February 13, 2010 by Zale.

It’s an unfortunate truth, but appearance matters in court.  It may even be the small things of putting on a nice plain shirt and shaving that makes the difference.  Maybe its covering up some of the tattoos or having a natural hair color.  Whatever you can do to make your appearance better is helpful, regardless of whether you are in front of a judge, a jury, your probation officer, your adjuster or a DCS worker.  Check out this article for more details.

Posted in Child Advocacy, Litigation, Criminal Law, Injury Law | 1 Comment »

August 31, 2009 by Zale.

Tennessee is typically a pretty conservative state when it comes to people being injured on the premises of a business.  However, the case law in Tennessee does not let a business owner completely escape liability for the bad acts of an individual on the business property.  If it can be proven that the business had some culpability for the acts of that person, even if those acts are criminal, then the business can be held liable for the acts of that person.

Recently a plaintiff won $10 Million, yes Million, against Ruby Tuesday.  What did Ruby Tuesday do wrong?  It sold alcohol to an already intoxicated person, who then beat the stew out of the customer / plaintiff.  Wow!  That makes one wonder if Tennessee is as conservative at the insurance defense bar once thought it was.

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

August 18, 2009 by Zale.

Some folks think that rear end automobile accidents are a “shoe in” to win.  Over my years as an adjuster, covering most of the southeast and even some of the southwest, I’ve seen them lost from time to time.  Attorneys and claimants alike would think I was crazy when I would bring it up, but it does happen.

Here’s the latest case of this nature that I’ve seen.  Apparently the plaintiff won the issue regarding the defendant being at fault, but the plaintiff lost on the issue of any of the injuries being related to the accident.  Why?  Well, it appears to have been a fairly minor accident and the plaintiff appears to have had a history of medical problems, which lead up to this accident.  In short, the jury didn’t believe the plaintiff.

At the end of the day, its still a popularity contest and you never can predict what a jury will do.

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

August 4, 2009 by Zale.

Tennessee recognizes a duty for business owners, in high crime areas, to take reasonable measures to protect their customers. It make sense right? If a business owner knows there is a lot of crime in their area and continues to invite customers to their business premises, then they should take the appropriate measures to protect those customers (and employees) from the criminal element that abounds in their area. This duty comes from the 1996 Tennessee Supreme Court decision McClung v. Delta Square 937 SW2d 894.

Recently, there was a case where a security company tried to escape liability by alleging that, even though they were hired to supply security for a business, they had no duty to Ms. Maggie Barron, an employee of one of the businesses.

Ms. Barron was abducted by two juveniles from her employer’s parking lot.  This was the parking lot the security company was paid to secure. The delinquents abducted her, threatened to kill her and assaulted her while driving her car around. Their activities ended when they eventually wrecked Ms. Barron’s vehicle. Fortunately, Ms. Barron lived to tell her story.

Ms. Barron sued several folks, including the security company. The security company filed a motion to allow them to be dismissed from the case. This had to have been an interesting argument for the security company’s attorney to make. Let’s see, “Your Honor, this was clearly not a high crime area, after all, they didn’t kill her.” Or maybe, “Your Honor, my client is a security company and therefore, clearly had no duty to protect anyone.”

For some reason, the trial court judge bought their argument and let them out of the case.  Ms. Barron, rightly so, was having none of that and she appealed the trial court’s decision. She won, as she should have, based on the McClung case.

What’s this tell us? If your business is in a high crime area, take the appropriate measures to make sure your customers and employees will have a chance to frequent your business again.

Posted in Criminal Law, Injury Law, Business Law | No Comments »

March 19, 2009 by Zale.

In this recent case, the plaintiff argued that the insurance policy was ambiguous when it came to the meaning of “regular use” of a vehicle.  See if the injured party had “regular use” of a vehicle that was not listed on his personal insurance policy, ie, his police patrol car, then there was no Uninsured or Underinsured Motorist coverage under his personal insurance policy.

The plaintiff’s argument here is something along the lines of Bill Clinton question the meaning of the word “is”.  Generally when someone attacks an insurance policy, they claim the wording is ambiguous.  Sometimes it is.  This argument was successful at the trial court level, but not at the Court of Appeals level.

What do we learn from this case? In Tennessee, it is generally a safe bet that if there’s a common, plain way to read an insurance policy, that’s the way it is going to be read.  This is unfortuneate for the plaintiff, but fortuneate for the rest of Tennessee.  The reason is that if courts start rewriting insurance policies, then insurance rates will go up to make up the difference.

Posted in Injury Law, Insurance Law | No Comments »

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 »

January 3, 2009 by Zale.

The problem is lack of consistency.  In some instances, they will offer you money on cases that you never dreamed they would.  Those are good days.  In other instances, they make terrible offers or even denials on very viable cases.

They claim that this is due to every claim being different.  I think there are more subtle reasons like:

• How well the claims staff, including the manager and claims analyst, is trained. Many people would be amazed at how poorly and inconsistently claims operations are trained.
• How much the insurance company simply wants to close claims. Insurance company “sales” are a good thing for everyone.
• Whether or not the claimant or attorney has upset the adjuster. Don’t bite the hand that you want to feed you, if at all possible.  Sometimes its just unavoidable.
• The current trend of the company or industry regarding making fair offers or making a point.  Insurance companies watch and imitate each other.  Each one goes through trends of first, “look how much we are cutting claims costs” then “we need to reduce our number of claims”. Often, they never figure out that the two are related.
  
• Whether or not the company or adjuster is seeing every single claim as fraudulent.  Which was the culture at Allstate.  Everything to them seemed to be fraud.
• Or even matters as arbitrary as whether or not its the end of the month or the end of the year.  Often this is the best time to push for the closure of a claim, since insurance companies adjust their mandated reserves at the end of each month.

So what’s my point?  If you value your claim, you’ll talk to an attorney about it, before its too late.

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

December 17, 2008 by Zale.

Insurance adjusters are hired to investigate and resolve claims on behalf of the insurance company.  If the settlement is cheap, then they have done their job.  They are not interested in the claimant’s well being or best interests.

One questionable tactic I’ve been seeing lately is the adjuster telling the claimant that the insurance company won’t consider the claim until after the first year or that the claimant has until the end of the first year to get in all their paperwork.  In Tennessee, the end of the first year means the end of the statute of limitations period.  So, by waiting the year, the claimant is now out of luck, if the claimant didn’t file a lawsuit.  (I wish I could get this statement in writing from the insurance company.  I believe that would constitute bad faith.)

So, I know that the adjuster may be nice and personable, but its for a reason.  Its to try to keep the claimant “under control” and to keep the settlement low.  I’ve never seen a low settlement be in a claimant’s best interest.

I know that there are more and more pro se cases being filed and plenty of self help solutions available.  Is it really worth it to try and handle your case on your own?  The insurance company hired and trained an adjuster to handle your claim.  Don’t you think you ought to hire someone too?

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

November 16, 2008 by Zale.

It has been suggested to me that I should take just about any injury case that comes up, even if I don’t see merit in the case.  I disagree with this approach.  I only take cases that I believe have merit.  To do otherwise would support frivolous litigation.  It also does a disservice to the client.  If they have a bad case, the attorney should be the first to tell them.

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