Texting while Driving

Texting while driving can lead not only to injury but death. How many times have you seen someone driving while checking their text messages or actually sending a text. Some believe they can do it and still be safe. The reality is that you can end up killing someone and destroying several lives including your own. Take the time and look at the video links below. One is a story about a young man who was texting while driving and the other is a public service campaign It may save you or someone you love from horrible consequences.

http://ut.zerofatalities.com/#texting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5NIE3osZEs

Tort Reform v. Responsiblity

Tort Reform ads are once again appearing on the radio and news. The argument is that we need to limit damages to protect nursing homes and doctors and lower costs. Texas passed limitations on damages years ago and I have yet to see costs go down. The tort reform crowd argues that damages should be limited to prevent frivolous lawsuits. That is a just a lie. The only time the limitation applies is after a case has been tried and a jury has determined not only that there was negligence on the the part of the nursing home or doctor, that their actions harmed the plaintiff and the damages are in excess of $250,000.00. The effect of the tort reform is to allow those who have already been found to have harmed someone to only pay for a part of their harm. This is after the plaintiff has provided expert reports and had a judge rule that there was enough credible evidence to even get to trial. The frivolous lawsuits are thrown out at the first step when the judge determines there is no credible expert opinion to support the claims. Tort Reform is simply an excuse to escape taking responsibility for the actions which hurt others.

Texas Super Lawyer

http://www.fortbendnow.com/2009/09/29/40865

September 29th, 2009 | by FortBendNow Staff | Published in News |

Sugar Land Lawyer Named “Super Lawyer” For Seventh Year

Sugar Land attorney Brent Carpenter has been named a “Super Lawyer” for the seventh year in a row. Carpenter is Board Certified in personal injury trial law and certified mediator. His Sugar Land firm, Carpenter & Carpenter, P.C., specializes in personal injury and business matters.

Super Lawyers is a listing of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Lawyers enter the candidate pool by being formally nominated by a peer; identified by the research department in the “Star Search” process or informally nominated. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement.

“The fact that the selection process includes not only vetting by the research department, but selection by other attorneys makes this a very special honor,” said Carpenter.

Super Lawyers magazine, featuring articles about attorneys named to the Super Lawyers list, is distributed to all attorneys in the state or region, the lead corporate counsel of Russell 3000 companies and the ABA-approved law school libraries.

The other side of Tort Reform

I have not written in a while as I have been traveling and work keeps getting in the way. One of my trips was to Louisiana for a funeral of one of the strongest people I have ever had the privilege of knowing. She was injured in a SUV rollover several years ago and paralyzed from the neck down due to the roof crushing in on her. Before the injury she was a teacher, cheerleader coach, mother of two and wife (among many other titles). After the injury she was confined to a wheelchair and needed constant help and care, BUT because of her strength (and that of her family) she fought to get back to teaching, she was the mother to their children and wife to her husband. She demanded excellence from everyone around her including herself and put her family and students first. She was told several years ago by one of her doctors that she could extend her life expectancy by quitting teaching and spending less time in the wheelchair and more in bed. Her response was that she would rather die teaching than live in a bed. Those that support tort reform would have the damages to this woman and family limited or have the manufacture immune from being sued despite their defective roof. When those that cause harm and injury are immune from paying for the damages they cause, or the damages are limited to some arbitrary amount, who will pay for this expensive care? Everyone. The reason the civil justice system was created was to allow a means of compensation from those who caused the harm. I wish everyone could have know my client and friend. Her life made any difficulties we have seem laughable, her strength gave everyone around her strength to do what was right regardless of the cost and her smile made everyone smile.

Health Insurance

The debate over health care rages on. What exactly is being proposed, how will it work, who will implement and supervise it, how much will it cost? Has anyone been able to answer these basic questions? After spending over an hour on the phone trying to get an answer from Medicare on how much they are claiming from my client, and then spending the next several months trying to get it finalized, I am concerned about any additional government run health care. If you have an injury claim and have any health insurance (group, medicare, medicaid, etc.) you may have to pay them back any money they paid on your medical care. The terms you may hear are subrogation or lien. What it generally means is they get their money back from any recovery you get from the party that injured you. What this means to you is that you should not base your settlement on your co-pays or out of pocket only. Submit the entire amount of your medical expenses to the insurance company, not just the co-pays. That way when your health insurance asks for their money back you will be ok.

Jury Duty

Jury duty can be a pain. You have to go down to the courthouse, verify your paperwork and then sit around for hours waiting to be called (and hoping you're not). If you are called you get herded over to some courtroom where you are asked a bunch of questions about yourself and your beliefs (you try to keep a low profile so no one asks you questions) and then hopefully you will be excused and not have to serve. Sound familiar? A couple of friends (non lawyers) and I discussed this very topic this morning. They were upset with the amount of wasted time in the process and in some cases the attitude of the lawyers. I have been on the other side where we have waited for days to get a jury panel because not enough people showed up to serve. How can we make the process more streamlined, more pleasant and enjoyable? If you have gone to jury duty post a comment and let me know your experience good, bad or indifferent and any suggestions you have to make it better.

Where is my party?

Politics are something that is generally avoided in legal blogs so as not to offend anyone, but sometimes not saying anything is more offensive. Republican or Democrat does it really matter. Both parties are spending us into bankruptcy and blame the other. They talk about representing the people and not special interest, but who are these "people" because it is not anyone I know. One claims they want free market to decide whether a company succeeds or not, but then reward certain companies with bids, bails out certain companies while allowing others to go under and institute legal "reform" to protect others when they injure someone or cause economic harm. Our soldiers are getting killed taking showers due to faulty wiring, and their families can not hold the company responsible. The other party is claiming that they will provide health care "reform" and virtually no one has even read the bill which will change our options and choices of medical care. I was raised and believe that you do what is right and if you mess up, you take responsibility and try to make it right. Work hard and help others who need help. I believe that and want a party who believes it as well. I hear people say neither party is perfect, that is true, but I would settle for honest. My party seems to have disappeared. If you happen to find it let me know.

Medical Authorization - Don't Sign it.

When you are involved in a car crash the insurance company for the other driver will normally ask you to sign a medical authorization to allow them to gather all your medical bills and records to help evaluate the case for settlement. DO NOT SIGN IT. They do need to get the records and bills to allow them to evaluate the claim and you should provide those items to the insurance company, but do it yourself. Get the actual bills and medical records, delete your social security number and any other private and non-related information and mail them to the company. I know you are asking, but if they will do it why should I go to all the trouble. The reason is because the authorization they will ask you to sign will almost always not be limited to the time frame after the crash and will allow them to speak to your doctors directly. Why would you want your personal information which has nothing to do with the crash discussed and turned over to the insurance company? You can prevent it by just getting the relevant information yourself and providing it to the insurance company. They get what they need, you do not have your entire medical history from birth forward and they should be able to evaluate the case for settlement. If they continue to demand you produce records prior to the wreck you may as well prepare for a lawsuit, because they are more interested in defending the case than in evaluating it for settlement.

Allstate - Good Hands Drop Insured in Grease

Allstate spends millions and millions of dollars in advertising to convince people that they are there for them when they are needed. The good hands people. My experience is that Allstate continually denies or undervalues valid claims which results in their insured being sued. If that is not bad enough, many times they file answers which deny facts that their own insured later admits in their sworn testimony. The sad part is that this is so common that most attorneys are not even surprised at the tactic. This action not only results in their insured being sued for an accident which everyone knows was their fault, causing them to miss work and go through the stress of litigation but can result in the Allstate insured potentially being personally liable for a large verdict in excess of the policy limits. That is exactly what happened in Houston this week.
A young girl was hit by a man who ran a red light. He was insured by Allstate. The police listed him as the cause of the crash. She had over $16k in past medical and needed additional medical care which would cost $22,500.00 which was undisputed. The Allstate insured only had $25,000.00 in insurance coverage which the girl offered to accept. Allstate refused. Their insured gets sued, has to answer discovery, give a deposition, miss work and stress over this lawsuit. The day the trial is to start the lawyer for the young girl offers again to settle for the policy limits which would not only end the lawsuit, but protect the Allstate insured from any risk of an excess verdict. You would think they would jump at the chance to settle and protect their insured. That is why we pay premiums and they are the "good hands" company. Allstate instead choose to offer $12, 500.00, which was refused. Jump to the next day, the jury returns and find the man 100% at fault and a verdict against in for $202,942.70. Now he faces the possibility of being personally liable for almost $200,000.00 all because Allstate decided to refuse to settle a claim that anyone who has any sense knew they owed. If you are in a wreck, never assume that your insurance company is going to do what is in your best interest. Require them to copy you on all letters and offers. In the last few years we have had more and more situations in which we have represented the insureds personally to make sure the insurance company did what they should to protect their insured. Will Allstate take notice and begin to fairly evaluate claims to protect their insureds from being sued? I doubt it. Based upon their history, I would expect them to just increase the advertising budget, blame the juries, judges and lawyers. Anything but take responsibility. Why should they when they can just drop their insured in the grease. Let me know your comments.

Car Crash Basics Part II

When you go to the doctor or hospital, ask for a copy of your medical and billing records for your file. Keep all your documents relating to the crash in one place for easy reference and to make sure you are not missing anything later when you are in a position to settle your case. A couple of other items which you should try and get as soon as possible are the crash report and 911 tapes. You should have received some case information from the police officer who came to the scene. That will give you the information you need to order a copy of the report. When you order it (you can usually go down and pick-up a copy) make sure you pay the dollar or so extra and get a certified copy. When you get it make a copy and keep the original safe. When you are ordering the crash report ask for a copy of any 911 calls for your wreck. Generally they are only kept a short time, so do this early. The last thing for this segment is to go take some pictures of the scene where the wreck happened to show what it looked like. Also look for any skid marks, etc. on the road and take pictures of those as well. Next time we will discuss what information you can get from the crash report and 911 tapes and how to use them.

Car Crash Case Basics - Part 1

If you are in a wreck here are some things to consider. First, get the names, addresses and phone numbers of everyone involved and any witnesses. Ask to see the drivers license to verify they are who they claim (some people will lie). Ask to see a copy of insurance information and write down all information. Take pictures of the vehicle positions, roadway and damage. No camera, use your cell phone. If you are injured get to a doctor. Do not give any statements (except to the police). If the other drivers insurance company asks you for a statement, I would suggest you ask them what their driver is claiming, if it is not what happened, they are probably preparing a defense and will ask questions designed to hurt your case. If their driver agrees with your position, why do they need your statement. Do not sign any authorizations. You can provide any medical records and bills they need and there is no reason for them to get access to your entire life history. If you have any questions call a lawyer, the consultation is usually free and you can get some piece of mind, in addition to good information.

Drunks, Legislature, Governor & Insurance

In the Houston Chronicle there was an article about the large number of drunk driving fatalities. The list and stories are heartbreaking as are the hundreds of other stories which were not included of families devastated by injury or death because someone choose to drive while drunk. What is even more upsetting is how the families are being treated by our Courts, legislature and Governor. If the family that is injured has health insurance, the drunk gets to use that to their advantage. All they owe is what is paid by the group coverage. That is referred to as paid vs. incurred. The legislature realized it was unfair and voted to change it but Governor Perry vetoed it at the last possible minute last session, why? Why should a family pay all those premiums so that a drunk can use it to reduce what he has to pay.
If the drunk had little or no car insurance, the family of the injured person own uninsured or underinsured car insurance may be needed to help pay medical bills, but after all the years of paying premiums the insurance company can deny the claim, why, because our Texas Supreme Court decided it wasn't fair for the insurance company to pay the claim which they were paid premiums all those years for until a final civil judgment and damages have been found against the drunk. That means that even though the medical bills may be more than the policy and the drunk is convicted and in jail, the families own insurance can make them file a lawsuit, spend all the money on experts, medical records and attorneys to prove the case that everyone knows the outcome. And what happens when the jury returns a verdict in excess of the policy limits? The family who has had to live through the agony of the crash and injuries can only get the policy limits which they paid for in the beginning, no attorneys fees, no expenses, nothing else, all because of our Texas Supreme Court. The Court argues that it is a contract action so it is fair, but it is the only contract action which they do not allow for attorneys fees or additional damages. Why? Who benefits from these decisions? Who do you think! It is time for the people who drive safe, pay the premiums for their insurance and do what is right to be the main concern and not the drunks and insurance companies. Let me know your thoughts.

Supreme Subversion

In a recent trial, the jury sent out a message wondering what is the most they could award. The attorneys for Ford decided to settle rather than wait for the verdict. This happens quite often that cases resolve based upon impressions attorneys get from the jury questions. Sometimes you guess right sometimes not. I have had a similar question "Can we award more than the Plaintiff requested?" the case did not settle and the jury awarded less than we asked for. When I asked them why they sent out the question they said it was just something we wanted to know. It has always been a risk to try a case, but the Texas Supreme Court has taken another major step to subvert the role of the juries in Texas. After Ford agreed to the settlement they spoke to the jury and discovered they probably would have won the trial. Did they chalk it up to a bad decision on their part and move on? No they appealed the case claiming possible juror misconduct or jury tampering. These types of claims are generally desperate laughable attempt to cover up the misjudgment by the party or attorneys, in this case even though the trial court and Corpus Court of Appeals found no basis to allow Ford to explore and make these claims, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously agreed to allow Ford to pursue their claims.

It is disturbing that this is the same Court which is arguing that Texas should to do away with elections for their positions because it would do away with the appearance of being swayed by contributors. Is it an appearance and who are their major contributors? I think you can guess.
How would making them less accountable to the citizens of Texas improve the Court?

What if the roles had been reversed? Does anyone believe that if the Plaintiff had settled for a minimum amount because the jury in the same case sent out a note asking if there was a minimum they had to award and they later learned that the jury verdict would have been for several million dollars that the Supreme Court would have ruled the same way.

Let me know what you think.

Supreme Court - Result Driven

In June 1997, Mr. Mendez was driving his Mazda minivan carrying six passengers on Interstate 25 in New Mexico. The left rear tire, a steel-belted radial tire manufactured by Cooper Tire, lost its tread. Mendez lost control of the vehicle, and it rolled several times, ejecting six passengers. Four of the passengers died at the scene or shortly thereafter. The jury heard from three separate experts presented by the Mendez family, Mr. Milner who is a professional engineer with degrees in metallurgy and engineering. Mr. Grogan who authored a book entitled An Investigator’s Guide to Tire Failures and numerous articles on tire failures and Mr. Crate who has a degree in chemistry. After a long and detailed trial in which the judge ruled that the experts were qualified and the jury heard from experts and witnesses for both sides, they found in favor of the Mendez family and held that the Cooper tire had a manufacturing defect which caused the tire to fail and and the van to roll over.
Almost a decade later, in January 2006 the Texas Supreme Court determined that all three experts testimony was inadequate to support the verdict. This despite the undisputed evidence and testimony that the tire lost it tread while driving down the road in a normal manner. The jury heard all the evidence and could judge the credibility of each witnesses with their own eyes and hear the truth in their words with their ears. Yet, the Supreme Court years later determines that the trial judge was wrong in letting the testimony in, that the jury was wrong in deciding the case after listening and evaluating the evidence and only they who have not seen or heard any of the actual testimony can determine who is qualified and who is telling the truth. Is it any wonder our Supreme Court wants to do away elections for their positions and wants to reduce the juries ability to decide cases? It is so much easier just to decide what the result should be.
On the next blog, we will look at another case in which the Supreme Court threw out the work of the trial judge and jury and reversed the case. In that one, they even changed the rules of the trial after the trial was over.

Texas Supreme Court

Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson -- Texas Bar Journal April 2009
“I am concerned by the public’s perception that money in judicial races influences outcomes.” “Polls asking about this perception find that more than 80 percent of those questioned believe contributions influence a judge’s decision.” “Justice must be blind – it must be as blind to party affiliation as to the litigant’s social or financial status. The rule of law resonates across party lines.”


The Chief Justice is recommending that we do away with elections of judges and let the governor or some other politician decide who should become judges. I disagree. Texans are independent, strong and smart. We do not want anyone deciding what is best for us,especially some politician. It doesn't matter to me if it is a Democrat, Republican or Independent that would be the appointing the judge, in my opinion it is wrong. It is strange that this argument only comes up when one party senses that the other could sweep elections and get rid of those elected. I have seen excellent judges from both parties voted out of offices simply because they had a D or R designation and it would be good to do stop that, but doing away with elections is not the way.

I couldn't agree more with the Chief Justice that something should be done to stop the influence of money in decisions, but the solution is not to do away with electing judges. A better solution is to provide information to the public regarding the judges, their voting records, where they get their contributions and money and finally do away with party designation on the ballots or election materials.
If the Supreme Court truly wants to do away with the perception of money influencing their decisions, here are a few suggestions: 1st turn over all financial records relating to who has contributed to you in any manner, 2nd stop pandering to those whose purpose is to do away with the justice system, 3rd try defending the justice and jury system which holds people and corporations accountable for their actions instead of finding/creating new ways to excuse their actions.

In the next few weeks I will be looking at the some of the Supreme Court decisions over the last decade or so and present some issues and see what you would decide and compare it to what was actually decided by the Court. As always I welcome any and all comments and opinions, let me hear from you.

Texas Supreme Court protects drunk drivers

Texas Supreme Court protects drunk drivers. Shocked you should be. Here is how they do it. You work hard, pay your taxes, insurance premiums including uninsured/underinsured coverage. You are driving along and suddenly a drunk driver going the wrong way on a one way road hits you head on, or hits you from behind while you are stopped at a red light, or runs you down in a parking lot. The drunk is arrested and taken to jail, you go to the hospital and thousands of dollars later (not to mention the pain) you find out the drunk either does not have insurance or not enough. What do you do, you do what everyone would do you make a claim on that insurance you have paid for all those years. I mean that is why you have paid the insurance company thousands of dollars for just this type of thing. What does the insurance company do? Pay the claim which they know they owe, of course not. Thanks to our Texas Supreme Court they deny the claim because the person injured by the drunk has not had a Court determine that the drunk was a fault and what the damages are. Understand that your insurance is essentially now the drunks since they had none or not enough, and even though the drunk is arrested (and maybe even already convicted) and you have proven thousands and thousands of dollars in medical bills, they get a free pass to delay your claim for potentially years thanks to our Drunk and Insurance protecting Supreme Court. Isn't it time that the citizens of Texas who do work hard, pay their bills, drive responsibly and pay for insurance coverage come first? I am sick and tired of having to tell families who have had their lives destroyed by these drunk drivers that now their own insurance company with the blessing of our Supreme Court can force them through ligitation just to get what should be paid without even having to hire a lawyer. What's your thought?

Paid v. Incurred

Why should the people who cause injury get the benefit of all the money you or your company has paid for your health insurance? That is what happens under the current law in Texas which allows defendants (i.e. drunk drivers) to get the benefit of having to pay only the amount of your reduced bills that your group coverage has contracted. The legislature realized the unfairness of this last session and changed the law, but Governor Perry vetoed the bill at the last possible minute so they could not take it up again. The same bill is before the legislature this session and hopefully the Governor will do the right thing and not protect the drunks and their insurance companies.

Chase Bank v. FB Austin ProGrad

What do you call a Bank that gets BILLIONS of dollars from the government, but refuses to refund $10,000.00 to a group of high school seniors when the Bank allowed unauthorized wire transfers of their Account? Chase Bank. It has been over 2 weeks since the bank allowed two separate transfers which totaled almost $10,000.00. Who supposedly authorized the transfers, where were they sent, when will the money be returned and what is the status of the "investigation" would all seem like relevant questions which Chase would be willing to share with their account holder whose money was taken, but they instead have refused to answer any questions, refused to refund the money and refuse to provide a time frame as to when their "investigation" may be completed. The Austin H.S. seniors have worked hard to raise the money for the ProGrad party and the Banks action (or lack thereof) is causing a delay in ordering items and scheduling. Several newspapers attempted to get answers today and received the same double talk that ProGrad has heard. Hopefully Chase will do what is right and refund the money to the students. It's not like they are completely incompetent and need to get billions from the government because they can't run their business or figure out how they lost $10,000.00 of their account holders.

AIG- An Incompetent Group

AIG is pleased to announce we have changed our name to 21st Century Insurance. That is the message which was heard when they were called to discuss a case in which a family was run over by a drunk. While I am sure they are pleased to announce the change in name. It would be better if they announced a change in attitude and policy. Their policy holders pay the premiums and hope to never have to make a claim, but when they do make a claim on their own policy due to a wreck in which the other driver has no insurance or inadequate insurance what happens? You would assume that AIG would take some of the thousands of dollars in premiums paid by the policy holder and resolve the claim, or perhaps they would use some of the tens of billions (that is hard to write) they have received from their policy holders and the rest of the citizens of the United States. That is what a reasonable company would do. They collected premiums for years for just this situation. AIG chooses a different option they make a "offer" to settle the case for less than half the policy limits. They realize that they can keep all the money and make their policy holders hire an attorney to file suit and after spending significant time and money to get to trial and receive a verdict; they will only have to pay what they should have paid in the first place. (See UM blog 2/4/09) So they keep the money paid to them in premiums and they have all the billions which we have provide them in the stimulus package and force their policy holders to file suit to receive the very benefits they have paid for. What are they doing with their policy holders money and the billions of dollars they have received? While it is especially galling that AIG who has received billions of dollars in addition to the premium payments, they are not alone. Virtually every auto insurance company in Texas has the same attitude because they are allowed to by our Supreme Court and Legislature. If you want it to change let your representatives know. As always, I welcome your comments.

Arbitration

Arbitration – “till death do you part” may apply in marriage, but does not apply in arbitration. On February 13, 2009 our Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion (In Re Labatt Food Service, L.P. – No. 07-0419)which held that an arbitration provision in an agreement between a person who died on the job and his employer was binding upon his heirs even though they did not sign the agreement. The court concluded that the arbitration clause was binding and the decision as to whether even the agreement itself was enforceable would have to be decided by the arbitrator. The original concept of arbitration was one of cost savings in terms of reducing the expense of lawyers, discovery and time to get an issue resolved. It has instead proven to be as, if not more expensive and take longer than litigation without any of the safeguards built into our civil justice system. I am a firm opponent to arbitration and have huge concerns regarding the uneven playing field before a single arbitrator or panel that is selected by the parties. One concern is the appearance of bias when one party regularly appears before the arbitrator and the other has only one case. Also the decision of the arbitrator is generally final without recourse or appeal, whereas in trial you present your case to a jury from your jurisdiction. That jury’s decision is based upon the law as administered by the Court and if warranted either side can appeal the decision. My advice is not to agree to arbitration. If arbitration language is included in an agreement strike it out before signing and if the other side insists on the arbitration language you have to decide if it is worth the loss of your rights under our justice system. Also ask yourself if they want arbitration so bad, they must have a reason to believe it will benefit them and not provide an equal playing field. The time to deal with an arbitration clause is before you sign the agreement because, as our Supreme Court has held, even death can’t get you out of them once it has been signed. As always I welcome your comments.

Trials Part 1

As you may have noticed from the in trial this week, I am in trial. One issue which has come up in this trial and virtually every trial which concerns personal injuries is the use of affidavits to prove up medical records and billing. While it is specifically allowed under 18.001, the affidavit must track the language as set out, if not you may not get your bills or records into evidence. We have noticed that several hospitals and doctors instead of returning the affidavit we send filled out, they choose to either send their own or change the language. This could result in the affidavit being found defective and the your evidence excluded. So the moral of the story is once you get your affidavits back and make sure you read them to determine they are correct. Give yourself plenty of time to get them corrected before the filing deadlines. All our medical was admitted, but some of the bills were initially incorrect, but my co-counsel Sharon Steckler had them redo in the correct form and did so in plenty of time to get them filed timely. If you have questions or comments, let me know.

Uninsured/Underinsured Auto Coverage - Part 2

Uninsured or Underinsured claims, in addition to what we discussed last week, have some other issues which can be become problems. One of them could prevent you from recovering under your own policy, despite all the money you have paid in over the years. You must get written permission to settle and release the other driver from your carrier before you settle your case. To illustrate this let's take a basic rear end collision. You are hit from behind by a driver insured with DenyAll Insurance and your insurance is Regressive. The other drive is ticketed for the wreck and your medical expenses are over $35,000.00. The other driver's coverage through DenyAll is only $25,000.00. They provide proof of the policy only being $25,000.00 and send you a check and release to sign. Putting aside all the issues with medical bills, etc., you sign the release and take the money. You may have just cut off any recovery you may have against your own company to recover your additional damages because you did not get their written permission to settle and release the other driver. The real kicker is that there is no requirement that your insurance company tell you about the requirement. The moral of the example is what should be simple is filled with traps and before you settle any case, make sure you know who it could impact other issues. As with any legal discussion, this is just general information and not specific legal advice for any case.

Uninsured/Underinsured Auto Coverage

Did you know that the auto insurance that you have paid for all these years can refuse to pay even if it is clear that you were injured through no fault of your own? Let me give you an example. You are stopped at a light and a drunk hits you. You go to the hospital and everyone knows you are seriously injured. The drunk is arrested and taken to jail for causing the wreck and your medical bills are increasing daily. You learn that the drunk has no insurance, so you make a claim on your insurance under the uninsured portion of your policy. That is why you have been making those payments all these years. You submit all your bills and even send them the police report. You then get a letter stating that they do not have to pay anything until the drunk is found liable and the damages are established. Your medical is now over $40,000.00 and your uninsured coverage is only $50,000.00 clearly they will pay it and not make you hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit right. Wrong. The Texas Supreme Court has expressly permitted this very action and the insurance companies are taking full advantage of it. You may now have to hire a lawyer, file a lawsuit and incur all the cost of filing fees, depositions, etc. to "prove" the drunk was at fault and what your damages are, and once you do all that and get a verdict, you would think you would get the policy limits ($50k in our example), plus your expenses and attorneys fees because you paid those premiums to get treated fairly, but that is not the case. In our example, let's say the jury finds the drunk at fault and awards $150,000.00. The Supreme Court has held that if the policy limits are tendered timely (within 5 days) of the judgment, all they owe is the policy ($50k), no attorneys fees or expenses. So why would an insurance company ever settle an uninsured case for the full value when they know they can make you spend time and money and ultimately will get less. If you think this is wrong, you are right. Let me know your thoughts.