Insurance companies are sued all the time for bad faith denials. However, individual claims adjusters acting in concert with their employers are typically not. If you’re injured in a truck accident, however, the lawsuit will name both the driver and their company to establish a link between the accident that occurred and the liability of the company. That doesn’t mean that individual truck drivers pay huge sums to injured drivers.

Claims adjusters tend to work for insurance companies. They are the folks who handle your claim, punch relevant numbers into a computer, and then deliver a settlement figure that is insultingly low. After some haggling, you and your lawyer get that number up and the case settles for an agreed-upon sum.

Understanding the stakes of the suit 

In a lawsuit like this, the elements or facts of the case may not be disputed by either party. Instead, the defendant is claiming that the insurance adjuster who was named in the lawsuit should have been dismissed from the case. Colorado law has a provision that holds “persons” accountable which could include claims adjusters. Typically, such actions have been dismissed against individual claims adjusters, but a recent verdict is now creating waves. Other state supreme courts have ruled against such interpretations of the law.

Detractors say that if the interpretation is allowed to stand, it would prevent people from wanting to become claims adjusters. It would further distort the way claims adjusters handled their jobs, fearing for personal liability. In reality, it creates a hierarchical schism between the claims adjuster and their employer. Once the claims adjuster becomes individually liable, they are beholden to the law, not their employer. An employer cannot direct a claims adjuster to break the law.

Nonetheless, employers tend to accept liability on behalf of their employees. In this case, the claims adjuster’s employer said that they would pick up the tab on behalf of their client. This creates a situation where a) either the insurance company’s liability is increased because of the liability of their employee b) the plaintiff’s entire claim is split between the two parties. In either event, the plaintiff will not benefit much from adding the employee’s name to the lawsuit, and the claims adjuster won’t have to pay out money to plaintiffs, but, the lawsuit is part of the public record, impacts their credit rating, and can be used to leverage them in a lawsuit.

Talk to a Florida Truck Accident Lawyer Today 

Injured in a tractor-trailer accident? Call the Coral Gables tire defect lawyers at Halpern, Santos & Pinkert today to schedule a free consultation and learn about how we can help.

Source:

coloradopolitics.com/courts/claims-adjusters-fate-lies-in-state-supreme-court-following-arguments-over-personal-liability/article_74da984a-7402-11ec-b332-db1ed241a2cb.html

Duty of care in negligence lawsuits 

Duty of care is one of the most vital and least understood parts of a negligence lawsuit. In order to prove negligence, you have to prove that the other party actually owed you some form of consideration. In order to owe you that consideration, they need to be aware that their actions may potentially cause harm to others.

That begs the question: Does the truck driver owe the general public a duty of care to look under his truck to ensure that there are no homeless people sleeping there? It’s going to be hard to convince a jury that he does. Essentially, it would force all truck drivers to always check beneath their vehicles to ensure that there’s no one sleeping there. It would place a duty of care on the truck drivers to ensure the area underneath their rigs is clear.

On the other hand, the truck driver does have a duty of care to inspect their vehicle on a 24-hour basis. It also requires truck drivers to inspect vehicles before and after deliveries. In a case like that, the truck driver would have a duty of care to look underneath the truck to check for leaks, scan the tires, and more. So while the truck driver did not owe the homeless person a duty of care, he may still owe the public a duty of care to check underneath the vehicle. Had the truck driver acted on this duty of care, he would have spotted the homeless man, and the homeless man would still be alive. That is the basis on which this lawsuit is moving forward.

In this case, the driver said that he was in the midst of completing the inspection but due to vehicles being too closely packed together, had to move his truck to do so. That’s when he heard the bump.

The lawsuit is only seeking $100,000 in compensation which is raising eyebrows. An attorney representing the plaintiff would not comment on why the settlement figure was so low, but one would expect that there is a good chance that the truck driver’s story will check out. Further complications related to the duty of care a truck driver must extend to the public will also limit the potential jury award or settlement figure. The attorney is giving the defendants a chance to settle the matter without rolling the dice before a jury. However, the fact that the driver was required to perform a pre-route inspection could shift the scales toward the plaintiff.

Talk to a Florida Truck Accident Attorney 

Injured by a commercial driver? Call the Coral Gables tire defect lawyers at Halpern, Santos, & Pinkert today for a free case evaluation and more information on how to proceed.

Source:

cdllife.com/2022/trucker-facing-lawsuit-by-family-of-homeless-man-crushed-while-sleeping-under-rig/

According to early reports, the fire truck collided with an SUV at an intersection and struck a brick building that partially collapsed. Both driver and passenger in the SUV were killed and another pedestrian was killed as well. The building is also in pretty rough shape.

Understanding sovereign immunity 

Every state in the country, along with the federal government and municipalities both permits and limits lawsuits against the state. Since these lawsuits are paid out of public coffers, there is a sense that they need to be protected. In fact, Missouri’s rules in regards to sovereign immunity are slightly more permissive than Florida’s.

In Florida, plaintiffs are only allowed to collect $200,000 at the very most and if the incident involves multiple plaintiffs, then that number is capped at $300,000. That is something that the Parkland parents are now attempting to circumvent as they would all be only entitled to recover a total of $350,000 and split that however many ways.

In Missouri, however, the cap is over $400,000 per plaintiff and over $3 million per incident. So, each wrongful death would settle for about $450,000 and there would still be money left over to repair the building.

Sovereign immunity in Florida 

Some states bar simple negligence claims against government employees. These rules bar the vast majority of traffic accident cases unless there is gross or extreme negligence. In those cases, you would not be able to pursue punitive damages against the government. In Florida, you cannot sue the government concerning a plan, but you can sue the government over how they implement the plan. In other words, certain decisions are within the government’s purview to decide without fear of a lawsuit while other decisions do expose the government to a lawsuit. In other words, a plaintiff must prove that the negligence was related to the implementation of a plan and not the plan itself. A negligent plan, policy, or process can never become the subject of a lawsuit in Florida. Negligently operating a fire truck, however, is still compensable.

Talk to a Florida Truck Accident Lawyer Today 

Halpern, Santos & Pinkert file lawsuits on behalf of those who are injured by commercial vehicles in traffic accidents. Call our Coral Gables tire defect lawyers today to schedule a free consultation and learn more about how we can help.

Source:

kshb.com/news/local-news/investigations/family-of-westport-crash-victim-files-lawsuit-against-kansas-city-alleged-kcfd-fire-truck-driver

One of the plaintiffs has filed a lawsuit against the driver and the trucking company that employed him. A trial is scheduled for June of 2022 to determine damages. However, the damages in a case like this will be extensive.

Negligence claims against the trucking company 

While the truck driver is responsible for the accident, his employer is also responsible based on a legal theory known as vicarious liability. Under the law, corporations are treated as a single entity (corporate personhood) which gives them specific rights (the rights of an individual) and certain responsibilities (they are treated as an individual). So, anything one employee does for your company while they are on the job the entire company is liable for regardless of whether or not they contributed negligence.

In a case like this, the company is generally hit with an allegation of negligent hiring and retention. An attorney for the plaintiff will review the company’s history, the employee’s driving record, and other matters related to the accident and form an allegation against the company itself for giving a dangerous piece of machinery to a drunk driver.

Damages 

Damages in a case of permanent injury are higher, generally even higher than cases where an individual is killed. That’s because the victim will no longer be able to work, so they require compensation for the lost wages they would have supported themselves with had the accident not occurred. Further, any medical expenses accrued due to the accident are the sole liability of the company that employed the drunk driver. Further, the company is liable for the victim’s decreased quality of life, inability to have a normal life, and the loss of enjoyment her injury will cause. Lastly, the company may be on the hook for punitive damages. In a case like this where the company employed a driver who was an “imminent hazard”, they can face punitive damages for egregious failures to monitor their employees.

In other words, this is precisely the type of case that private insurance companies hate because it could result in an excess of a $10 million jury award. Prepare for a notable application of “reptile theory”.

Talk to a Florida Commercial Truck Accident Attorney Today 

Halpern, Santos & Pinkert represent the interests of those injured in commercial trucking accidents. Call our Coral Gables tire defect lawyers today to schedule a free consultation and learn more about how we can help.

Source:

eastidahonews.com/2021/11/semi-truck-driver-gets-prison-for-february-crash-that-severely-injured-two-people/

To understand this theory, you have to understand evolutionary approaches to studying the brain. Much like archeology, we assume that the deeper you go (the closer to the brainstem you go) the more primitive our brains become. By hacking into the notion that the defendant isn’t just a threat to our client, but also everyone else who has ever taken the road, we make juries fear for their own lives and seek to rouse their anger against the defendant.

While we admittedly do use the jury’s emotions to benefit our client, the brain stem is not the seat of emotions. That evolved alongside mammals much later. If you ever see a jury fly out of the jury box and begin kicking and punching the defendant or, alternatively, fleeing the courtroom in fear of immediate danger, then you can probably blame us for reptile brain hacking.

The theory behind reptile theory 

Essentially, juries are wired to focus on threats, especially in a courtroom. The side that successfully leverages threats better usually wins. What does this have to do with the law? Nothing. That’s why it’s less useful than insurance lawyers are making it out to be.

Essentially, in order to believe in reptile theory, you must also believe that human individuals are passive receptors of information and do not critically engage with information in any active way. They merely absorb it. Perhaps, that most of all is why insurance litigators are losing these lawsuits with such large verdicts. They believe that once a personal injury vilifies their client, there is nothing they can do to overcome that. Since individuals passively receive information that they do not critically analyze, you, the personal injury attorney, have the ultimate power to manipulate jurors into bad settlements.

In truth, most jurors are predisposed to assume that the plaintiff is responsible for their own actions. This is why one of the best civil defense strategies, the most tried-and-true method, is to blame the plaintiffs for their injuries. In other words, civil defense attorneys turn the reptile theory against our clients to prove that their own client was not responsible. In fact, this strategy is even used in sexual assault lawsuits.

In other words, all attorneys will employ reptile theory and there is no magic hacking method that forces jurors to return settlements of more than $10 million. That number is reached in concert with the trial, the trial judge, rules regarding civil judgments, and of course, the law itself. The majority of these verdicts include punitive damages for repeat offenses.

But yes, civil defense authorities tend to think very lowly of juries, and that, ultimately, is what reptile theory implies.

Talk to a Florida Truck Accident Attorney Today

 If you’ve been injured in a Florida truck accident, don’t listen to lobby groups whining about how their clients are treated unfairly in court. If these companies had focused on driver training and safety, they wouldn’t be in court at all. Call the Coral Gables tire defect lawyers at Halpern, Santos & Pinkert today to schedule a free consultation and learn more about how we can help.

Source:

linkedin.com/pulse/reptile-theory-bad-science-good-results-deborah-johnson

The company claimed in its defense that it “could not have known” that a 14-year-old spare tire was left on the vehicle. Obviously, that argument was not strong enough to avoid a $9 million settlement.

Michelin is also named in the lawsuit, and that case is proceeding.

Will Michelin be held liable? 

Michelin is liable for all tires that are in the stream of commerce and still under warranty. If a customer abuses a tire or the tire is stripped bald, or the tire is actually spare that should not be on a moving vehicle for longer than the course of a safety trip, then Michelin is very likely to have a strong defense to the allegations. Michelin will likely lay the blame on the other company for leaving a spare tire on the vehicle, driving it around for a couple of weeks, and then waiting for it to blow out. That’s not really Michelin’s fault as the tire was not being used in the manner that it was designed. Likely, Michelin issues several warnings with spare tires to avoid protracted use on public roads. Anyone would know better than to keep a spare on their car. So, the plaintiffs will need to come up with some reason that Michelin is personally to blame for the defective tire and not the company that drove around on a spare until it blew.

Nonetheless, Michelin pays nuisance money to attorneys to avoid the cost of preparing the case. If the cost of preparing the case is more than the cost of simply settling it, then Michelin will pay up to $10,000 or $30,000 just to make it all go away. This has been their strategy with such cases in the past and so long as the plaintiff doesn’t get greedy. But the suit against Michelin is unlikely to result in a large sum of money as the wrecking company contributed the vast majority of negligence to this incident. Michelin likely feels that the tire was not being used properly, was no longer under warranty, and hence, they are no longer responsible for it.

Talk to a Florida Tire Liability Attorney Today 

If you have been injured due to a defective tire, the Coral Gables tire defect attorneys at Halpern, Santos & Pinkert have the trial experience you need to win your case. Call today to schedule a free consultation and learn more about how we can help.

Source:

dailyvoice.com/new-jersey/middlesex/news/salesman-who-suffered-brain-injury-gets-9m-settlement-in-nj-turnpike-tire-blowout-crash/819797/

Hence why trucking companies are exposed to liability in these cases. They can avoid this liability simply by vetting their drivers better. However, today trucking companies are under intense pressure with supply chain concerns, the coronavirus, staffing shortages, and the fact that trucking isn’t recruiting as many workers as it once did.

Negligent hiring and retention 

Most truck accident lawsuits involve a commuter and truck and there is some question as to which party is liable for the accident. The truck driver is generally a professional driver who knows what they’re doing. The commuter just wants to get somewhere they need to be. Most accidents involving commercial trucks are actually the fault of the commuter and not the truck driver. When it is the fault of the truck driver, the fault for the accident is something simple like a failure to check their blind spots.

In some cases, trucking companies do not do their due diligence prior to hiring a driver. The driver then inevitably causes an accident that injures or kills another person. Not only is the truck driver blamed for their poor driving, but the company that hired him to drive loads is blamed for placing the dangerous truck into his possession. In some cases, lawsuits have alleged that drivers don’t even have valid CDLs.

How do trucking companies skirt the law? 

The same way all companies do, by exploiting loopholes. One popular loophole is the use of independent contractors. Company A hires Company B to provide logistics and Company B hires independent contractors. One of those contractors is a bad driver who slams his vehicle into the back of a line of stopped cars. Is Company B liable for the injuries caused by their independent contractor? The answer is, yes, but with caveats.

The law requires companies to vet drivers prior to offering contracts regardless of whether or not they are considered employees or contractors. However, foreknowledge is the key to holding Company A or Company B liable for the injuries caused to a third party. So, despite the best efforts of civil defense attorneys, even a contracting company can be held liable if they failed to do any due diligence or had reason to know the company was employing under skilled drivers. This is easier to prove than you may imagine.

Talk to a Florida Truck Accident Attorney Today 

If you’ve been injured in a commercial truck accident, call the Coral Gables tire defect attorneys at Halpern, Santos & Pinkert today to schedule a free consultation and learn more about how we can help.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff was hauling nearly 80,000 pounds of sand in a dump truck. The front driver-side tire suffered a tread separation and blew causing the dump truck to capsize. The vehicle was traveling at highway speeds at the time of the blowout. The plaintiff suffered spinal injuries as well as injuries to his head and face.

Tire lawsuits are filed under two legal theories of liability. One theory is to claim that the tire had a manufacturing defect that caused a premature blowout. The other theory is to claim that the tire had a defective design that made all such tires prone to blowing out. Importantly, the plaintiff won their lawsuit on the second theory which will cause problems for Kumho.

The allegations against Kumho 

Kumho was found to have engineered a defective tire. The theory on why the tire was defective involves the belts used to attach the treads to the body of the tire. Steel radial belts attach the tire casing to the treads. When they separate, a blowout ensues. In this case, the plaintiffs successfully argued that the steel belts suffered premature oxidation (they rusted) and that resulted in tread separation.

Initially, the trucker had sued the company from which he purchased the tire, but eventually Kumho was added to the lawsuit as well. That company settled prior to the lawsuit against Kumho.

Defense counsel blames the victim 

The defense presented a theory that the plaintiff had overused and abused the tire hauling tons of sand in his dump truck. An expert testified that the treads were worn down past recommended limits and the company the plaintiff worked for failed to conduct pre-delivery inspections as required by federal law. Nonetheless, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $3 million.

While tire lawsuits are hard to win because the defendants can say anything other than their own negligence caused the blowout, plaintiffs often have the advantage when they are blamed for their own injuries. In this case, the defense presented a reasonable theory of why the tire blew out. However, the plaintiff’s theory was more convincing. It bears noting that Kumho has faced several recalls for tread separation in the six years since this accident occurred.

Talk to a Florida Defective Tire Attorney 

The Coral Gables tire defect attorneys at Halpern, Santos & Pinkert have experience in tire liability claims against manufacturers, trucking companies, and auto parts servicers. Call today to schedule a free consultation and discuss your injuries in more detail.

Source:

landline.media/kumho-tire-ordered-to-pay-trucker-3m-for-rollover-crash/

The plaintiff 

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff was driving a Jeep that was struck by multiple trucks. She was trapped inside of her vehicle for six hours and required an emergency procedure to open an airway before she could be evacuated and taken to the hospital. The woman suffered multiple fractures. After an investigation, the state declined to file criminal charges but issued citations to several truckers who are alleged to have been following too closely or driving too quickly. The plaintiff is seeking over $750,000 in damages for injuries suffered, medical expenses, lost wages, and the trauma of being trapped in her car for six hours.

The defendants 

Trucking companies are liable when their drivers commit some form of negligence that injures other drivers. However, chain reaction accidents that involve 66 other vehicles can be difficult to sort out. Let’s say that an accident occurred up the road and traffic is stopped. You stop along with it. Then, another vehicle enters the fray rear-ending your vehicle and sending you to the hospital. In that situation, the first two vehicles wouldn’t impact your case. Only the third one would. Now multiply that by 66 and you begin to understand the level of complexity involved in a lawsuit like this.

Individual allegations against individual drivers were not a part of the article, so it remains unclear whether or not the driver has filed suit against the correct defendants. Chances are good, however, if one of the defendants are one of the same truckers who were issued citations for speeding, that the trucking company and their insurer will quickly move to settle. In other words, it’s impossible to analyze the merit of her complaint without understanding the specific allegations made against the specific truck drivers that are being named in the lawsuit.

This is where a personal injury attorney makes their money. When it’s difficult to determine which individual committed specific infractions that result in liability, we hire accident reconstruction specialists to analyze the wreckage and provide a theory as to how the accident occurred. This is cross-referenced against witness statements, police reports, and more, and together, they provide juries with a clear picture of why the other parties are responsible.

Talk to a Florida Commercial Truck Accident Attorney Today 

The Coral Gables tire defect attorneys at the office of Halpern, Santos & Pinkert file auto liability lawsuits against commercial trucking companies. We have recovered millions for our clients and have the litigation experience you need to win huge verdicts. Call today to schedule a free consultation, and learn more about how we can help.

Source:

cdllife.com/2021/woman-involved-in-deadly-66-vehicle-pileup-in-pennsylvania-sues-multiple-truckers

PIP shifts the threshold 

In other states, you can file a lawsuit over a lacerated pinky. It doesn’t matter how serious your injuries are. In the interests of judicial economy, Florida wants to prevent such suits from going into litigation. Hence, in Florida, you must show that your injuries are serious enough to warrant an actual lawsuit. In other words, Florida’s PIP statute prevents you from filing suits over “non-serious” injuries. The tradeoff, however, is that you get reimbursement regardless of who is at fault. The tradeoff to that is that you can never recover pain and suffering damages.

The threshold for “serious bodily injury” 

Florida requires that there be some form of permanent injury in order to file a lawsuit over a car accident. You should also be reasonably certain that the other driver was at fault. Injuries that may qualify as “serious” under Florida’s statute include:

• Permanent loss of an important bodily function
• Injury that is likely to place permanent limitations on the plaintiff
• Permanent scarring or disfigurement

Death also qualifies under the statute.

To establish “permanent injury” the use of a medical expert would be required. In most cases, the medical expert would testify that it’s reasonably certain that you will suffer extenuated nerve damage due to a car accident. The nerve damage reduces the strength in your hand and arm and makes it more difficult for you to do your job. You can no longer enjoy activities you once enjoyed like tennis and bowling. Treatment cannot remedy the situation. That would be an example of one of the least injurious forms of personal injury that would trigger the right to file a lawsuit under the Florida statute.

Other issues 

Unlike anywhere else except New Hampshire, which does not require auto insurance at all, Florida does not require insurance for motorcyclists. This means that motorcyclists are not subject to PIP exclusions and can always file lawsuits to recover damages against a negligent driver. The same can be said for other recreational vehicles like mopeds.

Talk to a Florida Traffic Accident Attorney Today 

If you’ve been injured due to the negligence of another driver, you can have an attorney review your claim to see if you meet the threshold to file a lawsuit. Lawsuits are more lucrative than PIP payouts, and when your injuries are serious, the stakes are high. Call the Coral Gables tire defect attorneys at Halpern, Santos & Pinkert today to schedule a free consultation and learn more about how we can help.