It appears that the bad economy has caused many cities to begin thinking of new ways to raise revenue.  The city of Chicago now charges accident victims for basic city emergency services that used to be paid for by the tax base.  Now, if you’re hit or injured in an accident and the fire truck or EMT van responds as a precaution, you may be charged several hundreds of dollars for the service.

Fair?  Who cares.  It’s how more and more cities are choosing to make money in these tough economic times.  Even if another person causes you a serious personal injury or catastrophic loss.

The case in Chicago involved Cary Feldman who was hit while riding on a scooter.  Feldman didn’t cause the accident, the other guy did.  But that didn’t stop the City from sending him a bill for $200 because the fire truck responded to the scene even though it wasn’t necessary.

We have a new name for the charge – “Crash Tax”.  Feldman callls the “tax” a rip off and a scam.  I tend to agree.  Why not charge the other person who actually caused the accident in the first place?  Good question.  No one wants to answer that however.

At least 26 other jurisdictions now assess a Crash Tax.  Could it be something that the city of Seattle may start doing?  If so, it would be a miscarriage of justice.  But as the economy continues to struggle, I wouldn’t count it out among our local politicians.  Seems like our elected officials are looking for any way to pass more taxes and raise fees on the public. 

But if any of the Seattle politicians are reading this blog, I say: Don’t do it.

The important question is: Can the parents be held legally responsible for that car accident?  In a word, yes.

In Washington, there is a law known as the Family Car Doctrine.  This doctrine states that the parents can be held legally liable for the child’s negligence in causing a car accident if the car being driven by the child was owned or maintained by the parents, and the parents provided the vehicle for the general use, convenience and pleasure of the family.

Under the Family Car Doctrine, the parents can be sued individually if their child causes a car accident and injures someone.  That means the parents could be financially ruined if their child causes serious injuries and/or property loss.

Parents need to be careful when letting their children drive their car.  Some steps that parents can take to protect themselves from the loss or damages caused by their children’s use of the vehicle:

1. Think about registering the car in your child’s name, and require that your child actually purchase the vehicle.
2. Require your child to maintain the vehicle by purchasing gas, insurance, and paying for routine maintenance.
3. Take out more insurance on the vehicle that will be used by your child.
4. Think about purchasing a high value umbrella policy which should provide additional coverage if your child causes a serious accident.
5. Maintain strict rules for your child about the use of the family car (no passengers until a certain age, no infractions, no alcohol use, curfew hours, etc.).

Now, even if you utilize all of these precautions it still may not prevent  you from being sued over a car accident caused by your child.  But they will help to minimize and/or eliminate your financial responsibility in a subsequent lawsuit.

As he was riding his Harley, a car pulled out in front of him.  He braked suddenly, and had to lay the bike on the road.  Unfortunately, the motorcyclist still hit the front fender of the car.  This catapulted him over the vehicle at least 50 feet in the air.  He landed on his head and shoulder.  He suffered multiple fractures to his legs, pelvis, arm, low back, shoulder dislocation, and a traumatic brain injury.  The guy was lucky to be alive.

It turned out that the driver was 19 years old and unemployed.  He had no insurance on the car.

In Washington, there is a type of auto insurance called Uninsured or Underinsured Motorist coverage.  This is coverage that will protect you if you’re hit by an uninsured driver.  In Washington, UM/UIM coverage must be offered on your vehicle unless you reject it in writing.

Unfortunately, the mandatory UM/UIM coverage does not apply to motorcycles.  This means you must specifically request UM/UIM coverage on your bike, or it will not be offered. Most motorcycle riders are not aware of this.  They think if they get “full coverage” it means they are fully protected.  Not so.

The most important type of insurance coverage a motorcycle rider can get is UM/UIM.  This is because more often than not the other driver either does not have insurance, or does not have enough insurance.  The injuries to motorcycle riders are usually much more serious (for obvious reasons).  That means the medical bills are usually a lot higher – sometimes several hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

The guy who was seriously injured on his bike was understandably upset.  Without insurance, there was nothing I could do for him.  Unfortunately, I get similar calls from other motorcycle riders at least a handful of times each year.

If you are a motorcycle rider, please, please, please…. Call your insurance agent right now and ask for UM/UIM coverage with the highest limits  you can afford. You will be doing yourself, and your family, a very big favor.

One common defense is to suggest that the victim suffered from similar injuries before the accident, or that the victim was predisposed to the type of injury he or she suffered.  We at Davis Law Group have had cases where the insurance company actually relied on a medical record that pre-dated the motor vehicle collision 15 years earlier!  Even though are client was symptom-free for more than 12 years, the insurance company still tried to argue that her “pre-existing” injury predisposed her to an injury 15 years later in the car accident!  That gives you some idea as to how absurd some of the defenses the insurance company will allege.

Yet another defense is to try to prove that the victim’s injuries were not caused by the accident, but by other events in the victim’s life (e.g., a prior fall, prior accident, or some other medical condition). When insurance companies cannot dispute fault for the accident they may resort to the age-old tactic of attacking the accident victim’s character or preexisting medical history.

A good lawyer will successfully challenge these common defenses and help the victim present his or her injuries clearly, concisely and coherently.

For example, even if you suffered from a similar medical problem (such as a back or neck condition) before the accident, your lawyer can help you prove that your previous injury was made worse as a result of your accident.

 Washington law supports the premise that a wrongdoer “takes his victim as he finds him.” This means victims are entitled to recover full compensation even if they were particularly susceptible to an injury, or predisposed to experience greater pain or suffering than could have been foreseen by the defendant.

For example, you have a bad back that never required surgery, but then you are involved in a serious car accident that aggravates the back condition enough to require surgery, you are entitled to recover compensation for the surgery. After all, you would not have needed it if the accident had never happened.

If you have a claim where the insurance company seems to be looking for any fact, circumstance or excuse to deny your claim or lessen its value, it’s time for you to speak with an experienced attorney.  Don’t try to fight the company alone.  With its vast resources and knowledge, the insurance company can be a very formidable opponent.  The things you do or say early on in the claim process can make a difference on whether you achieve a successful outcome.

If you have both medical and auto insurance, you may be wondering which will pay for your medical costs. In Washington, the hospital will start by billing you personally or billing the medical insurance company whose information you provide. Later, after you make your auto insurance claim, you or your health insurer may be reimbursed by the other driver’s auto insurer. If you are among the few drivers who have medical payment coverage on your auto insurance policy, your own insurance company may reimburse you.

If you have no-fault insurance or Personal Injury Protection (called PIP coverage), your auto insurance company should pay. The hospital may bill you personally at first, especially if you could not provide them with insurance information when you arrived, but it should be simple to transfer the obligation to your insurer. You may still have a deductible under your PIP policy. If your bills are higher than the amount of PIP coverage you have, any medical insurance will take over after your auto insurance coverage is used up.

If there are problems, keep in mind that in Washington you (the patient) are ultimately responsible for your own medical bills, regardless of whether some insurance policy should cover it. That means you should take action quickly if the insurance company refuses to meet its obligations.

If your PIP policy has been exhausted, then in most cases your private health insurer should beging paying the medical bills.  Sometimes your private health insurer will need written confirmation from your PIP auto policy carrier that the limits have been exhausted.  If so, just call your PIP claims representative and ask him or her to send this letter immediately.  You should  also follow up with the PIP adjuster in writing so you have a record of your communications.

But what if you don’t have private health insurance or PIP coverage?  This is a difficult situation.  If this is the case, you may be obligated to pay your healthcare providers out of pocket.  Sometimes we here at the Davis Law Group can work out a suitable arrangement with your doctors to either wait for payment, or make small monthly payments.  It really depends on how reasonable and willing your healthcare provider is.

You should understand how insurance works in Washington State. There are two types of auto insurance systems in the United States, and which one you use usually depends on where you live. Most states are at-fault or tort states.  This means the at-fault driver is legally responsible for any injuries and financial costs caused by the accident. The other driver’s insurance policy is supposed to pay those costs, but you may have to sue the other driver to get payment if the facts are in dispute.

In Washington we also have no-fault auto insurance coverage. If your insurance policy has coverage called Personal Injury Protection (PIP), your own insurance company is required to pay for certain damages (like medical bills and lost wages) regardless of who’s at fault for the accident.  This is important coverage because it requires your carrier to pay for these expenses when they are due.  However, this coverage is limited by the terms of your insurance policy. 

Most people who have PIP will have coverage of at least $10,000, but some may have the maximum of $35,000 (as of the date of this writing).   Also, most PIP policies will only pay up to 85% of your lost wages starting two weeks after the accident.  You should read your policy carefully to understand what other limitations and/or restrictions may apply.  If you have questions you should speak to an experienced personal injury lawyer.

After you receive medical care and recover from the immediate effects of your accident, one of the first things you should do is call your insurance company. You will probably also have to call the other driver’s insurance company and let them know that an accident has occurred and a claim will be pursued. You should make that call as soon as you reasonably can, because waiting too long might make it look to the insurance company like you are exaggerating your injuries. Calling quickly is also part of your obligations under the contract you signed with your insurer.

This first call should be fairly short. Its purpose is only to give the insurance adjuster the basic facts about your accident and the information for the other driver’s insurance company, if there is one. In fact, during the call, the insurance adjustor on the other end should never ask to record you or ask you to sign anything, especially in exchange for money. If you get this kind of request, you may be dealing with a dishonest company; you should politely decline and call a lawyer as soon as possible.

During your initial call, the insurance adjustor will probably ask you who was at fault for the accident or who was to blame. She might also ask if anyone got a ticket. If this is disputed or you truly are not sure, just stick with the facts.

During this first conversation (or any other conversation) with an insurer, it is important to avoid apologizing or accepting blame just to be polite, because that could be taken as an admission of guilt. Also, if you were knocked unconscious or taken to the hospital, you may not have gotten the full story. One way to get it is to obtain a copy of the accident report made by the police (if one exists). If they will not release it, your insurance adjustor can get it for you and use it to start your claim. 

Client\’s Facebook Page Costs Him $20,000

The interview was about one of Mr. Davis’ clients who had posted some photos and video footage showing him snowboarding.  The insurance company discovered this information, copied it to a CD ROM and then submitted it to the court as part of their defense at trial. 

During negotiations Mr. Davis was informed by the insurance adjustor that she had previously evaluated the client’s claim at least $20,000 higher, but then had to re-evaluate the claim once the Facebook posting was discovered. 

Conclusion: the Facebook posting cost Mr. Davis’ client at least $20,000, and perhaps more. 

Warning to all personal injury or accident victims: Do not post any photos or video or anything else on your Facebook or Myspace page that could damage your client or undermine your credibility at trial.

The man was traveling at speeds of 100 mph and then rear-ended another vehicle.  That car, a minivan, was carrying two women and four children.  The impact was so severe that the minvan was forced off four lanes of travel where it overturned on the median.  All of the passengers in the minivan were injured and transported to a nearby hospital.  Thank God no one was killed, which could have easily occurred.

However, the story gets crazy.  The man who was driving the other vehicle tried to flee the accident scene.  But an off-duty officer tracked him down and held him until police could arrive.  The man was injured so he was transported to a hospital.

While in the hospital, the man snuck out without any clothes on.  He was spotted by a police officer running naked in the hospital’s parking lot.  Now, if this fact doesn’t communicate “knowledge of guilt,” I don’t know what set of facts would.  This fact will likely be admissible in the guaranteed criminal proceeding that will follow, as well as the civil cause of action that each passenger in the minivan will have.

In cases like this, my only fear is that the man was uninsured or had minimum insurance limits of just $25,000.  Usually people who commit such irresponsible acts like this are also financially irresponsible.  That means there is a strong likelihood that the man has no financial means (like an insurance policy) to compensate the other victims for their medical bills and other damages, which are likely to run well into the thousands.

Early in my career (10+ years ago), I used to get extemely mad about this common myth.  I would often see that good, honest and trustworthy people who were somehow harmed by another person’s negligence, were then royally scr***d again by the insurance company when it came time to resolve the claim.  In fact, most of my clients tell me that they are extemely surprised how hard and nasty the insurance company will fight to defeat legitimate accident injury claims.  And when I say a legitimate claim, I’m talking about an accident that was clearly caused by someone else and where the injuries are fairly serious (surgery, broken bones, brain injury, etc.).

It is partly because of this common misperception among the public about accident claims that I chose to start the Seattle Accident Attorney blog and write about my experience as an attorney who represents people who have been seriously harmed by another.

Here is a perfect example of how unreasonable an insurance company can act.  It involves a case that I’m working on right now.  I represent a 55-year-old woman who was injured in a rear-end accident about 4 years ago.  To maintain confidentiality, I will call this woman “Jane.”  Jane is a very nice hard-working woman.  She’s been married for nearly 20 years and has two grown children.  This client is what I would call my “typical” client.  That is, Jane is an honest, hard-working citizen who was injured through no fault of her own.

Jane’s injuries started out as a typical “whiplash” injury.  The insurance industry likes to call this type of injury a “soft tissue” injury to suggest that the injury is extremely minor and insignificant because it only involves the “soft tissues.”  In my experience, the insurance companies fight “whiplash” injuries very hard.  They hire all kinds of medical experts to state that these injuries usually heal within 4 to 6 weeks, so any treatment or problems beyond this time frame is not related to the accident.

In any event, Jane’s whiplash injury progressively got worse over the years.  She received all kinds of different treatment to help resolve her pain and make a full recovery.  This included numerous family doctor consultations, physical therapy, massage therapy, xrays, injections, medications, MRI scans, and consultations with many different specialists about what was causing her symptoms.

It was not until more than one year following the accident that a cervical MRI was ordered.  The scan showed some “disc abnormalities.”  More physical therapy and medications were ordered.  Then another MRI was ordered a few years later when Jane’s symptoms were getting worse and the injury was severely impacting her daily activities.  This second MRI showed a “C4-5 disc angulation” or what may also be referred to as a “disc collapse” in the middle of her cervical spine.  Jane consulted with 3 different surgeons who all stated that she needed immediate surgery or risk paralysis.  The disc collapse also caused her cervical spine to curve in the opposite direction, which is called Kyphosis.  The doctors told Jane that she needed a complicated procedure where they fuse three vertebrae together and insert a cage and titanium plates to stabilize her spine so the abnormal curvature could be reversed and that her spinal cord would not be damaged.

All of Jane’s doctors (at least 8 different doctors), including her surgeon at Harborview Medical Center, have stated that the problem was initially caused by the auto accident years earlier.  The C4-5 disc collapsed started out minor and then as time progressed it got worse to the point that Jane’s spinal cord became precariously close to being permanently damaged.

Jane’s medical bills are approximately $230,000, which includes the surgery and facility bill of $190,000.  Fortunately, the other driver was an insurance agent for State Farm and had $2.1 Million in auto coverage through her employer.  Now, you would probably think that State Farm would do the right thing and offer a reasonable amount of compensation to take care of Jane’s past and future medical bills plus include some amount to compensate her for having a painful permanent and dangerous spine injury.  Not.

Instead State Farm went fishing into Jane’s prior medical history.  Jane, in her early 50’s, obviously had some prior injuries and doctor visits over the years.  State Farm found out that Jane injured her neck at work while lifting boxes about 3 years before the accident.  Even though Jane’s doctors determined that the injury was a “minor strain” that fully resolved within 6-8 mos., State Farm found this injury highly significant. 

State Farm also discovered that Jane injured her low back at work moving furniture about a year before the accident.  Even though Jane’s doctor stated under oath that this low back injury had nothing to do with her neck, State Farm found it significant that Jane’s massage therapist following this injury stated that she had “neck tightness” along with low back pain.  Jane’s last massage therapy for her low back injury ended more than 6 mos. before the auto accident.  But State Farm didn’t care.  It hired a well-known defense medical expert (he’s admitted to earning more than $3 Million over the past 15+ years working for insurance companies and against injured victims) to state that Jane’s auto accident injury was mild, should have resolved within 8 weeks, and that her current problem and resulting surgery was all entirely due to Jane’s pre-existing cervical spine condition.  It did not matter to State Farm that this expert was the only expert out of 8+ reputable doctors who held these opinions.

Jane and I participated in mediation last week with State Farm in an effort to resolve the case short of a jury trial.  You would think that State Farm might offer an amount that most would think was close to being reasonable?  Nope.  State Farm’s final offer was $50,000.  Not even enought to cover 25% of Jane’s medical bills to date.  Add to this fact that Jane has now incurred over $20,000 in litigation costs (doesn’t include attorney fees), and you can see that Jane’s only real option is to go to trial.

The insurance industry wants the public to believe that most trials involving injuries are necessary because the victims and their lawyers unreasonably demand millions of dollars to settle.  I just don’t see that in my line of work.  In fact, it is usually the other way around.  The insurance company offers such an unreasonably low settlement that the victim is left with only one real option: try the case in court and let a jury decide.  Jane’s case is a perfect example of this.

Jessie, 16, was severely injured in a car accident when she crossed the center line and hit a school bus head on.  Jessie received a traumatic brain injury among other injuries.  She was in a coma for two weeks.  Jessie has limited use of her limbs, but this is expected to improve over time with therapy.

This is touching story.  We wish Jessie an exceptional recovery, which may take time given the extent of her injuries. 

This story should remind parents to check their auto policies to make sure they have adequate coverage.  With teen drivers, who do have higher accident rates than adults, parents should have coverage of at least $100,000 but preferably higher at $300,000 or even $1 Million.  Without adequate auto insurance, one accident can cause financial ruin.