Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

Victims of the wrongful death of their loved ones testified this week before Congress concerning adulterated supplies of Heparin. One of the largest suppliers of this drug, which is used in kidney dialysis and various other surgeries to prevent dangerous blood clots, is Baxter International, Inc. Not only did the victims of families who have been damaged by this product testify before Congress, representatives from Baxter were also subpoenaed by the Energy and Commerce Committee which is reviewing the Food and Drug Administration’s response to this scandal.

While the evidence is still unclear, it appears that the Heparin product manufactured by Baxter International, Inc. was derived from factories in China that had not been properly audited and inspected. There is also evidence that a particular sulfate product used in the manufacture of Heparin was deliberately substituted because it was less expensive to use than a safer sulfate ingredient. Regardless of the final results of Congress’ investigation, it was clear from victim testimony that the lack of oversight by Baxter relative to the activities of its foreign operations has lead to a tremendous amount of suffering for the victims’ families.

To date, 81 people have died from using contaminated Heparin. One gentleman who testified before Congress not only lost his wife but also his son who were undergoing kidney dialysis in Ohio. This man’s wife and son died within one month of each other. Thus, the wrongful deaths caused by this dangerous product clearly are deserving of congressional scrutiny so that other unwitting victims of products imported from abroad will be spared similar fates.

We have written before on this blog about dangerous products that harm the American public. This seems to be yet another example of where the U. S. Food and Drug Administration has failed the American public in failing to insure that medical supplies are safe for public use and consumption. Not only may Baxter International have failed the American public, the government itself in its oversight role, may have also contributed to these tragedies. Even though Baxter, which had supplied about half of the U. S. Heparin market recalled most of its products in February of this year, the fact remains that 81 deaths have occurred and tremendous suffering which could have been avoided has been experienced as a result of the failure of proper oversight for these dangerous products.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Dangerous Drugs , Products Liability , Torts , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Our personal injury practice reflects pretty much what we see in national statistics concerning the rising rate of motorcycle injuries and accidents. We are seeing more and more clients seriously injured in motorcycle accidents. In large part, this is primarily due to increased numbers of motorcycle riders. Motorcycle registrations have more than doubled since 1997. In 2006, almost 6.5 million motorcycles were registered in this country. The good news is that the number of deaths and injuries resulting from these 6.5 million motorcycles is no greater than the number of deaths when 5 million registrations existed in 1986. The bad news is that even though motorcycles make up 2% of the vehicles on the road, they also make up close to 10% of vehicular accidents.

If you ride a motorcycle in this country, you are 37 times more likely to die in a crash than someone in a passenger car. Even though the number of motorcycle registrations have gone up dramatically, which would explain why motorcycle deaths have more than doubled in the past 10 years, motorcycle accidents kill more Americans each year than all those caused by much higher profile plane crashes, ship disasters, and railway accidents combined.

With increasing gas prices, we are likely to see a continuing rise in motorcycle usage. While many states require that motorcyclists wear helmets, in some cases, a helmet would make no difference. Nonetheless, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that between 1984 and 2000, 19,000 motorcyclists were saved by their helmets. These statistics are, of course, hard to quantify on a case by case basis but given the lack of protection that a motorcyclist has when involved in an accident, it seems a safe bet that helmets do matter. What matters even more, however, is motorcycle safety and rider education. Widespread motorist awareness campaigns educate the general motoring public to be aware of motorcycles. Increasing public awareness campaigns will be needed as more and more people register motorcycles in view of rising gas costs. Regrettably, our personal injury lawyers will probably continue to see a rise in the number of those that walk through our firm’s doors who have been seriously injured and/or who have had family members die as a result of their motorcycle usage. In short, the more people that ride, the more accidents that will occur and the more tragedies that will be suffered. As always, the operative watch words for motorcycle riders remains the same: Safety, Safety and Safety.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Torts , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Portable defibrillators are becoming common equipment at youth athletic event. We have written in the past explaining how theses devices, also known as AEDs, help restart the heart in the event of an accident.

A recent news report relates that last month in Jacksonville, Fla. A high school lacrosse goalie was hit in the chest by a lacrosse ball causing his heart to stop beating. And, it happened again just last week at another lacrosse game in Raleigh, N.C.

Researchers say that over the last 10 years, on average, one young athlete a month has been dying because of blows to the chest which affect the heart..

In both the Jacksonville and Raleigh episodes, the use of an AED saved the lives of the young athletes.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Torts

Bookmark:

A new study reports that from 1991 to 2005, nearly 40,000 people older than 65 were injured while riding escalators, an average of 2,660 a year. The report, published in the March issue of the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention, is based on an analysis of data collected by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The rate of injury more than doubled in that period — to 11 per 100,000 population in 2005, the latest year for which figures are available, from 4.9 in 1991. There were no fatalities, but more than 2,500 people were hospitalized, mostly for broken bones.

The researchers could not explain why the rate is rising. but noted there are more active older adults.

Slips and falls caused 85 percent of the injuries, and the rate of injury for women was almost twice as high as for men. Women are more likely than men to injure themselves in a fall, whether on escalators or not, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Torts

Bookmark:

If you think the prescription drug you took for headaches caused your heart attack, the Food and Drug Administration says you can't sue the maker for injury if it met agency standards. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) says you can't sue a mattress maker if your mattress bursts into flame despite meeting CPSC standards. Companies making sport utility vehicles would get similar protection from suits brought by people injured or the families of those killed in rollovers under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposals for stronger roofs.

Consumer advocates call this "silent tort reform." It is part of the tension between state and federal law that has existed since the nation's founding. If there is a conflict, state laws must yield under Article 6 of the Constitution. But where there is no federal law, federal courts must defer to laws of the state where a lawsuit is heard. Big business and insurance companies are now using this to avoid responsibility for negligent actions and omissions at the expense of innocent consumers.

Under the Bush administration, a developing body of judicial opinion could place new limits on the rights of those who buy or use products. It also could mean the savings of billions of dollars by companies insulated from lawsuits.

Federal agencies are increasingly promulgating rules favorable to big business and insurance companies at the expense of ordinary citizens. They then assert their rules override state tort and product-liability laws. In a novel approach, these agencies are claiming that the preemptive effect is based on statements in the introductions to their rules, not the rules themselves.

The practice varies by agency but is spreading. It delights corporate defense lawyers. The argument is that federal agencies are the absolute rule-makers.

Actor Dennis Quaid and his wife are preparing to fight such a contention — this one made by the FDA — in a suit accusing Deerfield, Ill.-based Baxter Healthcare Corp. of putting vastly different doses of a blood-thinner into confusingly similar packages. The Quaids went to court in November 2007, after their infant twins were given 1,000 times more heparin than babies should get. Their suit contends Baxter should have changed the packaging after three babies died in 2006 at an Indianapolis hospital.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Dangerous Drugs , Insurance Company Abuse , Medical Malpractice , Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Liability , Products Liability , Torts

Bookmark:

Many wrongful death lawsuits have been brought against the manufacturer of the popular police taser device but according to the manufacturer’s boasts which are in the public record, no such lawsuits have been successful. And yet, practically every week it seems, another person is killed by the use of this product.

Our wrongful death and injury lawyers read last week a news article about a teenager who was killed by the use of a taser after an altercation inside of a grocery store near Charlotte, North Carolina. Apparently, a 17-year old teenager got into an argument with one of his supervisors at a grocery store and police officers were summoned to the scene. When the officers arrived, the teenager allegedly was highly agitated and allegedly refused all verbal demands. A police officer used a taser on the teen to subdue him. The taser killed the teenager, age 17. It appears from the news accounts of this incident, the death of this teenager was not warranted by his non-violent conduct as he had not committed nor was he charged with any crime. He was merely upset and agitated and was not a threat to anyone as he apparently had no weapons on his person.

Over and over again it seems that people are killed by this device and yet the device continues to be used by the police. While every case is different, of course, in many cases we read about the use of these tasers in cases where the suspect is not known to be violent, has committed no major felony or other violent crime, and yet is intentionally stunned with this product, sometimes with fatal results.

We would encourage the law enforcement community to reconsider its use of this product. Despite the protestations of the manufacturer, there is abundant anecdotal evidence in the public domain which suggests that this product can kill healthy people including healthy teenagers. The use of such deadly force in a context where the suspect is not known to be violent nor is armed seems questionable at best thus calling upon a review by the law enforcement community of their procedures and their use of this product.

Many times, litigation is the best tool available to address products like these. Other lawyers have tried to sue the manufacturer, apparently without success. Whether a successful wrongful death lawsuit can be brought based on this most recent incident remains to be seen but clearly there needs to be further review of this potentially dangerous product. Non violent persons encountered by the police should not be subject to the “death penalty” caused by the use of an unreasonably dangerous product.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Products Liability , Torts , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Thirteen (13) people have died (and many more injured) as a result of burns and other injuries sustained in the explosion at the Imperial Plant in Port Wentworth, Georgia. Investigators have expressed the opinion that sugar dust ignited and caused the explosion which resulted in these injuries and deaths. Because most of the people burned, injured or killed as a result of the explosion were employees of Imperial Sugar, unfortunately, they will be barred by law from suing their own employer. This is the state of law in Georgia. Workers’ Compensation benefits are available to injured employees but injured employees cannot sue their employer. The one exception to this “non-suit” rule is where a third party’s acts contributed to the injuries and/or caused the same. The employer still cannot be sued, but other “third party” companies can be sued if their acts contributed to the damages sustained.

From newspaper reports, it appears that Imperial Sugar contracted with a company called Stokes Contracting to clean sugar dust at the plant. Obviously, a full investigation would be required to see what the contractual duties and undertakings were, but assuming the newspaper reports are true, those injured and/or killed may have claims against Stokes Contracting and/or any other entity that provided such cleaning services. If the failure to properly clean the sugar dust out of the plant was a proximate cause of the explosion, then there could be third party liability claims brought against that third party, in this instance, apparently, Stokes Contracting.

Cases of this nature are always tragic for the families involved and for those seriously burned or injured. While only time will tell whether there are valid third party claims to be made, one would hope that the injured and severely burned would have remedies other than those provided under Georgia’s Workers’ Compensation statutory scheme. The Georgia Worker’s Compensation statutory scheme is quite limited in the remedies it provides to those injured on the job. For example, pain and suffering is not awarded at all and lost wage benefits are typically quite low, usually below $500.00 per week, which is very difficult for those who have been injured to live on. While Workers’ Compensation medical benefits are good, because these types of burn injuries can last for years and years, it is evident that those involved in these incidents will suffer for a lifetime and yet they receive no pain and suffering compensation under Georgia’s Workers’ Compensation scheme. This it is why it is important that someone involved in an incident of this nature confer with competent counsel to make sure that any third party remedies against third parties who may be also liable for their damages can be pursued.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Premises Liability , Torts , Workers Compensation , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Our personal injury lawyers read today about a serious accident case involving an overturned school bus which apparently lost control and overturned about 40 miles north of Atlanta near Canton, Georgia. It was traveling from one high school to a middle school when the accident happened. When the bus overturned, even though no students were ejected from the bus, according to initial reports, approximately 25 students were injured. Two were reported to be in critical condition.

Initial news accounts state that the bus driver apparently lost control of the bus after going around a curve. The bus overturned on its side. It is doubtful that this school bus was equipped with seatbelts. Had the seatbelts been in place, one must wonder whether the two students in critical condition would have been as seriously injured as they apparently were.

Approximately one year ago, another bus ran over the top of an exit ramp crashing off of a bridge onto its side on Interstate Highway 75. This involved the Bluffton University baseball team. There were seven (7) deaths associated with that incident. In that accident, there were no seatbelts available for the baseball team occupants and some of those killed had been ejected. In the most recent case involving the school bus, many were injured and some perhaps critically once again because of joint and concurring driver negligence and the lack of seatbelts.

One must wonder how many more accidents there will have to be before Congress will require seatbelts for school buses and other motor carriers for hire such as commercial buses that one sees almost daily in large metropolitan areas. Until and unless seatbelts are required, our lawyers and the public will regretfully and, in all likelihood, continue to read about preventable injuries to bus occupants.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Products Liability , Torts

Bookmark:

Our Georgia injury lawyers are accustomed to seeing cases involving horrible injury and cases of death caused by all types of accidents but burn cases are at the top of the list. We were discussing the news accounts today in Savannah reporting that firefighters found three, and perhaps as many as six, bodies in the wreckage of a still-burning sugar refinery leveled by an explosion overnight. In addition to the death cases, dozens of employees have been injured, many critically burned. Officials suspect sugar dust, which can be volatile, as the cause of the explosion. Reportedly the explosion happened in a storage silo where refined sugar is stored until it is packaged.

Obviously all of the injured employees will immediately be entitled to workers compensation benefits, including payment of all medical bills but given the very limited disability benefits available under the workers compensation laws of Georgia, this is very little consolation to the injured. Having litigated products liability cases involving injury and death, we wonder whether there are some third parties who may be liable for this explosion. Surely, this huge sugar refinery was aware of the potential danger posed by sugar dust. Was there a system in place which failed? Was ventilation machinery defective or not properly maintained by third party entities hired by the refinery? All of these questions and more need to be explored in order to adequately protect the interests of injured workers and the families of those who died in this tragedy.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Premises Liability , Products Liability , Torts , Workers Compensation , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

This blog will continue in our series of providing our readers with answers to frequently asked questions in the context of a serious injury case. This blog will address FAQ number 10:

10. Is my case likely to settle or will it go to trial and, if so, how long will the process take?

Answer: Over 90% of all serious injury claims are settled by means of compromise. While every case is different and dependent upon the facts involved, most cases do settle but sometimes it takes considerable time to achieve a settlement. This is because there are always unique issues concerning whether the at fault defendant’s liability is indisputably established and whether they have sufficient insurance coverage to pay all damages caused by their negligence. If there is sufficient coverage, and damages are clearly demonstrated, settlements can occur on a quicker basis than those cases where liability is disputed and/or the damages are difficult to assess.

Many times, injured individuals have prior medical histories which complicate settlement discussions. If someone with a bad back is injured in a hypothetical automobile collision, in such a case it is always difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Was the back already injured such that the new injury merely constituted an aggravation and, if so, to what extent was the problem aggravated by the trauma? These are difficult questions to resolve and many time reasonable men can differ over the value of such claims. The good news, again, is that in 90% of all cases, a compromise is worked out and a settlement achieved.

The time it takes to resolve a serious injury case, again, is dependent upon the facts involved. The clearer the evidence the quicker the settlement. The more ambiguities are involved in the case with respect to the issue of liability for the damages and the damages, the longer the process takes.

Continue reading "Georgia Serious Injury Cases: Frequently Asked Question Number 10" »

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Torts , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

This blog will continue in our series of providing our readers with answers to frequently asked questions in the context of a serious injury case. This blog will address FAQ number 9:

8. If I am injured by a third party, but I am also working on the job at the time, am I entitled to both workers’ compensation coverage and a liability settlement?

Answer: The answer is yes although there may be a claim for subrogation made by the workers’ compensation insurance carrier. If an employee is injured while working for an employer and their injury comes about as a result of the acts of a third party, the injured individual may obtain both workers’ compensation benefits and liability insurance coverage to the extent the at fault defendant has such coverage. If a settlement is eventually obtained from the liability insurance carrier for the at fault defendant, the issue arises as to whether a portion of the settlement has to be repaid to the workers’ compensation insurance carrier for the employer. The general law in Georgia is that there is no right of subrogation unless the injured individual is first “made whole” for all of his/her damages which includes complete compensation for pain and suffering, past, present and future, complete compensation for medical expenses past, present and future, and complete compensation for lost wages, past, present and future. Unless an injured employee is “made whole” for all such damages, even if they have received workers’ compensation benefits and a liability settlement arising out of a hypothetical automobile accident, the injured individual will not be required to repay his or her employer’s insurance carrier for workers’ compensation benefits received. In the context of a case where an injured individual is not made whole, there is no right of subrogation. Accordingly, in many cases, the employee injured on the job with a valid claim against a third party may receive both workers’ compensation benefits and liability protection from the third party.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Torts , Uninsured Motorist Coverage , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

It is well established that failure to comply with an ante-litem notification provision within the time required by law is a bar to any right of action. See Mattox v. Bailey, 221 Ga. App. 546, 472 S.E. 2d 130 (1996). However, an ante-litem time requirement has been held to be, in itself, a form of statute of limitations, with all general principles applicable to statutes of limitation also applying to ante-litem time restrictions, including tolling provisions. See Howard v. State, 226 Ga. App. 543, 487 S.E. 2d 112 (1997); City of Atlanta v. Barrett, 102 Ga. App. 469, 471, 116 S.E. 2d 654 (1960). This being the case, if a victim/client is late in filing an ante-litem notice with a municipality, county or with the State under the State Tort Claims Act, it would appear that the statute under consideration would also provide relief to such a victim/client based on the language cited tolling the statute of limitations.
Our firm was recently retained by a gentleman whose wife was killed during a police chase. The wife was an innocent third-party caught up in the chase. This particular client had hired a previous attorney who did not file an ante-litem notice with the County involved within twelve (12) months. However, the fleeing suspect was prosecuted by law enforcement authorities and the prosecution ended only a month ago. Obviously, our position will be that the statute of limitations for the entire cause of action was tolled and thus the ante-litem notice we will be filing on his behalf is still timely. Again, this is another area of the law which will have to be explored.
When the Victims Restitution Act of 2005 was enacted, the Legislature stated in its preamble that the purpose of the Act was among other salutary goals “to substantially revise the laws of this state relating to the conduct of criminal trial and the impact of the criminal justice system on victims of crime; to amend Article V of Chapter 3 of Title IX of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to tolling of limitations in civil cases, so as to provide for a statute of repose in certain tort actions brought by victims of crimes against the persons accused of such crimes, to amend Title XVII of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to criminal procedure . . .” Given that a specific purpose of the new Act was to toll the limitations in civil cases so as to provide for a statute of repose in tort actions brought by victims of crimes, counsel in the future should always be cognizant of the existence of this relatively unused, untested and very interesting law. Because the language of the statute is so broad, particularly in view of its remedial purposes, we believe it can and will benefit tort claimants in the future where defendants have been charged with crimes arising out their tortious acts.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Civil Procedure , Torts , Trial Techniques

Bookmark:

As Georgia personal injury lawyers know, the typical statute of limitations for a bodily injury case in Georgia is two years from the date of the occurence at issue. However, in cases involving victims of criminal acts who have potential civil causes of actions against those who brought about injury to them, there are some nuances of Georgia law that all attorneys in this field should know.
The purpose of this entry is to acquaint the Plaintiff’s bar with a very important but little known statute. The statute at issue, O.C.G.A. § 9-3-99, was passed as part of the “Crime Victims Restitution Act of 2005.” It became effective July 1, 2005 and reads as follows:
The running of the period of limitations with respect to any cause of action in tort that may be brought by the victim of an alleged crime which arises out of the facts and circumstances relating to the commission of such alleged crime committed in this state shall be tolled from the date of the commission of the alleged crime or the act giving rise to such action in tort until the prosecution of such crime or act has become final or otherwise terminated, provided that such time does not exceed six (6) years.
Given that virtually every automobile accident involves misdemeanor criminal charges against a negligent driver (who presumably violated the Georgia Uniform Rules of the Road and was charged via a citation), it is submitted that in virtually every automobile accident tort case, this statute could potentially extend the statute of limitations from 2 years to 6 years. The same is true for any tort case (particularly intentional torts) resulting in criminal charges against a defendant. While the new statute has yet to be interpreted by any Georgia court, there are many interesting legal issues that may emerge in the future with respect to it.
Our firm first became aware of this statute in the context of two wrongful death actions we were prosecuting on behalf of separate families in Canada. These two deaths had occurred in a very bad tractor-trailer accident. While preparing those cases for trial, we contacted another person who had been injured in the same accident. This particular person lived in the state of Florida. When we first contacted the individual about providing a deposition for our cases, two years had already passed since the accident occurred. The witness, nonetheless, asked if our firm could assist him in bringing claims against the trucking company responsible for the collision. Because of the passage of time and also because we had a conflict of interest representing a witness we needed to depose for our other clients, we declined. However, when we later settled the two wrongful death cases and advised the witness his deposition was no longer needed, he again asked if we could be of service to him. Even though the otherwise applicable two-year statute of limitations had arguably run, because the tractor-trailer driver had been charged with vehicular homicide in connection with the deaths in our other two cases and because our conflict no longer existed, we agreed to file claims on the new client’s behalf and to assert in his case that the statute of limitations had been tolled since he was a “victim” of a crime which had been committed in this state.

Continue reading " TOLLING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN TORT CASES FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME " »

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Civil Procedure , Torts , Trial Techniques

Bookmark:

This blog will continue in our series of providing our readers with answers to frequently asked questions in the context of a serious injury case. This blog will address FAQ number 8:

9. If I have no health insurance and the at fault driver has little or no liability insurance coverage, what happens if my medical bills exceed available coverages?

Answer: This is a sad case that we see far too often in our practice. The hypothetical at fault driver has run the stop sign or red light and has caused serious injuries. The at fault driver has minimum limits of $25,000.00 which are insufficient to pay the medical expenses incurred. The injured individual has no health insurance. Thus, medical expenses exceed all forms of available coverage. What happens? Typically, lots of problems. If the medical expenses exceed available coverage then counsel will attempt to negotiate some type of settlement with the hospital and healthcare providers because there is simply not enough money to go around and what is available needs to be divided on an equitable basis. Sometimes this works and sometimes it does not. If there is a Hospital Lien, for example, the Hospital Lien takes priority by operation of law and all of the settlement funds might have to be paid to the hospital leaving the injured individual with nothing. Again, these are sad and complicated cases requiring careful review by experienced counsel. This, of course, is why it is so important that the public protect itself through Medical Payments coverage, health insurance coverage, disability coverage and/or any other forms of coverage such as uninsured motorist coverage if such coverage can be purchased and is affordable. If such coverage is not affordable and the injured individual has nothing then literally they are at the mercy of the resources of the at fault defendant which in many cases are themselves grossly insufficient to pay for medical expenses, much less pain and suffering and lost wages.

It is quite possible in these sad and tragic cases that the injured individual ends up declaring bankruptcy if the medical expenses are huge. In a serious injury case, medical expenses can literally be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is easy to see that if the at fault driver only has $25,000.00 and medical expenses are in excess of $200,000.00 that there is simply not enough money to go around. If the injured client has no heath insurance and the at fault driver only as $25,000.00, in the hypothetical case cited, there would be unpaid medical bills in the amount of $175,000.00. Bankruptcy might be the best alternative in such a case if something cannot be worked out by and between the healthcare provider and counsel for the client. This is the reality of any case where the client has no protection for himself and the at fault driver has little or no coverage either. Again, the best way to protect against such a catastrophe is to purchase healthcare coverage and uninsured motorist coverage if at all possible.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Torts , Uninsured Motorist Coverage , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

This blog will continue in our series of providing our readers with answers to frequently asked questions in the context of a serious injury case. This blog will address FAQ number 7:

7. If the at fault driver has no insurance coverage whatsoever, can I recover for my injuries under my own policy?

Answer: The answer is yes but only if you have uninsured/underinsured coverage under your own automobile policy. If an at fault driver is driving illegally without insurance, he or she is considered to be uninsured by operation of law. There simply is no insurance coverage and therefore they meet the definition of an uninsured driver. Thus, if you are injured by an at fault driver who has no insurance coverage policy at all, if you have been wise enough to purchase uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage as part of your own policy, you can file a claim against your carrier.

The good news here is that the premiums for an innocent insured cannot be raised if a claim is made for uninsured motorist coverage. Thus, in a hypothetical case where an individual causes an accident and he or she has no insurance coverage, one can make an application under one’s own policy for uninsured motorist coverage without a rise in their premiums. The law forbids an insurance company from raising the premiums of their insured simply because a claim is made particularly in the context of a claim being made by an innocent third party who has done nothing wrong but has only made a claim for paid coverage, the claim being necessitated by the acts of an at fault third party.

All of our readers are well advised to review their insurance policies carefully to determine whether they have uninsured/underinsured coverage. If they do not, we would recommend that they meet with their insurance agent, review their budget and purchase as much uninsured/underinsured coverage as is possible. This type of coverage protects the policyholder from the situation where the at fault driver has no insurance coverage or is underinsured, meaning that they have less insurance coverage than would provide complete compensation for the damage inflicted. We encourage all of our clients to study their policies to make sure that they have carefully reviewed this very significant issue and in situations where the family budget will allow the purchase of such coverage, it is a wise investment and form of protection that may be needed and could be crucial in a particular case, particularly where serious injuries are involved.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Torts , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

This blog will continue in our series of providing our readers with answers to frequently asked questions in the context of a serious injury case. This blog will address FAQ number 6:

6. Can my spouse recover damages if I am seriously injured and he/she misses time from work caring for me?

Answer: A spouse does not have a legal claim for their own lost wages while they miss work caring for their injured spouse. However, under Georgia law, a spouse does have a claim for loss of consortium. Loss of consortium means the loss incurred by the innocent spouse when they are deprived of their injured spouse’s “society, affection and companionship.” This is not limited to the loss of conjugal services but includes the loss of all services provided to the spouse and the intangible value of the injured spouse’s contribution to their “affection, society, comfort and companionship.” Thus, while one cannot literally file a claim for the uninjured spouse based on that spouse’s lost wages, compensation can be obtained in a serious injury case for lost of consortium which can provide a measure of compensation for other losses.