Auto Accidents

The Difference Between General and Limited Releases in Car Accident Settlements

March 4, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Litigation is not uncommon following an auto accident. In many cases, the parties can still settle their dispute without the need for a full-blown jury trial. But before agreeing to any settlement, it is essential each party understands what rights they may be giving up. A settlement is a contract, which means there must be a “meeting of the minds” in order for the agreement to be enforceable.

Cone v. Dickenson

Recently the Georgia Court of Appeals addressed a dispute arising from just such a settlement agreement. The plaintiff and the defendant were in a car accident. The plaintiff sued the defendant, alleging his negligence caused the accident.

Insurer Liable for $5.4 Million Judgment in Defective Auto Repair Case

February 21, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

We often hear about cases in which a person is injured in an accident due to a defect in the manufacturing of a car. But there are also cases in which someone may be injured due to an improper repair made to a car. As with manufacturing and design defects, a bad repair may not be immediately obvious to the driver, yet still produce catastrophic effects months, even years, later.

Lee v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company

In 2005, a well-known auto manufacturer issued a recall for one of its 2000 model-year vehicles. An owner of one such vehicle brought his car to a Georgia dealership to receive the appropriate repairs. Unfortunately, the dealership’s service technician did not perform the repair correctly, causing damage to the vehicle’s cruise-control cable.

What Happens When Two Insurance Policies Cover the Same Accident?

February 12, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

If you are injured in an accident and the other driver lacks sufficient insurance to cover any damages, you may turn to your insurance policy’s uninsured motorist coverage. But what happens if you are eligible for uninsured motorist coverage under two different insurance policies? Which policy has priority? The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed this question.

Sentinel Insurance Company v. USAA Insurance Company

This case began with a rear-end collision. One driver sued the other for negligence. The plaintiff also served two insurance companies as co-defendants. She claimed eligibility for uninsured motorist benefits under both companies’ policies.

Supreme Court Says Insurers Can Not Go After Accident Victim’s Personal Assets

January 22, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Although lawsuits arising from car accidents are usually dealt with under state law, there are questions of federal law that may arise from any settlement or judgment received by a victim. For example, if the victim received benefits from his or her employer-sponsored health insurance following an accident, the insurer may be entitled to enforce a lien against the proceeds from any personal injury lawsuit. The United States Supreme Court recently addressed the related question of how far an insurer may go to enforce such a lien.

Montanile v. Board of Trustees of Nat. Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan

This case originated in Florida. In 2008, a drunk driver ran a stop sign and hit another vehicle. The victim suffered serious injuries that required extensive medical care. The victim had health insurance through an employer-sponsored plan governed by federal law. Altogether, the insurer paid over $120,000 for the victim’s medical care following the accident.

Railroad Not Liable for Fatal Georgia Crossing Accident

December 28, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

According to statistics from the Federal Railroad Administration, there are more than 2,000 vehicle-train collisions at railroad crossings every year. When such accidents result in serious injury or death to innocent motorists, it is only logical the victims would want to hold the railroad responsible. But in some cases Georgia law may frustrate these efforts, as illustrated by a recent federal appeals court decision.

Long v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

This case involves a fatal accident that occurred at the Emory Street Crossing in Covington, Georgia. In 1974, the Georgia Department of Transportation contracted with a private railroad to install new gates and crossing signals at the Emory Street Crossing. Some years later, the railroad made some changes to the design, which resulted in a 36-foot gap between the installed protective devices and the main railroad line.

Georgia Court Holds Underinsured Motorist Policy Would Not “Duplicate” Prior Damages

December 18, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

If you are seriously hurt in an accident, there are many types of legal injuries that may entitle you to compensation. In addition to paying your immediate medical bills following an accident, you may face future expenses for ongoing care. You may also face lost wages—again, present and future—as well as pain and suffering.

In car accident cases, if a negligent driver lacks sufficient insurance to compensate you for all of your injuries, your own insurance carrier may be responsible pursuant to uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage. The exact amount of coverage you receive depends on the specific language of your policy. Unfortunately, litigation often arises between accident victims and their insurance carriers over the interpretation of such language.

Mabry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Georgia Mother Allowed to Proceed With Lawsuit Against Daughter’s Auto Insurer

December 13, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

If you have been in a car accident, your insurance company may attempt to employ every proverbial trick in the book to deny you coverage. Georgia courts are also predisposed to strictly interpret insurance contracts to avoid any ambiguity that may favor the insured party. There are exceptions, as illustrated by a recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision.

King-Morrow v. American Family Insurance Company

In this case, the plaintiff was a woman living with her adult daughter. The daughter held an automobile insurance policy that included uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. The UM coverage applied to “relatives living in the policy holder’s household,” which included the mother.

Judges Throw Out Part of $1.6M Verdict in Pedestrian Death Case

December 7, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

When a car accident involves two or more vehicles, an injured person may seek damages against all responsible parties. The jury must then apportion fault among all of the parties—including possibly the victim—when awarding damages. While judges typically do not second-guess a jury’s apportionment of fault, there are exceptional occasions in which the courts find a jury’s verdict simply cannot be supported by the available evidence.

Redmon v. Daniel

Here is a recent example from here in Georgia. The victim in this case was a male pedestrian walking along a highway exit ramp in Gwinnett County, Georgia. Two vehicles were using the ramp, a Chevrolet and a garbage truck. The Chevrolet struck the victim first. The driver later testified the victim was “in the middle of the road” and she did not see him until the impact.

Georgia Truck Driver Not Entitled to Insurance Benefits After Getting Hit By Log

December 4, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Uninsured motorist coverage is designed, among other things, to compensate you if you are in an accident with an unknown vehicle. A common example is a “hit and run” where the offending driver speeds away and is never identified. In such cases, your insurance carrier is supposed to provide uninsured motorist benefits. You should always keep in mind that insurance is a contract governed by state law, and as with any contract, there may be unusual circumstances that are not covered by the policy.

American Alternative Insurance Company v. Bennett

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed such an unusual case. The plaintiff in this case was driving his tractor trailer down a road in Brantley County, Georgia. According to his testimony, a second tractor-trailer transporting “a load of logs” passed him going in the opposite direction. Shortly thereafter, “a log hanging off of the oncoming log truck struck plaintiff’s tractor, shattering the windshield and causing shattered glass to impact the plaintiff’s eyes and face.”

Georgia Court Upholds $4.7 Million Judgment Against Seat Belt Manufacturer

November 27, 2015 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Many car accidents are the result of a defect in the design or manufacture of part of the vehicle. A manufacturer may be held liable under Georgia law for such defective products. A jury may also find a manufacturer failed to adequately warn consumers about certain safety risks associated with a product.

Key Safety Systems, Inc. v. Bruner

On November 19, the Georgia Court of Appeals upheld a $4.7 million verdict holding a seat belt manufacturer partially liable for the tragic death of a 47-year-old mother of two. In September 2007, the victim was riding in the family’s Jeep Wrangler, which her daughter was driving. For undetermined reasons, the Jeep left the roadway and rolled over. Despite the fact mother and daughter were wearing seat belts, the mother was ejected from the vehicle and died. A witness at the scene testified that the victim, who survived for a short time following the rollover, said she could not understand why she was ejected as she was wearing her seat belt. The victim’s husband later testified his wife was “emphatic” in always wearing her seat belt.