Limitation On Lawsuits – When Small Savings Don’t Add Up

By Thomas R. Smith

February 24th, 2012

A victim who suffers personal injuries from a motor vehicle accident may have restricted their ability to be compensated under New Jersey law.  Choosing the Limitation on Lawsuits options when purchasing automobile insurance, will restrict your access to compensation.  With this option, you will only be able to recover damages if your injuries result in one of the following defined categories:  death, displaced fracture, disfiguring scarring, dismemberment, loss of a fetus, or a permanent injury – which must be proven by objective medical evidence.

Your choice of insurance will not only restrict your rights to recover, but also those family members residing in your household, or others listed on the insurance policy.  This often results in an unfair denial of compensation to those suffering personal injuries due to a negligent motor vehicle operator.

Insurance companies vigorously defend claims brought against them by injured victims who choose the Limitations on Lawsuits threshold.  Juries appear reluctant to find permanent injuries and thus fewer awards are made.

While you may save a few dollars in the policy’s cost by electing the threshold, you in turn will give up important rights to be fairly and adequately compensated by a careless driver that caused you pain and suffering, loss of quality of life and/or disability.  Give much consideration when purchasing your policy if the small savings is worth it.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Car Accidents, Insurance Companies, Personal Injury |

Hospital Negligence often not reported

By Sherri L. Warfel

February 6th, 2012

According to a report released on January 5, 2012 by the Department of Health and Human Services, only 14 percent of harmful events affecting Medicare patients are being reported by hospitals.  Just two of the 18 most serious incidents – ones leading to permanent disability or death – were reported.

Based on the department’s estimates, the remaining 86 percent of patient-harm events are not reported by hospital staff.  With statistics like these it is more important than ever to keep a close watch on your loved ones when facing a medical or nursing home situation.   Should you suspect negligence, or have any questions about what constitutes harm, please contact me for a no-cost consultation.

Tags:
Posted in Nursing Home Injury |

Insurance Claim Delays – Avoid the Pitfalls with a Qualified Personal Injury Attorney

By Thomas R. Smith

January 23rd, 2012

Because of its protective role in the lives of ordinary citizens, the insurance industry is bound by law to act in good faith with its customers.  However, since the mid 1990s, a new profit-centered model, combined with weak governmental regulation, has essentially overturned that ancient social contract.  For most insurance companies, the traditional way of adjusting claims for accident victims has been replaced by a profit-driven method that makes purposefully low offers to claimants.  Those who accept the low-ball offers receive prompt service, while those who do not have their claims delayed and may ultimately be forced to bring a lawsuit to fight for their benefits.  Insurance companies attempt to pass off claim delays as fluke occurrences, but they are actually a routine and intentional product of the profit-centered model.  A former Allstate agent told the American Association for Justice that the strategy is to make claims “so expensive and time-consuming that lawyers would start refusing to help clients.” 

Often times individuals who are harmed, suffer losses or personal injury due to another’s negligence feel they are at a disadvantage because the insurance carrier has the extensive resources to try a case.  If you feel your insurance company is treating you wrongfully, you should speak with an experienced and qualified personal injury attorney who has the financial resources and know how to navigate complex legal issues and provide the best possible results.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Insurance Companies, Personal Injury |

Insurance “Immunities” limit our Constitutional Rights

By Edward Slaughter, Jr.

December 22nd, 2011

The idea behind “insurance” is that it is a method of spreading risks.  So, if a house is destroyed by fire, the owner, if insured, does not have to bear the full weight of that loss by himself/herself.

The same is true of casualty insurance.  We pay insurance premiums so that if we cause an accident, we don’t have to pay the full measure of the other innocent person’s losses.   The insurance company does that for us depending on what kind of insurance we bought.

For the past few decades insurance companies have gradually moved away from this idea.  They are now multinational companies with tremendous power and wealth.  They do everything they can to influence political decisions.  They, together with their allies in Congress or State Legislatures, do all they can to limit our Constitutional right to access the Court system to litigate our claims.

The New Jersey Constitution in Article 1, Paragraph 9 and Amendment VII of the United States Constitution state that the right to trial by jury in civil cases is inviolate and shall not be infringed upon.

Yet, all sorts of “immunities” have sprung up in New Jersey.  All of the following are now immune from suit to one degree or another: amusement rides, playgrounds, horseback riding, ski resorts, roller skating rinks, owners of property used for recreational purposes, volunteer first aid or fire companies, sports officials, mental health workers and condominiums.

It seems that the New Jersey Legislature is more interested in seeing to it that insurance companies pay fewer claims than it is in protecting people who are injured because of the negligence of others.  It’s also interesting that many of these immune entities cater primarily to children.

Tags: ,
Posted in Insurance Companies |

Sidewalk Slip and Falls

By Sherri L. Warfel

December 12th, 2011

With the cold and snowy weather just ahead of us the question always arises – what happens when you fall because of a property defect on property owned by someone else?

The general rule, when it comes to defects in a sidewalk, is that while residential homeowners are not responsible, commercial owners are responsible for those defects in sidewalks abutting their property.  The rationale for this is that commercial owners are aware and actually encourage people to use those sidewalks to enter their businesses and purchase consumer goods.  New cases have come down recently from the Supreme Court defining what is considered a commercial what is not a commercial entity; for instance, an apartment complex is but a condominium complex may not be.  A fall on a sidewalk owned by a housing authority may be considered commercial, but does that governmental entity have snow or weather immunity is a question to be considered in legal matters if you are injured from the fall.  Additionally, if you are a resident who undertakes to clear your snow and do snow negligently, that is a circumstance in which you might be liable to a person injured on your property. 

 So with this season coming, I have conveniently brushed up on my knowledge in handling cases in this area and I can help you with any questions you may have.  Contact me with any questions and have a happy and safe holiday season!

Tags: ,
Posted in Personal Injury, Slip & Fall Injuries |

DWI – without getting behind the wheel?

By Jed S. Kadish

November 29th, 2011

Sometime when talking to our friends and family we can often be told that’s “TMI,” or Too Much Information” when being told something that the person didn’t particularly want to know.  However, in some instances we can never have ‘Too Much Information!”
I received a telephone call from a potential client who had gotten into trouble for being a good Samaritan.  She received a late night telephone call from a friend of hers who was charged with Driving While Intoxicated in Hamilton Township, Mercer County.  The good Samaritan had driven from her residence in Hillsborough, NJ to Hamilton Township to pick up her friend from the Hamilton Police Department. 

 
Before she was allowed to take her friend home she had to sign a document that was placed before her by the police officer.    Unfortunately, she didn’t really read the document.  What she signed was a document known John’s Law, which is a liability warning acknowledging that he/she is picking up someone who has been charged with driving while intoxicated.

It was almost 2:00 am by the time they returned to Hillsborough.  During the ride home the good Samaritan’s car began making a funny noise.   It was late and the good Samaritan had to get up for work that morning.  Her friend offered to take her car for a ride around her apartment complex to see if she could figure out what was wrong with the car while the good Samaritan went to bed.

At 4:00 am that same morning, the good Samaritan is awaken by the telephone.  The Princeton Township Police Department is calling her.  It seems that her friend took her car for more than a spin around the apartment complex.  In fact, she crashed her car into a tree and is now in the hospital where she has been admitted for her injuries.

The good Samaritan rushes to the hospital to check on her friend.  While there she talks to the police about the accident.  She later received a summons in the mail from the police department.

N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 (a) (Driving While Intoxicated) provides in part “ ….a person who operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug, or operates a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or more ….OR PERMITS ANOTHER PERSNON WHO IS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR, NARCOTIC, HALLUCINOGENIC INFLUENCE OR HABIT-PRODUCING DRUG TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE OWNED BY HIM OR IN HIS CUSTODY OR CONTROL OR PERMITS ANOTHER TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH A BLOOD ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION OF 0.08% OR MORE….IN THE DEFENDANT’S BLOOD SHALL BE SUBJECT TO”

In other words, the good Samaritan is now being charged with permitting someone who she knew was intoxicated with driving her vehicle.  Under the statute the good Samaritan faces the same loss of her driver’s license, fines and surcharges as if she was actually driving the vehicle herself.  These are serious charges and she will now have to defend those charges in municipal court.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in DWI, Personal Injury |

Aging Population Leads to Increase in Nursing Home Problems

By Sherri L. Warfel

November 10th, 2011

Between 1946-64, America experienced a population explosion referred to as the baby boom era.  76 million people were born.  There has not been a population of this size before of since.  Baby boomers now range in age from 48 to 66 and as fact of life aging brings with it the need for medical care.

As a result, nursing home construction has accelerated in the past decade which has conversely resulted in a shortage of qualified nurses and nursing staff.  Many of them are not paid enough to recruit the so-called “cream of the crop” and the turn-over rate is high.

Something a little more disturbing is a study that the US Department of Health and Human Services came out with in March of 2010.  They surveyed nursing homes across the country and found that 92% or 9 out of 10 of them had at least one convicted criminal on staff.  Now I don’t know what all their misdeeds were but I am betting you would not want them taking care of your mother or father.  I am attorney that has been with this firm for 12 years and I handle nursing home malpractice.  If you think you may have a claim, contact me about it.

Tags: ,
Posted in Nursing Home Injury, Personal Injury |

Don’t allow the NJ Department of Banking & Insurance regulate your auto accident treatment!

By Edward Slaughter, Jr.

November 7th, 2011

A standard NJ auto policy provides up to $250,000 to pay for medical treatment due to an auto accident, regardless of fault. This is why NJ auto insurance is more expensive than in other states. Many states require less or no medical treatment coverage.

Now the auto insurance companies are seeking to restrict access to needed treatment by getting the NJ Department of Banking and Insurance to allow them to put auto accident victims into “organized delivery systems”. They will thereby restrict treatment to doctors or groups of their choosing, control what tests will be allowed, and otherwise deny needed care.

It is the mission of insurance companies to make profits. Profits are made by restricting payments to injured people. If they are given control of treatment they will try to limit it, thereby reducing what they have to pay. Thereby making more profit.

I have nothing against profit but insurance companies are not your typical business. They don’t make or sell a product. All they do is collect premiums from people against the risk that they may have to pay certain claims. If they never have to pay a claim they get to keep all the money they collect.

Insurance companies originally were there to spread the risk of loss amongst us all. We all paid premiums so that if one of us had to be helped in some way because of a loss that person would be made whole. Now the profit motive is all they are interested in. And they have the ability to influence politicians because they have a lot of money that they collected from people just like you.

You can oppose this by speaking or writing to the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance before it is too late.  They can be reached at 800-446-7467 or by visiting their website at http://www.state.nj.us/dobi/.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Car Accidents, Insurance Companies |

United States Supreme Court overrules New Jersey Supreme Court

By Edward Slaughter, Jr.

June 30th, 2011

Insurance companies and corporations and the politicians who support their interests have yet another victory to celebrate. The United States Supreme Court, certainly the most reactionary Supreme Court since before Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency, has again sided with corporations to the detriment of the common man or woman.

In its decision of June 27, 2011, in the case of J. McIntyre Machinery Ltd., v. Nicastro, the United States Supreme Court struck down a decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court and ruled that a New Jersey worker who lost several fingers at work while operating a machine made in England by a British company could not sue that company in New Jersey courts because the manufacturer had not “purposefully” availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in New Jersey.

The New Jersey Court had ruled that “fairness and foreseeability” should allow suit in New Jersey. The United States Supreme Court ruled that “fairness and foreseeability” do not count even though the manufacturer had targeted every one of the fifty states as places that it wanted to sell its machines for profit.

The New Jersey Supreme Court had ruled that globalization of the world economy has removed national boundaries as barriers to trade. Thus, if a person was hurt in New Jersey, the New Jersey Supreme Court had ruled that the injured person may use New Jersey courts to sue a foreign manufacturer who has built a dangerous machine.

In a day when almost everything is made in China, does the United States Supreme Court want the ordinary citizen to have no rights against foreign manufacturers? Perhaps so.

Tags:
Posted in Insurance Companies, Personal Injury |

McDonald’s Coffee Case

By Edward Slaughter, Jr.

June 24th, 2011

Insurance companies and corporations have plenty of money. They constantly lobby legislators and others who make our laws to restrict access to the legal system for ordinary people who suffer injuries. One of the cases they love to point to is the McDonald’s Coffee Case.

On Monday, June 27, 2010 at  9:00 p.m., HBO will broadcast a documentary about the McDonald’s coffee case in which it will tell us all what that case was really about. We encourage you to watch that program.

Rules, regulations and statutes are enacted regularly that the insurance companies and corporations want. Their interest is not that of the common person. Jurors are people just like you and are not stupid. They don’t award people money without good reason.

Watch this program and perhaps it will give you a new perspective.

Tags: ,
Posted in Personal Injury |

« Older Entries