that they can be.”

I'm impressed this woman's mother is able to take such a high road. I would like to think that I could take this approach if it happened to me. I really do. But I think I would just be sad, angry and bitter every single day until I died.

This lawsuit fails on its face in Maryland. We don't have dram shop laws. So you can serve someone alcohol to the point where he is five times over the legal limit creating a time bomb that not only may go off but is actually likely to go off, and there is no claim. That woman's kids - a four and five year-old - would have to fend for themselves for their college tuition if this tragedy had happened in Maryland.

Continue reading "Wrongful Death Verdict: Justice You Would Not Get in Maryland" »

Pat Malone writes a guest blog on Don Keenan's Trial Blog arguing that confidential settlements undermine public safety and justice. His point is that confidential settlements make it harder for future plaintiffs to get evidence and information they need to bring out all of the facts about the defendant's conduct.

Specifically, Malone suggests:

Here’s one tip for avoiding last-minute pressure from the defense to cave into a secrecy agreement: Be proactive. Tell the defense counsel at some appropriate point – such as with any settlement demand letter or in a pre-mediation communication – that you will not agree to secrecy because of the ethical issues. This can be one item on a list of settlement conditions.

Pat Malone is an extremely well respected lawyer who not only gets great results for his client, but also graciously spends a lot of time helping other personal injury lawyers. I also agree with his premise: there is doubt doubt that confidential settlements make it harder for the next plaintiff. This also make the company less accountable, too, in the big picture.

But here's the problem: people who have been badly injured, even the best of people, have a hard time focusing on the global interests of plaintiffs everywhere when they are fighting and scrapping to be compensated for their injuries. And I have a hard time telling them that they should.

Let me give you a case in point. We recently settled a case with a Fortune 500 company. No discussion of confidentiality in the settlement discussions. You know what comes next. They send a release with a confidentiality clause. We balk. They say, "Okay, let's try the case."

Boy, I hate being bullied by big companies. I try hard not to take these things personally. But they were so arrogant in the way they delivered their ultimatum. They never would had the guts to play it through and I knew it. So we plotted a "file a motion to enforce the settlement and, in the off chance we lose, we try it" strategy. In angry detail. With our feathers up and blood boiling, we forgot, ah, that we have a client. So we call the client. She could not care less about confidentiality. She wants to execute the settlement and get her money.

So what do you do? I know what we did: we put our hurt pride on a shelf and sent the client the release.

Continue reading "Confidential Settlements" »

For those of you who do not practice in Maryland or don't handle car accident cases, the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund is a unique to our state creature. It is a state owned insurance company that insures high risk drivers. Most other states just require insurance companies to insure high risk drivers if they want to sell car insurance in their state. I guess, at least in 1972, Maryland was feeling a little libertarian and decided rather than force its bad drivers on other insurance companies, that it would just build its own. To my knowledge, a total number of zero states followed suit. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.) Of course, once you build a state agency, there is an unwritten rule that you can't kill it.

Continue reading "Is MAIF Dying a Slow, Painful Death?" »