Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

Uninsured Motorist Coverage – Why You Should Carry It

January 11, 2012 | John Suthers

Uninsured Motorist coverage is probably the most misunderstood coverage available when it comes to automobile insurance policies. However, it is one of the more important types of coverage that you should carry. Uninsured Motorist (UM) or Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage protects you from financial losses caused by another person who either does not have automobile liability insurance or does not have enough insurance to cover your injuries and losses. UM or UIM coverage can pay for injuries to you and passengers in your automobile caused by an at-fault driver who is considered uninsured or underinsured. A hit-and-run driver is also considered uninsured when that driver causes personal injury to you.

You might assume that because most states require that drivers carry minimum limits of liability insurance coverage, most drivers have it. Think again. In a recent study by the Insurance Research Council (IRC) entitled “Uninsured Motorist, 2011 Edition,” the IRC estimated that roughly 1 out of 7 drivers are uninsured despite laws requiring drivers to maintain liability insurance. The magnitude of uninsured drivers varies from state to state. In 2009, the State of Mississippi had the highest percentage of uninsured drivers, with an estimated 28% of its motorists carrying no liability insurance. The States of Maine and Massachusetts had the lowest percentage of uninsured motorists at 4%. The State of Georgia had an estimated 16% of uninsured motorists in 2009, and the State of South Carolina had an estimated 11%. As experienced Georgia auto accident attorneys, we have personally observed the consequences of motor vehicle accidents involving uninsured or underinsured drivers.

Consider the consequences of being injured in an automobile accident in which the at-fault driver has no insurance. As a result of your injuries, you incur substantial medical bills and you are unable to work for a long period. The at-fault driver has no liability insurance coverage against which you can make a claim. You would still have the option to sue the negligent driver for damages. However, if the at-fault driver does not have insurance, what are the chances of that driver having any money or assets from which you could recover in a lawsuit? It is an unfortunate fact of life that during tough economic times, many drivers do not have insurance or do not have enough insurance. However, if you carry UM and UIM coverage, you can recover money for your injuries and damages even if the at-fault driver cannot pay.

The purpose of UM or UIM coverage is to place the injured insured (you) in the same position as if the uninsured driver had liability insurance coverage. Stated differently, your insurance company “stands in the shoes” of the at-fault, uninsured driver up to the amount of UM or UIM coverage that you carry on your automobile insurance policy. Your UM or UIM coverage could pay your medical bills, lost wages, and compensate you for your pain and suffering. Even if you have health insurance coverage that would pay your medical bills, your health insurance coverage will not pay you for your lost wages or your pain and suffering. Additionally, UM and UIM coverage apply to you and any passengers in your car, and to you and other family members listed on your insurance policy when riding in cars owned by others.

“Underinsured Motorist” or UIM coverage applies when the at-fault driver does have liability insurance coverage but the amount of coverage is inadequate to make you whole. Consider the following example: You are injured in an automobile accident in which the other driver is legally responsible. You sustain multiple injuries for which you are hospitalized and you receive prolonged medical treatment. Because of your injuries, you are held out of work for 4 weeks. Your hospital and doctors’ bills total $50,000 and you lost $10,000 in wages while you were unable to work. Thus, you have $60,000 in out-of-pocket losses, plus pain and suffering and/or permanent impairment. Unfortunately, the at-fault driver had only $25,000 in liability insurance coverage. If you do not have Underinsured Motorist coverage, you are out of luck, as your recovery will most likely be limited to the $25,000 of insurance coverage maintained by the at-fault driver. As noted above, the individual who maintains only minimum liability coverage is not likely to have money or assets from which you could recover.

Now, consider the above example with one, noteworthy change. In addition to the liability coverage that you carry on your automobiles, you also carry $100,000 in Underinsured Motorist coverage. You could recover the sum of $25,000 in coverage from the at-fault driver’s insurance company and you could potentially recover up to $100,000 by making a claim against your own insurance company under your UIM coverage. A word of caution, however. Even if you have UM or UIM coverage, you should consult with an experienced car accident lawyer before you settle with the at-fault driver’s insurance company. If you try to settle with the at-fault driver’s insurance company by yourself and in doing so, sign a general release of all claims, you will not be able to file a UIM claim with your insurance company. In Georgia, there is a very specific form, known as a “limited release,” which should be used when settling with an underinsured motorist in order to preserve your right to file a UIM claim against your own insurance company. A properly drafted limited release would enable you to release the insured tort-feasor (the at-fault driver) from all personal liability arising from the accident except to the extent other insurance coverage, such as your UIM coverage, is available.
Continue reading ›

Put Down The Phone!

December 28, 2011 | Suthers Law Firm

texting.jpg.jpg
The statistics are shocking. A recent study from the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found that a person texting while driving was 23.2 times more likely to be involved in a crash or near crash event. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 448,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving distracted driving. An additional 5,474 people were killed due to distracted driving. One recent study found that driving “impairments associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound as those associated with driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08%”, which just happens to be the legal limit in Georgia.

The continued rise in accidents related to drivers using handheld electronic devices recently prompted the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to recommend a nationwide ban on the use of all portable electronic devices (PEDs) while driving. While the NTSB does not have the power to enforce regulations, their recommendation is certainly influential. Currently, nine states ban all handheld mobile phone use. Even in states that ban the handheld use of mobile phones, drivers are allowed to use hands-free technology to make calls. This includes wired headsets, bluetooth headsets and bluetooth speakers.

In Georgia, drivers under 18 cannot use a cell phone for any purpose while operating a vehicle. Moreover, Georgia has banned all drivers from texting while they are behind the wheel. This ban also includes using a portable electronic device to access the internet. All of the laws relating to cells phones in Georgia are primary, which means you can be stopped and ticketed for the violation, even without committing any other violation. Adults can still use both handheld and hands-free mobile phones to make voice calls. Despite the recent legislation by Georgia and many other states, accidents caused by portable electronic devices are on the rise.

New Truck Driving Safety Standards Proposed

December 14, 2011 | John Suthers

Fatigue and lack of sleep while driving an 18 wheel tractor-trailer rig can cause accidents and deaths on the highways. Under the existing rules that govern trucking companies, these companies can compel their drivers to drive up to 11 hours in a 21 hour time period. Drivers are allowed to drive up to 88 hours in an 8 day period. Whereas most people work a 40 hour week, current rules governing truck drivers allow them to cram more than 2 weeks of work (driving) in slightly over 1 week. This inevitably results in truck drivers driving for very long periods without adequate time off to rest. That, in turn, can lead to fatigue and other symptoms caused by sleep deprivation. 65% of truck drivers have reported feeling tired or drowsy while driving. Astonishingly, 48% of truck drivers have reported that they have fallen asleep while operating an 18 wheeler. The legal weight for an 18 wheeler is 80,000 (40 tons). By comparison, the average weight of an automobile is slightly over 5,000 pounds. One can imagine the devastation that can result when an 18 wheeler weighing 80,000 pounds and being driven by a sleepy driver collides with an automobile weighing 5,000 pounds.

Recently, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has proposed changing the rules by reducing the number of hours that truck drivers are allowed by law to drive in 1 day, the so-called Hours of Service rules. The agency is recommending that maximum driving time be reduced from 11 hours to 10 hours a day. Other recommendations involve giving drivers a 1 hour break during each day by limiting their actual duty time from 14 to 13 hours. Drivers are already required to get 8 hours rest each day. Opponents of the proposed rule changes argue that the new rules will further complicate the trucking industry and add additional regulatory costs to an already overburdened U.S. Government. Proponents of the proposed rule changes argue that they will improve safety for all drivers on our highways.

As Georgia truck accident lawyers who have represented injured victims of tractor-trailer/automobile collisions and their family members, we encourage Congress to do everything possible to stop trucking companies from forcing drivers to drive extremely long hours with few breaks. Instead, these companies should encourage drivers to obtain adequate rest and sleep so that their drivers will be alert and in control while operating tractor-trailer rigs on our highways.
Continue reading ›

Say No To Nursing Home Arbitration

December 2, 2011 | Suthers Law Firm

The decision to place a loved one in a nursing home is a gut-wrenching, emotionally draining experience. Most likely, the decision has been forced on you by an unexpected serious illness or major injury. Unfortunately, the decision must usually be made in a matter of hours, not days. You are placing the fate of a loved one in the hands of a facility, you likely know very little about. To make matters worse, the process is often accompanied by regret and guilt. To alleviate the guilt, many people need to trust in the nursing home. Most nursing homes understand this and they emphasize their trustworthiness during the admission process and through their marketing.

During the admission process, the nursing home hits you with countless forms. More than one client has told me they feel it is easier to buy a house than to place someone in a nursing home. Given the emotions involved and the strong desire to trust the facility, it’s no surprise most people will sign anything the nursing home puts in front of them without even reading it. The nursing home knows this and takes advantage of this trust.

Most nursing homes include an arbitration agreements as part of the admission process. Having placed their trust in the nursing home, the vast majority of people will sign the arbitration agreement without a second thought. Before your loved one is even through the front door, the nursing home has already violated your trust!

Nursing Home Chains Provide Worse Care

December 1, 2011 | John Suthers

Because of our experience in representing victims of abuse and neglect in Georgia and South Carolina nursing homes, we are often asked which facilities provide better care. Our response has been that locally owned and operated nursing homes seem to provide better care for their residents. Our opinion has been based primarily upon the fact that we receive fewer calls from families complaining about locally owned and operated nursing homes than we receive from families complaining about facilities which are owned and operated by large corporations. Our opinion about the difference in quality of care can be traced back to the late 1990s. Beginning around 1998, there was a movement by corporations to purchase locally owned and operated nursing homes (so-called “mom and pop facilities”) in an effort to increase corporate profits. This resulted in the formation of several large nursing home chains that owned and operated approximately two thousand nursing homes across the United States. Around the same time, Congress reduced the level of benefits paid to nursing homes for some services, which cut into corporate profits. Rather than cutting back on administrative expenses and corporate perks, these large nursing home chains began to cut staff in an effort to boost profits. Consequently, we observed a corresponding decrease in the quality of care being rendered to nursing home residents.

Until recently, there were no significant studies to substantiate our opinion that locally owned and operating nursing homes provided better care than that provided by larger corporate chains. Now, an important study by the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) has confirmed what we observed and suspected all along. The largest for-profit chains provide worse care in their nursing homes than that which is provided by non-profit and government-owned nursing homes. The fact that reduced staffing was cited by the study as the reason for the decreased quality of care came as no surprise to those of us who have been fighting nursing homes on behalf of victims of abuse and neglect. According to the author of the report, Charlene Harrington, a Professor at the UCSF School of Nursing, the ten largest nursing home chains strategically attempt to boost profits by reducing labor costs (i.e. staffing).

There are Federal and State regulations which govern the provision of services in nursing homes. When facilities fail to follow these regulations, they are cited for deficiencies. The UCSF study found that the largest nursing home chains received citations for up to 41% more deficiencies than the best non-profit and government-owned facilities. The cited deficiencies included failure to prevent pressure sores, falls, weight loss, infections, and other conditions that can result in serious harm to nursing home residents. Regrettably, until these large nursing home chains stop putting profits ahead of people, the lower quality of care will likely continue.