Archive for the ‘Indiana Accident Claims’ Category

WHEN IS A DAMAGED CAR OR TRUCK CONSIDERED A TOTAL LOSS?

Friday, May 10th, 2013

I frequently receive calls from the owners of damaged cars or trucks who ask when must a vehicle be considered a total loss?   In an effort to pay less on the claim, unfortunately some auto insurers will attempt to have extensive damage repaired instead of having the car totaled.  These owners are concerned that even with competent repairs, their vehicle will never be as it was before and that the resale value of their vehicle will also be adversely affected.

Under Indiana law, specifically Indiana Code 9-22-3-3, if the cost of repairs to a vehicle is more than 70% of its fair market retail value before it was damaged, then the vehicle must be declared a total loss.  If the vehicle is a total loss, then the owner is entitled to receive the retail value of their vehicle before it was damaged, plus state sales tax.

As a practical matter, if the repair estimate is close to but slightly less than 70% of the vehicle’s retail value, the owner can often convince the insurer to still total the vehicle by pointing out that the insurer also owes compensation for the diminished value of their vehicle because of collision damage.  When a vehicle has significant property damage, the diminished value of the vehicle can be substantial.  I have written a blog article previously regarding diminished value claims that you can read for more information.

If you have a significant property damage or personal injury claim, call the office of James F. Ludlow, Attorney at Law, P.C. to discuss your legal rights. My firm can be reached toll-free at (877) 897-9466 or by filling out the simple form on the Contact Us page.

 

 

Tags: ,
Posted in Indiana Accident Claims, Indianapolis Accidents, Insurance Claims | Comments Off

SOMETIMES IT TAKES A LAWSUIT TO GET THINGS DONE

Tuesday, December 11th, 2012

Although no one favors more lawsuits, there are times when only a lawsuit will provide the necessary motivation for a corporation or governmental entity to do the right thing.

A case is point is a lawsuit that I recently concluded against an aquatic center in Plainfield, Indiana for injuries that a client suffered when he fell onto a short narrow concrete wall that separated two areas of an indoor pool.  One area of the pool was only a few inches deep and was designed for small children.   However, the pool area on the opposite side of this wall was 4 feet deep, and there were no signs that warned of this abrupt change in depth.

As my adult client had never been to this pool before, he did not realize that there was such a significant difference in depth between these two areas and stepped over this short narrow wall.  Because one foot couldn’t touch bottom, he fell onto this wall sustaining what is known as a straddle type injury.  As a consequence, my client sustained a severe injury to his urethra that prevented him from urinating.  As this medical condition could eventually cause a bladder rupture, my client had to undergo a complicated surgery to reconstruct his urethra.

While accidents can happen even with the best of care, what I found disturbing regarding this case was that there had been two other significant injuries that had occurred before my client’s fall when someone attempted to step over the narrow wall from the shallow pool area into the adjacent deeper pool area, and yet no corrective action had been taken by the aquatic center to investigate these incidents and consider corrective action — until a lawsuit was filed in my client’s case.

I also discovered during this lawsuit that Indiana state public pool safety regulations actually do require the presence of a physical barrier between these two pool areas to prevent the exact type of injury that my client suffered.  Somehow, the management of this aquatic center had overlooked the requirements of this law. However, after this lawsuit, a proper rope barrier was erected that should prevent this type of pool accident from ever happening again.

So why did it take a lawsuit to make the aquatic center take these corrective changes despite two other people being hurt in the same way as my client?  Perhaps the reason is that neither of the two other individuals made a legal claim for their injuries.  Consequently, those prior pool accidents cost the aquatic center nothing, other than the time to fill out a two page accident report.

However, my client’s lawsuit resulted in a settlement of $122,500 plus some negative publicity from a local newspaper that wrote an article about the settlement.  Perhaps the old saying is true that “pain can be an excellent teacher.”
If you are seeking compensation after an accident that resulted in a serious injury, contact James Ludlow, Attorney at Law toll-free at (877) 897-9466.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Indiana Accident Claims, Indiana Slip and Fall Claims | Comments Off

Quick Settlements – A Cautionary Tale

Tuesday, November 27th, 2012

I was driving on the highway the other day when I was passed by an insurance company’s “Quick Response Vehicle.”  This is a white SUV that the insurer sends out to accident scenes or to the homes or workplaces of accident victims to attempt to resolve accident claims quickly.  In fact, the claims adjustors usually have a checkbook and a “release of all claims” form with them.

While I consider it commendable for an insurance company to attempt to resolve property damage claims quickly since people after all do need their vehicle repaired or replaced as soon as possible, a quick settlement involving a personal injury claim may not be a good thing.

One of the most important reasons to view a personal injury settlement that is offered shortly after an accident with a good deal of caution is that not all injuries from an accident may show up right away, and may be more serious than first thought. If the severity of the injury is not fully understand at the time of settlement, the injured person will not be fairly compensated, medical expenses may go unpaid, and proper medical care may not be provided if there is no means to pay for it.

An example is a recent knee injury case that I settled for $50,000.  The potential client had been in a car accident and when he initially spoke with me for a free consultation, he told me that he had twisted his knee in the crash and still had some soreness, but that he thought he would be fine and was thinking about accepting $1,000 that had been offered for the settlement of his injury claim.

In response, I told this potential client that it was certainly possible that his knee was only sprained and that he would be fine, but that if he hadn’t yet had an MRI of his knee, he couldn’t be sure that he didn’t have something more serious such as a torn meniscus.  I thus encouraged him to wait and see how his knee did over the following month.  The potential client agreed and said that he would call me back in a couple weeks.

I then heard back from this gentleman a month later and he stated that his knee was still hurting some, but he was still thinking about taking the $1,000 settlement.  In response, I recommended that he tell his family doctor how his knee was feeling and to follow his recommendations.

Several weeks later, I heard that the family doctor wanted the potential client to see an orthopaedic surgeon to examine the knee.  An orthopaedic surgeon then examined the knee and recommended an MRI.  In making a long story short, it turned out that the client did have a meniscus tear in his knee that was caused by the accident and that required surgery.

When the full extent of the client’s injury became known, I was then able to then settle the case for the liability insurance policy limits of $50,000 that were available from the person’s insurance company who caused this crash, or 50 times more than what the client had been offered initially.  So while a quick personal injury settlement may was tempting, it wouldn’t have worked out very well in the end.

If you’ve been involved in an accident that was someone else’s fault, and an insurance adjustor is offering you a quick settlement on your personal injury claim, the best advice is to do what my former client did—call an experienced personal injury attorney at Ludlow Law to discuss your claim and how I can help. Call me toll-free at (877) 897-9466 or submit the simple form on the Contact Us page.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Indiana Accident Claims | Comments Off

Monday Morning Quarterbacking – Criticism of An Injured Person’s Medical Care After The Fact By a Liability Insurer

Saturday, November 12th, 2011

Under Indiana law, the liability insurer for an individual who has caused an accident and injured an individual has the right to have the injured person undergo a medical examination by a physician of their choosing.   This is called an Indiana Trial Rule 35 examination.

In many cases, the liability insurer will have a reputable physician perform this physical examination merely to confirm what the treating physician has to say regarding the injured person’s diagnosis and long term prognosis.  On the other hand, some insurers will select a particular physician to perform this examination who has an established tendency to say in all the patients that they examine that whatever medical condition is involved was not caused by the accident question, or that the injury has long since completely healed and that whatever remaining physical problems the individual still has were not caused by the accident.  In one case, the insurance company’s doctor actually stated that my client’s spinal cord injury wasn’t caused by a semi-truck crash, but was a pre-existing condition that my client just didn’t know that they had had until they got hit by a semi-truck!

In such medical examinations, sometimes the insurance company’s doctor will also say that the medical treatment that the injured person underwent after their accident was not medically necessary.  For example, in one such case that I handled involving a knee injury after a semi-truck crash, my client ‘s treating orthopaedist had recommended and performed a knee surgery to remove a loose piece of bone that was floating within the knee joint.  However, the insurance company’s doctor said that he thought the surgery had been unnecessary and that the treating orthopaedist should have waited longer for the bone fragment to heal on its own, even though several months had already passed.

In this fashion, the liability insurer would argue that they shouldn’t have to pay as much because the treating physician for the injured person didn’t provide proper medical care.  On the other hand, if my client hadn’t undergone the surgery that his treating orthopaedist had recommended, the insurance company would have argued that they also shouldn’t have to pay as much because my client didn’t follow his doctor’s recommendations!

Fortunately, under Indiana law, a liability insurer may not claim that medical treatment that an injured person received after an accident was unnecessary or ill advised, so long as the injured person had used reasonable care in selecting the physician that treated them.  The rationale for this rule is that if an injured person requires medical care because of someone’s carelessness or negligence, it is not proper for the wrongdoer to criticize what medical care the injured person should receive since the wrongdoer created the need for this medical care in the first place.

Consequently, in my case involving an injured knee, the trial judge would not permit the insurance company’s doctor to criticize or second-guess the medical treatment that my client’s orthopaedic surgeon had recommended.

Tags: ,
Posted in Indiana Accident Claims | Comments Off

Indianapolis Accident Lawyer Discusses Damages For Loss Of Use Of A Wrecked Car or Truck

Monday, February 21st, 2011

In a recent case, a client was injured and their car significantly damaged when a woman disregarded a red traffic light and t-boned the client’s car. Shortly after the crash but before I was hired, the liability insurer for the negligent woman sent my client a letter which stated that the insurer would pay for the loss of use of their car while it was being repaired only if my client actually rented a replacement car, and that they would only pay a maximum of $19.99 per day regardless of the type of car that my client had been driving. This letter is a good illustration of the fact that just because an insurance company says that they don’t owe something doesn’t necessarily mean that it is true.

In Indiana, loss of use damages, which is compensation for not being able to use your car or truck because of collision damage, is measured as the reasonable daily rental value of the particular car or truck that was damaged. Thus, the reasonable rental value can vary widely depending upon the value of the vehicle that was damaged or destroyed. For example, the cost to rent a Porsche 911 Turbo as compared to a 15-year-old Chevy Malibu would be quite different, and so would compensation that is owed for loss of use.

Moreover, under Indiana law it does not matter whether a replacement vehicle is actually rented or not—loss of use damages are still legally owed. In a case that was decided by the Indiana Court of Appeals, an individual’s truck was damaged in an accident and was out of service for 20 days while it was being repaired. However, rather than rent a replacement vehicle, the individual used another car that he also owned. Although the liability insurer for the person who caused the crash claimed that they didn’t owe anything for loss of use because the truck owner had not actually rented a replacement vehicle, the Court ruled that loss of use damages were still owed because the owner did not have the use of that particular truck while it was being repaired. Therefore, whether he actually incurred an out of pocket cost in renting a replacement vehicle was irrelevant.

The Court also noted that if loss of use damages were owed only if a replacement vehicle was actually rented, people who couldn’t afford a rental car would be discriminated against, even though the loss of use of their vehicle may have a significant affect on their ability to get to work or carry on other important activities.

Despite this law, some insurance companies still try to take advantage of people by trying to pay them less than what is legally owed in a claim. So just because an insurance company says that they are only legally obligated to pay this or that, doesn’t necessarily make it true. If you feel that you are being taken advantage of by an insurance company, give me a call for a free consultation regarding your legal rights. Call me toll-free at 1-800-589-9466 or submit the simple form on the Contact Us page.

–

James F. Ludlow is an Indianapolis accident  lawyer who is dedicated to helping injured people throughout Indiana and the United States. I offer clients an appropriate balance of aggressive but compassionate representation. My goal is to provide excellent service and to obtain the maximum financial recovery that is reasonable and fair for the particular injury that a client has sustained.

Tags: ,
Posted in Indiana Accident Claims | Comments Off