Maryland Accident Lawyer Blog

Are red light camera pictures admissible at trial without an authenticating witness? At least one California court says no. You can read the opinion here.

A few times a week I talk with someone who was injured when the other driver ran a red light. (I literally just hung up 10 minutes ago with a motorcyclist from Michigan who was injured driving through Maryland.) The reality is that while no one wants to get a ticket from a cowardly, faceless camera, red light cameras save lives and decrease the number of serious injury and fatal car accidents in Maryland.

I don't think a Maryland court would rule the same way. I also think the California legislature should draft an evidentiary rule to solve this problem.

In Prince George's County v. Brent, the Maryland Court of Appeals answers the question that will probably never be asked again: can you sue the agent after a successful case against the master? (Sneak preview: the answer is yes.)

The case involves an accident at the Branch Avenue (Route 5) and Allentown Road (Route 337) interchange in Prince George's County against a police officer. Of course, when the Local Government Torts Claims Act is involved, plaintiffs' accident lawyers have to navigate through more hurdles than Bristol Palin's path to happiness. (Did you hear she is engaged? To Levi? Really, it's true! I read it in US Weekly.)

So, bizarrely, the Plaintiff tried the case against PG County alone and got a $230,000 verdict. But the verdict was reduced by the procedural hodgepodge of Maryland Code §5-524 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article that limits the sovereign immunity waiver to the available insurance coverage in car accident cases. So Plaintiff goes back and gets a verdict against the police officer, trying the case solely on the issue of whether the police officer was responding to an emergency.

Really odd facts. It is a good case for plaintiffs although I cannot imagine when anyone reading this will actually use the opinion. I'm surprised the Maryland Court of Appeals took the case. Read the case for the rest of the details.

There are so many perils in dealing with claims against local governments. The law is against you from the start by cutting the statute of limitations and in the end by often limiting the amount of your recovery. Then there is the pain that comes from dealing with claims adjusters for the state who often seem to have no interest in what the trial value of a case may be.

This case highlights a final concern: getting approval from the local municipality, or whoever else, for settlement authority. It is like dealing with an insurance company times 1,000. Here, everyone agrees the case should settle... except the municipality.

Earlier today, I blogged about medical malpractice after an auto accident. The take home message was that malpractice after a car accident is foreseeable and the negligent driver is responsible for all of the harms caused by the accident.

One of our clients has an interesting issue that falls under the same logic. In this case, the car was destroyed not by the accident but, at least allegedly, by the negligence of the repair shop in fixing the vehicle. GEICO, being GEICO, has denied the claim. This is their denial letter.

GEICO is going to lose this claim but it is not going to happen without a lawsuit. This is the way it is in 2010.

• GEICO claims (an overview on dealing with GEICO)
• Property damage claims (how to handle)

Amica Insurance has a method of trying to get a pseudo recorded statement from accident victims who have refused to give recorded statements. The tactic? Amica Insurance's property damage adjuster will refuse to make a payment for the total loss of their vehicle or for the repairs unless the victim agrees to a recorded statement.

As far as bullying tactics go, Amica's strategy is a pretty good one. Even accident victims who know the perils of recorded statements are eager to settle their property damage claims and Amica uses this as leverage. Unrepresented victims and clients with weak-willed lawyers rollover and then Amica has a signed statement to use in cross-examining the plaintiff at trial.

Maryland car accident lawyers encountering this problem simply need to immediately file a lawsuit. I'll bet Amica will back down.

• Property damage claims: how to handle your property damage insurance claim
• Car accident insurance claims in Maryland: an overview
• Recorded statements: why they are almost always a bad idea

The Baltimore Sun is covering personal injury wrongful death accident trials. Super. Here is how the article begins: "A $100 million civil trial opened Thursday with attorneys contending that Baltimore police officers purposely drove erratically while transporting a suspect, leading to the man's death."

The writer is telling the readers $100 million for a reason. It lets us know...absolutely nothing. It is beyond impossible for the plaintiff to actually receive this amount of money, given the cap we have in Maryland which may limit the verdict to less than 1% of the recovery (depending on the amount of economic damages and whether there was pain and suffering before death). Even with the best possible "the tragic victim's family and next door neighbors all sat on the jury" outcome.

Using $100 million just serves to confuse readers who think there really is the potential for jackpot justice of this magnitude in every case.

We received a letter from the Baltimore City police department indicating that they are now EMAILING police reports. Baltimore accident lawyers must still send a written letter and a check requesting the report but in the letter you may request the report to be emailed back instead of mailed.

This is one huge step forward in bringing the logics of collecting records in Baltimore accident cases in 2010.

We received a letter from the Baltimore City police department indicating that they are now EMAILING police reports. Baltimore accident lawyers must still send a written letter and a check requesting the report but in the letter you may request the report to be emailed back instead of mailed.

This is one huge step forward in bringing the logics of collecting records in Baltimore accident cases in 2010.

What can a client say to make a Maryland accident lawyer's shoulders' droop? Lots of things, of course. One of those things is certainly "I have a Medicare."

A Medicare lien which is more than a lien, actually. It is a superlien. That word sounds made up but that is exactly what a Medicare lien is. More than just a right of subrogation, the superlien allows Medicare to seek reimbursement directly from the provider. (Medicare rarely choses that route.)

A superlien is also paramount in another way that is important to accident lawyers: Medicare can get the money if it is stiffed from the accident lawyer personally. So lawyers who ignore Medicare liens literally do so at their own peril. Moreover, there is a clear obligation to notify Medicare if they don't know of the potential recovery from a third party.

Will Medicare reduce medical liens? In many case, Medicare will. Accident lawyers often argue that the medical bills and treatment are not causally related to the accident. (Which furthers the trial lawyer "talking outside of both sides of her mouth" theory because, most, likely, the lawyer argued the very opposite in the case to the insurance company.) You can also get reductions for attorneys' fees and pro rata expenses incurred.

Medicare can be reasonable with reducing liens but, unlike other lien holders, they require often require settlement on the case before they are willing to discuss reducing the lien which adds more time to the resolution of the case.

One new innovation in dealing with Medicare liens is that you can get a lot of information about your client's Medicare lien online. You have to register for each individual case but you can find out the amount and status of the lien.

There is a popular conception that lawsuits in car accident cases are filed directly against the insurance companies. It is easy to understand the source of the confusion. The insurance company that insured the driver or the vehicle is going to stand behind their insured and pay any claim up to the policy limit of the policy. The insurance company is also going to make the decision as to how much to offer as a settlement, not the actual defendant, who is usually kept in the dark on the entire process from initial settlement offer though the tactics the insurance company will take at trial.

Technically, in Maryland car accident lawsuits are generally filed against the defendant themselves. This technical distinction makes a difference at trial because the jury is not told there is insurance behind the case under Maryland’s collateral source rule. I remember trying a case against a defendant once where we got a good verdict ($298,000 award after a $25,000 offer before trial). When we met with the jurors after the trial, their big concern was whether there was insurance because they were concerned that the defendant – who was a pretty good guy – would have to pay the verdict themselves.

The exception to this is underinsured/uninsured motorist cases. In Maryland, claims are brought directly against the insurance company. To serve an insurance company defendant with a lawsuit in Maryland, you can serve the Maryland Insurance Administration. It looks like this:

The Baltimore Sun reports today 25% of teenagers told researchers that they text while driving a car, and almost half say they've been in cars with someone who sent text messages while driving an automobile.

Cell phones cause enough accidents even without adding in the texting while driving.

Texting while driving is against the law in Maryland as of October 1st. But I wonder if a single texting while driving charge has been brought against a single driver. How can you prove texting versus making a phone call or even looking on the Internet which, ostensibly, is not a violation of the statute.

What is the answer? I really don't have any idea. But someone need to think of something.

Many people researching information on their accident claims in Maryland ask what COMAR is. COMAR is the Code of Maryland Regulations. COMAR regulations are Maryland state agency regulations. You can find all of the Maryland COMAR regulations here.

Premise liability lawsuits in Maryland can be difficult claims. As a result, many premises liability, or slip and fall, lawyers are hesitant to take on new personal injury claims unless the liability is clear. The hesitation to avoid these cases is strong but our lawyers have obtained substantial verdicts in premises liability and slip and fall cases.

For an overview of Maryland slip and fall law, click here.

I've been looking though the legislative history of Maryland's bad faith statute and found this interesting testimonial that was contained in a letter from Steven L. Kanstoroom to the Maryland House Judiciary Committee:

Pure no fault auto insurance has been touted as a back door around litigation costs that insurance automobile insurance rates. The problem with no fault car insurance is that - ironically given the business interests that support it - is that it is pure socialism. Good drivers are required to pay for bad drivers and no one is required to take responsibility for causing harm to another person.

But the biggest problem is that people who suffer catastrophic injuries as the result of car accident are all treated the same, whether they reckless caused their own injuries or they were harmed through no fault of their own. How do we reconcile this with the American way?

In Maryland, providing limited no fault insurance while (largely) allowing the historical tort system to work has been an effective system.

Maryland accident lawyers do not complain much about not having punitive damages for accident lawsuits in Maryland. Why? I think it is just because we are so used to it, no one really imagines a punitive damages world. Yesterday, the Maryland Malpractice Lawyer Blog underscored the power of punitive damages in reporting on a South Carolina medical malpractice claim.

Today, LawyersUSA reports on a drowning accident verdict in Montgomery, Alabama. The jury found $766,000 in compensatory damages for the drowning death of a 19-year-old football player against an Alabama hotel. But the jury also awarded $3 million in punitive damages. The jury clearly wanted to send the hotel a message for what it obviously considered extreme negligence. It is unfortunate that Maryland juries are not afforded the same opportunity to send a message in accident cases in Maryland.

According to Metro Verdicts Monthly, the median settlement or verdict in a Maryland dog bit case is $24,661. There is no data on the average dog bit case. My guess - and it is just a guess - is $100,000.

In Maryland, the owner of a dog is not liable for injuries caused by it unless the dog has a vicious propensity and the owner knows that. Once established that the dog is vicious and the owner knew about it, the owner has to keep the dog from biting people. In fact, proof of negligence on the part of the owner of the dog is unnecessary. In other words, it is perfectly okay to have a vicious dog. But dog owners of vicious dogs must make sure others are protected from their vicious dog.

We get a lot of questions about suing someone who has passed. It is not fun to sue a dead person but you have to do what you have to do to ensure a recovery for your client. Thankfully, you are suing the estate almost invariably in name only and their is an insurance company standing behind the lawsuit.

If the decedent had an estate, it is pretty easy: you sue the estate and serve the personal representative. Click here for an outline of how to handle this situation if you have a decedent defendant in a Maryland accident case.

We have heard some version of this story hundreds of times: client gets into an accident and hires a lawyer they either found in the yellow pages, on television or from a “friend of a friend.” After some time passes, they realize that while their lawyer may be a nice person, the lawyer is not a seasoned accident lawyer who focuses their career on maximizing the amount of money the client recovers in an injury claim. The accident victim gets on the Internet, researches carefully who the best accident lawyers in Maryland are, and calls our law firm.

First, if you are unhappy with your accident lawyers, you can switch law firms at any time you want. Still, you need to consider whether on not you are better served staying with the lawyer that you have. It may be that you are expecting too much and that your current accident lawyer is doing everything possible to further your case. We always suggest if you are thinking of firing your accident lawyer, but you are not sure whether you should, sit down with your current lawyer and see if your questions can be resolved to your satisfaction.

Many of our Maryland accident lawyers’ clients were injured in a car accident while on the job. This means the plaintiff has three accident claims under Maryland law: PIP, third party liability, and workers’ compensation.

Generally, a Maryland accident lawyer wants to present the PIP claim before the workers’ compensation claim in Maryland. Other states differ on the right of subrogation of PIP insurance. But Maryland law is clear that the PIP carrier has no right of subrogation against any third-party recovery, according to Maryland Code, Insurance Article §19-507(d). In other words, if the PIP claim is made first, the injury victim does not have to pay back the PIP benefits the victim receives (most attorneys don’t charge for PIP claims). In contrast, the workers' compensation carrier has subrogation rights (after attorneys’ fees) out of the third-party recovery for the workers' compensation benefits that it paid to the victim under Maryland Code, Labor and Employment Article §9-902(e) and §9-902 (f).

If a Maryland accident lawyer decides – either out of laziness or just getting it wrong – to put the workers’ compensation claim first, the lawyer might be barred from making a PIP claim. Under Maryland accident law, the PIP carrier receives a setoff for workers' compensation benefits that the accident victim has received under Maryland Code Insurance Article §19-513(e).