Insurance Law Settlements
Insurance law is a relatively new area of law that has arisen since the 1940s to help control the insurance business and regulate its practices. Protecting citizens and ensuring that insurance companies live up to their promises to their customers, as well as protecting the insurance companies themselves from fraudulent and expensive claims is the goal of insurance law.
Insurance law, however, goes much deeper today, with regulations that are designed to make sure insurance companies are able to meet their obligations if and when a claim is made. Ensuring that insurance companies are well-capitalized and solvent – able to meet the claims needs of their clients when called upon to do so is a key component of insurance law.
Despite the existence of relatively recent federal insurance regulations, many states have independent insurance commissions that regulate the activities of businesses op-erating within their borders. Consumer protection against fraudulent insurance practices is also covered by both federal and state insurance laws.
Recent problems within the nation’s largest insurance companies and the financial tremors that financial problems there caused, have led to increased scrutiny of the entire insurance industry. This area of law is anticipated to grow tremendously in the coming years.
Georgia Lawsuit: Injured Motorist Receives $1.29M from Insurer
A recent article from The Daily Report, "Injured motorist wins $1.29M after judge OKs suit against insurer" summarizes a case in which the judge rules against the insurance company of a trucking company.
Tommie L. Johnson's (plaintiff) Attorney, Lloyd W. Hoffspiegel
Johnson's accident occurred in 2007 when he had been driving on Interstate 285 in DeKalb County and was struck from behind by a tractor-trailer switching lanes. The accident left Johnson with a torn rotator cuff and two surgeries, both of which were unsuccessful. As a result of the injury, Johnson is unable to left his left arm; he also cannot return to his work as school safety officer.
The victim Tommie L. Johnson was awarded $1.29Million from Aequicap Insurance Company. Johnson was represented by Atlanta workers compensation lawyer Lloyd W. Hoffspiegel of Hoffspiegel & Associates; the plaintiffs included Aequicap, the truck driver and GWT Trucking.
Personal Injury Protection Laws – Nevada Does Not Need To Purchase PIP
Contrary to popular belief, not all personal injury cases necessarily involve physical injuries to the plaintiff. Personal injury claims can also be intended to seek compensation for pain and suffering as well as emotional or mental damages a victim has sustained.
- Car Accidents
Nevada Personal Injury Protection (PIP) is not like any State PIP and is a form of auto insurance. This type of car insurance is the same as "no-fault" coverage. Nevada, is unlike most most states in that it does NOT require liability insurance either.  If you have been involved in an accident or another type of personal injury issue resulting from automobile negligence, don't hesitate to call a Law Vegas personal injury law firm who knows local insurance regulation and state-wide personal injury protection laws. See Nevada Division of Insurance for more information.
- Mental Damages
Mental damage, such as a loss of functioning or cognitive skill is one of the most serious and lasting affects an accident or injury can cause. If the mental or emotional damages caused by an accident have caused a victim to lose wages at work or prevent them from functioning in their day to day life, they have the right to seek compensation even if there is not a physical injury. Additionally, a plaintiff may seek compensation for the trauma and emotional turmoil they suffered as a result of an accident or injury.
- Pain and Suffering
One of the most common non-physical injury related damages a plaintiff sues for is pain and suffering. This refers to the emotional suffering as well as physical pain that occurs as a plaintiff tries to cope with the affect an accident or injury has had on their life.
- Punitive Damages
Punitive damages are penalties meant to punish a defendant rather than recover damages for an injury. If a plaintiff is able to provide clear and convincing evidence that a defendant acted, intentionally, recklessly, maliciously or fraudulently, they may be able to sue for punitive damages.
Your personal injury attorney is the one who will be best able to evaluate your claim and advise you on the compensation you will be able to seek. If you have been involved in an accident, speak with an attorney as soon as possible. Experienced Las Vegas personal injury attorneys, can provide legal assistance in obtaining compensation for injuries throughout Nevada.
Withdrawal of Motion to Reconsider Results in Untimely Appeal
Oklahoma insurance litigation attorney of Stauffer Nathan explains the case:
Vanderwerf v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. involved a claim by surviving family members that the drug Paxil caused or contributed to a suicide. Over the course of the proceedings, several partial judgments were granted, with the end result being that all claims were eventually dismissed. A Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider was timely filed by plaintiffs, but no decision was made on the motion for over 7 months. So Plaintiffs withdrew their motion to reconsider and appealed the summary judgment. But the court said the appeal was untimely, because when the motion to reconsider was withdrawn, the date of the order appealed from was more than 30 days before the notice of appeal was filed.
There is a strong dissent which notes the unfairness of this "catch 22". The dissent notes that the tolling starts with the filing of the motion, and only ends when the court enters an order on the motion.
While not an insurance case, this case notes a trap for the unwary.  The court notes the plaintiffs had other options:
The Vanderwerfs had other options, which may have allowed this court to take jurisdiction. First, the Vanderwerfs could have filed a motion requesting a ruling. Second, they could have continued to wait for a ruling, or sought a writ of mandamus in this court, which, if granted would compel the district court to rule on the Rule 59 motion. Third, they might have filed a motion for an extension of time under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A)(ii), provided that they might show good cause or excusable neglect underlying the untimely notice. Fourth, they might have filed a premature notice of appeal that would ripen into a timely notice of appeal when the district court finally ruled. See Fields v. Okla. State Penitentiary, 511 F.3d 1109, 1111 (10th Cir.2007). Finally, it seems the best option may have been for the Vanderwerfs to have moved to withdraw the motion, in hopes that the district court would rule on that motion thereby triggering a 30-day period for the filing of a timely appeal.
The court dismissed the appeal for failure to timely file it.
Auto policy reformed regarding Family Exclusion
In Allstate v. Moser, Moser was injured in a one car accident. Moser was a passenger, and her brother was driving. Allstate’s policy was issued in Colorado to Moser’s parents . It had $100,000 limits and contained a family exclusion. There was an accident in Kansas. Kansas had a compulsory insurance law which required that all policies provide at least $25,000 per person, up to $50,000 per accident. Allstate’s policy also provided that when the vehicle was operated in other states, the policy would comply with the liability insurance requirements in those states. Moser also had an umbrella policy which provided coverage in excess of $100,000 when the primary policy limits were exhausted. When Moser sued, Allstate filed a declaratory judgment action. In that action, it was determined that Allstate’s liability under the policy was limited to the minimum requirements under Kansas law – $25,000.
On appeal, the issue was whether Allstate’s liability was limited to $25,000 or whether the entire policy limit was available to Moser. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling that limited Allstate’s liability to $25,000. Because $25,000 was less than the policy limits, the underlying policy was not exhausted, and therefore the umbrella policy did not apply. (Written By: Oklahoma Bad Faith Insurance Attorney)
