February 27, 2009 by Zale.

In an injury case in Tennessee where there is  hospital lien, it is a big deal.  Why?  Tenn. Code Ann. §29-22-101.  It gives the hospitals a “big stick” to wield against insurance companies, specifically automobile insurance companies.

In this case,  Nationwide felt the wrath of the The Med under this statute.  The Med, who is very well informed regarding this statute, recovered their entire lien amount of $33, 823.02 when the automobile insurance policy only had $5,000 in coverage.  Trust me, that’s every adjuster’s nightmare.  When anyone recovers more than the coverage on the policy, insurance companies just come apart at the seams.

So, if you are wondering why an adjuster is more concerned about your hospital bill than any other bill, its becase of Tenn. Code Ann. §29-22-101.

Posted in Injury Law, Insurance Practices, Insurance Law | No Comments »

February 27, 2009 by Zale.

You don’t have to read this blog long to know that I am somewhat critical of slip and fall claims.  Why?  Because the courts are highly critical of them.   With that being said, there are valid slip and fall claims, even if they are few and far between.

Take this case for example.  When a business encourages the throwing of peanut shells on the floor as part of their image, they should not be surprised when someone falls on one of the shells.  Furthermore, a jury should get the opportunity to decide whether or not that business should be held liable for the person’s injuries.  Who knows, maybe the jury will see that the person who fell should have been more attentive.  But the case should still be allowed to go to the jury.

In this case, the trial court in Davidson County, Tennessee granted the restaurant Summary Judgment finding that the “restaurant did not owe a duty to patron because the presence of the peanut shells was not a latent or hidden condition and did not create a defective or dangerous condition which presented a foreseeable risk of serious injury.”  Fortunately, the Tennessee Court of Appeals did not agree with the trial court’s decision.

I think the Court of Appeals got this one right.  (I’m sure they can all breathe easier now.) They did not give the plaintiff a “pass” on her case.  She still has to convince a jury that the restaurant is liable for her injuries.  But at least now she will have the chance to present her case to the jury.

Posted in Litigation, Injury Law, Insurance Law, Business Law | No Comments »