Car Accidents

Published on: April 2, 2008

Hit and Run Driver Faces Felony Charges

On Monday night, a red Acura, allegedly driven by Cody Rhoden, attempted to pass an SUV limousine carrying five members of the Randle family and the limo driver, Mark Anthony Gay on I-85 near Indian Springs Road.

As the Acura approached the SUV, it entered the left-hand emergency lane.The SUV was traveling in the HOV lane.The Acura attempted to improperly pass on the left.The Acura clipped the SUV as the emergency lane narrowed with the concrete median wall.

As the Acura cut off the SUV when it entered the HOV lane, it then struck two cars in the lane ahead. Immediately after, the SUV slammed into the back of the struck vehicles, causing the SUV to flip.The SUV rolled over six times before coming to rest roof-side down.

Published on: February 22, 2008

Million Dollar Personal Injury Settlement by Distracted Driver

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

Cell phone liability is back in the news again. Last week the Fulton County Daily Report highlighted the recent International Paper personal injury settlement. International Paper ( "IP") paid out $5.2 million to settle a personal injury suit for an automobile collision that an IP employee caused by talking on a cell phone.

IP employee Vanessa McGrogan was talking on her company-supplied cell phone when she rear-ended a vehicle driven by Debra Ford. The collision pushed Ford into a ditch on the right side of the road. The car overturned and dragged the driver’s side across the roadway. Ford’s arm was caught between the door and the asphalt. Ford, a widowed mother of four, had to have her arm amputated at the shoulder.

McGrogan had her cruise control set at 77 mph. In addition to this, she was talking on her cell phone to the point of distraction. The plaintiff raised the issue of intentional negligence. The trial court in ruling on a motion for partial summary judgment allowed the plaintiff to seek punitive damages. The case was set for trial in March and settled this month.

Published on: February 5, 2008

Accidents Likely as Bridge Inspection Reports Faked

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

Today’s Atlanta Journal Constitution front-page article provides a shocking revelation from the Department of Transportation.A twenty-nine year employee charged with inspecting state bridges faked his reports since last fall.Falsified inspection reports could suggest that faulty bridges are safe. A bridge collapse could lead to serious personal injuries or even death for the occupants of vehicles.

The two-man inspection team fell behind in their work, partly because one team member took off a good deal of time from work last year.Rather than own up to missing a deadline, they falsified reports.Not apparently the swiftest, the team claimed to have inspected 18 bridges in one day, which caught the attention of a supervisor.The DOT reports it will send out a new team to inspect the 54 bridges affected by the employee lying scandal.

Bridges are inspected at two-year intervals.However, bridges deemed critical may get an annual inspection.Valid DOT inspection reports show that one in five Georgia bridges are in need of repair or new design.Georgia spends about $100 million a year on bridge maintenance, but claims it needs $2.5 billion to rebuild deficient bridges.

Published on: November 12, 2007

Sleeping Truck Drivers Cause Accidents

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

November 11, 2007

Last week the Center for Disease Control (CDC) celebrated Drowsy Driver Prevention Week.Interestingly, in a poll conducted as part of their education campaign, 47 percent of commercial truck drivers admitted to having fallen asleep while driving a truck during some point in their career.

In a study conducted of the sleep patterns of long haul truck drivers and printed in the New England Journal of Medicine, drivers obtained between 4 and 5 hours of verifiable sleep during the course of driving ten-hour days in a five-day period.Most people need between 7 and 9 hours of sleep per night.Thus, fatigue and sleep deprivation constitute significant safety issues for long haul truck drivers.

Published on: October 29, 2007

Cell Phone Use Causes Auto Accident

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

October 29, 2007

Recently, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed a grant of summary judgment to the defendant in an interesting case involving the use of a cell phone by an employee enroute to work.In Hunter vs. Modern Continental Construction Company, the employee shift supervisor was enroute to work when he was involved in a car accident with the plaintiff.Plaintiff sought to bring her lawsuit against not only the driver/supervisor, but his employer as well.

The employer moved for summary judgment (a dismissal of the case before it gets to trial) on the basis of established case law that driving to and from work is an act for the employee’s own purposes and not in pursuit of the employer’s business.

Published on: September 19, 2007

What is Medical Payments Coverage and When Should I Use It When Injured in an Auto Accident?

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

Commonly, insurance policies include an endorsement which provides the insurer “will pay reasonable expenses incurred for necessary medical and funeral services because of bodily injury caused by accident and sustained by an ‘insured.’”Medical payments coverage for car accidents is optional under Georgia insurance policies and is available to the insured regardless of fault.These endorsements typically provide for recovery up to a certain amount for a certain amount of time, generally three years.Furthermore, the insurance carrier must pay benefits within sixty days of the demand by the insured who has suffered a personal injury in a car accident.

The question of who is covered under a medical payments endorsement for medical bills incurred due to a personal injury in a car accident is set out by statute.OCGA § 33-34-2(1) provides: “Coverage shall be available to the named insured, resident spouse, and any resident relative while occupying the covered motor vehicle, and to any other person legally occupying a covered motor vehicle.”

Individuals injured in automobile accidents should look to their health insurance carrier for payment of their medical bills first, as coverage is provided under contract with the health insurance carrier.The injured should then look to the medical payments carrier which will pay funds directly to the injured party and will reimburse the injured insured for any out of pocket expenses not paid by the injured insured’s health insurance carrier.It is important to remember that most automobile policies contain notice provisions which will also apply to medical payments coverage and in all cases, the injured insured should notify their own insurance carrier as soon as possible.

Published on: September 19, 2007

Uninsured Motorist Coverage for Car Accidents

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

The state of Georgia requires all motor vehicle owners to secure minimum liability insurance coverage for their vehicles.This insurance provides for payment for damages in the event the other driver suffers a personal injury in the car accident.However, there is no requirement that motor vehicle owners secure uninsured motorist coverage to pay for their damages if the other driver is at fault and they have suffered a severe personal injury in the auto accident.See Jenkins & Miller Georgia Automobile Insurance Law (2007 ed.) 29:3.

Uninsured motorist coverage has aptly been called “insurance against lack of insurance”.See Jenkins & Miller Georgia Automobile Insurance Law (2007 ed.) 29:1.It is available and recoverable only when the fault causing the car accident is found to be that of the uninsured or underinsured vehicle’s driver.Id.It is an important form of insurance since it allows the injured person to recover their damages.

The purpose of UM coverage “is to place the injured insured in the same position as if the offending uninsured motorist were covered with general liability insurance.”Another way of explaining the purpose of UM coverage is that coverage is available to protect innocent injured drivers against irresponsible drivers who fail to secure coverage for auto accidents.The coverage is not available for the benefit of the irresponsible, but for those injured or caused to incur damages by the uninsured’s negligence.

Published on: May 20, 2007

ERISA Health Insurance Issues in Auto Accident Injury Matters

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

In 2001, auto accident injury victims received what was thought to be good news from the U.S. Supreme Court in Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 122 S.Ct. 708, 151 L.Ed.2d 635 (2002). In Knudson, the Plaintiff was injured in an auto accident. Her medical bills related to injuries sustained in the auto accident were paid by her ERISA health insurance plan. Upon settlement, the settlement proceeds were paid into a special needs trust. The Plaintiff’s ERISA plan attempted to obtain reimbursement directly from the Plaintiff for the medical bills the health insurance carrier paid for treatment related to the auto accident injuries. The Knudson Court ruled that the plan had no right to reimbursement since such payments would constitute enforcement of a legal remedy, something not allowed under ERISA.

However, through Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, 547 U.S. 1015, 126 S.Ct. 1869 (2006) and its progeny, the Supreme Court illuminated the fact that the Court will not interpret every plan as seeking a prohibited legal remedy. The Court will look to the plan language on a case by case basis to determine whether the plan creates an equitable remedy – specifically, whether a fund has been specifically identified by the plan language, and if so, to what part of the fund the plan will be entitled to recover reimbursement. The plan’s right to reimbursement will fail if the plan itself fails to create a lien by agreement, by “specifically identifyi[ng] a particular fund, distinct from [the plan beneficiaries’] general assets. . . and a particular share of that fund to which [the plan] was entitled.”