Tomorrow, the Maryland House of Representatives will vote on House Bill 825 which would raise the minimum limits of automobile coverage from $20,000.00/$40,000.00 to $30,000.00/$60,000.00.

Is $30,000 enough coverage for a significant accident? Of course not. Maryland has had 20/40 limits since 1972. This is 102,000/204,000 in 2010 dollars. But Rome was not built in a day and this bill is good step in the right direction.

As odd as it is for me to be carrying water for insurance companies, it is worth noting that the only way to protect yourself from an uninsured or underinsured motorist is to make sure you have adequate uninsured motorist coverage. The relatively modest increase in premium is worth the additional protection.

A wrongful death lawsuit has been filed against a Chattanooga, Tennessee bar after a car accident killed a woman just a few days before Christmas. The case is an interesting twist on the classic dram shop case. The suit alleges that the bar gave its employees free alcohol and allowed one man to leave the bar obviously intoxicated. The employee stayed at the bar and drank "free alcohol" after his shift ended at 3 a.m. Around 7:00 a.m., the defendant struck and killed a pedestrian, an employee on her way to work at Unum Insurance. The defendant, stand up guy that he apparently is, fled the scene and tried to fake a carjacking. Apparently this is an insurmountable stunt to pull off when you are drunk.

What really adds teeth to the Plaintiff's wrongful death lawsuit is a city ordinance prohibiting bar workers from drinking where they work, even when off duty. Clearly, the violation of the ordinance was a factor in causing this woman’s death. If the case goes to trial, there are going to be arguments by defense lawyers about the purpose and intent of the statute and whether this was the harm that the ordinance was trying to avoid. But I would suspect it was at least a purpose, if not the purpose, of the statute.

Maryland has rejected dram shop and social host liability in DWI accident claims. Going against the grain as a parent and lawyer who handles accident cases, I have believed and written in the past that I oppose dram shop liability claims in Maryland.

I’m not so sure anymore. I would really like to see data as to the number of wrongful deaths that occur in Maryland from DWI/DUI accidents where the person became intoxicated at a bar, or even at a bar where they are employed. Of course, the more salient question is one on which we will never get a definitive answer: how many deaths have occurred as the result of a server in a bar or restaurant who knows a patron (or employee) is drunk but does nothing to stop them?

Insurance companies hate being named in an uninsured motorist case. Why? Because unlike most car accident trials, if the jury knows an insurance company is paying the damages, jurors become less concerned that the defendant is footing the bill themselves. Jurors intuitively expect there is insurance available to cover the verdict but they are never quite sure. On several occasions, I have had jurors ask me after trial if the defendant has to pay the verdict. “That nice Mr. Smith does not have to pay this personally, does he?”

In Maryland, the law is clear that in a straight uninsured motorist case without the tort defendant participating in the trial, the insurance company may be named. The definitive case on this is King v. State Farm. In that case, a pedestrian Plaintiff appealed an unsatisfactory jury verdict in Baltimore City in an underinsured motorist case where the tort defendant had offered their policy limits (the verdict was less than the underlying policy). The Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed because the trial judge did not allow the Plaintiff to identify the fact that the defendant was an insurance company.

The unknown issue in Maryland is whether the underinsurance carrier can be named if the defendant driver who caused the accident remains as a defendant in an an uninsured or underinsured motorist case. I think the answer to the question is pretty obvious because the exact same logic and rationale largely applies.

One of our accident lawyers, however, recently lost this argument on a case that went to verdict. The judge bought the argument that mentioning the underinsurance carrier might lead the jury to think that there must be a lot of insurance which might lead them to award more than they should. Is this possible? Sure. But it seems equally possible the jury would feel sorry for the defendant with so little insurance. Besides, what separates an insurance company from any other large defendant who the jury also knows has a lot of money?

My opinion: when you balance this uncertainty against the insanity of having lawyers representing unidentified parties, it seems like a pretty easy call. It seems to me that the legal system artificially keeps enough from jurors as it is.

One of the most difficult decisions an accident lawyer has to make is whether to take a case with fatal or catastrophic injuries where there is a significant dispute in liability - typically he said/she said.

Nothing you read in this blog post is going to make that decision for you. In these cases, most of the ballgame is witness credibility and the intricate details of how the accident happened (which, parenthetically, I think most juries get right). But it does not hurt accident lawyers to inform this case specific decision making process with a little bit of data.

Jury Verdict Research this month published data on the success rates in turning car accident cases, defined as vehicle accidents between parties traveling on the same road in either the same direction or opposite directions. These are the recovery probabilities by type of turning case:

Parties Traveling on Same Road in Opposite Directions: 61%
Defendant Turning Left: 66% (I'm surprised it is this low)
Plaintiff Turning Left: 44% (I'm surprised it is this high)
Defendant Turning Right: 43%
Plaintiff Turning Left: 52%
Plaintiff Turning Right: 34%

The lesson? It helps to represent the party that is not making a turn.

The average jury verdict in turning collusion cases is $156,472 which is inflated by large verdicts, including one for $35,835,684 that was included in the study. The median jury verdict in car accident turn cases is only $14,000. Two percent of the verdicts in these cases exceeded $1 million.

Nora Freeman Engstrom writes an amazing article for the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics titled Run-of-the-Mill Justice. She writes about settlement mill law firms, writing with a 60 Minutes investigative journalism style that names names, calling out a few law firms she has labeled as settlement mill firms. Engstrom characterizes these firms as "characterized by their high claim volume, aggressive advertising, significant delegation to non-attorneys, entrepreneurial focus, and quick resolution of claims, typically without initiation of suit."

There are about 10 different facets of the article I find interesting. I found of particular interest the idea that settlement mills create a "one size fits all" (my words, not hers) kind of justice. Under this system, individualized pain and suffering does not exist for settlement purposes.

What matters, then, for car accident settlement purposes in non-serious injury cases is the amount of the medical bills, what the injuries are, and how much damage was done to the vehicles. Plaintiffs' car accident lawyers have blamed this on a paradigm shift in the thinking of insurance companies in the 90s, This article argues, quite convincingly, that many plaintiffs' lawyers are unindicted co-conspirators in this system.

The author overlooks that settlement mill auto accident law firms are just one contributing cause. The opposite extreme is equally to blame, lawyers who have very small practices and no real marketing presence that do that exact same thing. Take the case, send in the medical records and bills, and settle the case for whatever you can. There are tons of local lawyers parading as lawyers suited to handle car accident claims. The bigger problem? These same lawyers get serious injury accident cases, typically car accidents, where the victim's financial future is at stake. These lawyers take the case because they can't resist and the results are often disastrous. Settlement mill law firms often have the good sense to refer these cases out, realizing they are asking for a legal malpractice lawsuit. Often, the guy with the office on the corner that does wills, criminal, domestic, and everything else under the sun does not have this same sense.

Of course, it is a mistake to label every solo general practitioner as incompetent to handle large auto accident cases just as it is a mistake to assume every firm that runs massive amounts of television commercials as settlement mills.

What is a good plaintiffs' auto accident lawyer to do if he does not want to get caught up in this mess that has been created? If you have a client who wants to settle their auto accident claim quickly and at any price, you are going to be a victim of this system. There is no way out. But if you have a client that wants to maximize the value of their case, there is a simple answer: file suit and request a jury trial. The insurance company is either going to pay at least a reasonable value on the claim or it is going to go to trial where a jury is going to give you the fair value of the case. Because a jury is the ultimate definer of the fair value of a case.

Gauging the next “move” based solely upon how much the other side has budged- “tit for tat” negotiations with no bearing on one’s own case evaluation is another common mediation mistake. It is understandable that negotiators and mediation participants desire proportionality and reciprocity in adjusting demands and counteroffers. The problem is that many adjusters think that plaintiffs have no ceiling on the amount that they can demand, whereas defendants can never offer anything less than zero. For this reason, arguments that, “We’ve come down by $100,000 so you need to come up by $100,000” often fall on deaf (adjuster or defense lawyer) ears.

Defense lawyers often set up mediations better than personal injury lawyers. The defendant's lawyer will call you and ask for a demand. You decide to be reasonable. So when you show up at the mediation, the range is between reasonable and zero. That is the wrong psychology to settle a case.

The best way to address this problem: if defendant puts you in this game, don't be above the game with your reasonableness. Your opening demand under this dynamic should mirror the defendants’ maximum exposure. Most states now have caps on non-economic damages. Add up your economic damages: past and future medical expenses, past and future lost wages, loss of earning capacity, vocational training and/or rehabilitation. Add that number to the amount allowed under the applicable non-economic damages cap. This should be a good approximation of the maximum exposure on the claim. With any luck you will be right around the amount of the reserve the insurance carrier has set for the claim. This should help in estimating the settlement value of the case on the continuum between maximum value and zero. This will let you calibrate your demands to where you want to end up on a case, not necessarily to match the other side amount for amount.

This tactic only works in a case where it is possible a jury would give such an award. Not likely but "best day possible." If you are demanding the cap in a soft tissue injury claim, you are also sending the wrong message. Similarly, when you demand $5 million in a case where your cap is $2 million, you are sending the same "I'm not exactly sure what I'm doing" message.