Gainesville, Ocala & Daytona Beach Personal Injury Lawyer - Insurance

UM Coverage, …. “Stack” it up and save!

Jeffrey Meldon — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:26:33 GMT

Florida has some of the worst laws in the country when it comes to protecting the innocent person injured in a crash. As an accident attorney, it is heartbreaking for me to see legitimately injured people, who thought they had “full coverage” insurance, find out that what they had purchased does not come close to meeting the needs of their injuries.

Florida’s required insurance is minimal and offers only very little protection if you are injured in an accident, even if the accident was not your fault! Florida Law requires drivers to carry these two insurances:

1. $10,000 of Personal Injury Protection (PIP) which covers 80% of your medical expenses and 60% of lost wages, up to $10,000 total, if you are injured in a car accident, no matter who was “at-fault” for the accident (Florida is a “no-fault” state).

2. $10,000 of Property Damage to cover the other person’s vehicle if you cause the accident.

Here is an example of why this amount of insurance will not protect you, and if you only have this amount of insurance why you are “Under-Insured”:

Let’s say you are sitting at a stop light and a distracted texting driver rear-ends you and both you and the at-fault driver only have the required minimum Florida insurance. You are seriously injured in the wreck and are taken to the ER, chances are that just your hospital bill alone will use up most or all of your PIP limit of $10,000 (and could easily exceed it) and the money for further medical treatments, prescriptions or any needed rehab will come out of your pocket, in addition, you will be out of luck for your lost wages. If your car’s damages are more than $10,000, that money as well will come out of your pocket unless you have collision and comprehensive insurance.

The solution: In addition to my other insurance recommendations, Florida drivers should always purchase Un-insured or Under-insured Motorist Coverage (UM or UIM) to protect themselves and their passengers from drivers who have no coverage or just the minimal required insurance or are under-insured in other ways. With the purchase of UM or UIM coverage, claims that exceed the insurance coverage of the at-fault person will be covered by your UM insurance policy. Here is an example:

Let’s say your accident claim, in the example given above, adds up to $100,000: Your PIP will cover $10,000, which leaves you with a balance of $90,000 to pay. If you had purchased UM coverage in the amount of $100,000, you will be able to collect the balance due from your own insurance company.

In addition: An important option available with UM/UIM coverage is the ability to "stack" coverage. If you insure more than one car, “stacking” will give you a lot more insurance coverage at a low cost. Here is how “stacking” works:

Assume that you have UM/UIM coverage in the amount of 50/100, meaning that it covers up to $50,000 per person and $100,000 total per accident. If you insure three cars, with stacked coverage your limits would increase three times to $150,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence, and the cost is less than it would be if you had $100,000/$300,000 on each car separately.

So… “stack” it up and save!

UM/UIM coverage has become even more important to have in light of recent studies that show that nearly one in four drivers on the road today is driving illegally, without any insurance at all, and also many drivers are dropping coverage that is not required and just going with the basic required Fl insurance and are underinsured. In fact, we estimate that at least 70% of drivers on the road today are either un-insured or under-insured.

With this in mind, it is important to revaluate your auto insurance policy today. I suggest a minimum UM coverage in the amount of $100,000/$300,000 and to “stack” it up to save money if you have more than one car.

(Finally, remember that Bodily Injury Insurance protects the other person if you were at fault for an accident and does not offer you or your passengers any protection at all!)

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeffrey Meldon

Medical Malpractice Caps Invading our Constitutional Rights.

Jeffrey Meldon — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:00:00 GMT

Medical Malpractice Caps, are caps on non-economic damages (i.e. pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of a loved one), namely, limiting of the total amount payable to the injured in medical claims.

They are supposed to decrease the burden and litigation of health care and it’s increasingly rising cost. Although the reduction of cost is a noble pursuit, it could potentially limit the liberties upon which our legal system and our very nation were founded.

Caps on damages limit or restrict the access that the common man (or woman) has to a trial by jury, as guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment of our Constitution. This in turn may violate the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment by not granting due process and equal protection under the law.

In our legal system, one of the most basic tenants is trial by jury. The text of the Seventh Amendment directly is

“in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law”

Although the availability of a jury is not directly in dispute with medical malpractice caps, the judgement of the jury is invaded by limiting them as a fact finding body.

With a medical malpractice cap, regardless of your pain and suffering, the jury would have a “glass ceiling” that would limit the payout for the plaintiff. Plaintiffs (victims) faced with this cap would be further frustrated as even the most meritorious claim would only have the possibility of an award up to the capped amount.

The argument in favor of the medical malpractice caps is the increasing cost of medical malpractice insurance. Although this increasing cost of insurance is an issue, malpractice insurance companies state that non economic damages account for a very small percentage of their payouts. And state that these caps, if instituted, would only account for savings of around 1.0% for each company.

However, even if this is so, is this one percentage point worth invading a tenant of our judicial system that ensures individual rights and freedoms?

Medical malpractice caps simply limit the rights of the injured, and do not alleviate enough burdens on the doctors to warrant a second glance.

If the issue is insurance cost to physicians, then perhaps the legislature should look to the insurance companies themselves, and not to the injured. The medical malpractice insurance companies having been recording large profits for many years.

We want to ensure that our right to justice is not unfaily limited by the powerful doctor insurance lobby!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeffrey Meldon

Are loud pipes protecting motorcycle riders?

Jeffrey Meldon — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:35:28 GMT

According to many riders in Daytona Beach for Bike Week, this week, they wouldn’t be caught dead on the road without their loud, modified, unbaffled straight pipes. They feel that it provides an added layer of protection against their “enemy” the car and truck driver who doesn’t see them and crashes into them causing death or serious injury. “If they don’t see us at least they will hear us”. Many riders believe they would have been killed or seriously injured had it not been for those loud pipes according to interviews conducted by the Daytona Beach News-Journal.

There is only one problem: it is against the law. Not only that, but most people dislike the sound of loud pipes roaring inside their brain. The maximum sound level by Florida law for a motorcycle traveling at 35mph at a distance of 50ft. is 78 decibels. By comparison, a blender generates 90 decibels from a distance of 3 feet. The ear piercing sound of a Harley with modified straight pipes can far exceed the lawful decibel level.

During bike week most bikers get a free pass on noise ordinance violations but more and more neighborhoods are banding together to reduce unwanted sounds. In fact, the American Motorcycle Association (AMA) regards excessive sound from the exhaust as the single greatest threat to motorcycling. Regardless of how “safe” loud pipes are for the rider the AMA has to protect the interests of the majority of law abiding motorcyclists around the country.

My advice, as a motorcycle accident attorney for 37 years, if you really want to protect yourself while riding, wear the recommended safety equipment (helmet, eye protection, leathers, proper footwear) and carry lots of insurance on your motorcycle policy. In Florida car and truck drivers have no requirement to carry mandatory bodily injury insurance so if you are in a crash caused by someone else you will probably have to pay all the bills yourself. And you will recover nothing for your lost wages and pain and suffering. The only way to fully protect yourself is to buy lots of motorcycle insurance with at least 50k in medical payments coverage and 100k in uninsured motorists coverage. This is minimal coverage and higher limits should be considered particularly for uninsured motorists’ insurance.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeffrey Meldon

If these are "good neighbors" I'm changing neighborhoods!

Tom Copeland — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:25:45 GMT

Every day we emphasize to clients and others we come into contact with the importance of having the proper automobile insurance. Florida's "no fault" system does not require a car owner to carry bodily injury liability coverage to pay for personal injury damages to a person injured by the negligence of the car owner or anyone they may allow to drive their car. As a consequence, it is important for everyone who has financial and family obligations to carry uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage to protect yourself in the event you are injured by the negligence of another driver. This type coverage protects you if the driver/owner who caused the accident either does not have insurance or has inadequate insurance (i.e. limits that are too low to fully compensate you for your injuries/damages). You have to pay for your own uninsured motorist coverage. While this does not seem fair, it is nonetheless necessary if you have financial obligations to creditors (as we all do) who do not care why you are unable to pay your bills. So far this sounds simple. Just get the uninsured motorist coverage and you have nothing to worry about, right?. Wrong. Most people who purchase car insurance rely on their insurance agent and never read their policy when it is received. This can be a big mistake as one of our clients recently found out. Our client was a resident of Georgia who decided to move back to Florida to be closer to her aging mother. The plan was for her to move in with her mom for a period of time until she found a job and got a place of her own. Her Georgia car insurer did not sell insurance in Florida. Upon moving in with mom, she started to look for a car nsurance company. Client's mom suggested that she call the local "good neighbor" insurance company that insured mom's car. When the client called, she told the "good neighbor" insurance company agent that she wanted "full coverage" just like she had in Georgia. In the discussion, the subject of uninsured motorist coverage came up. The agent advised the client that because she lived at home with her mom, who had uninsured motorist coverage on her (mom's) vehicles, client did not need to purchase separate uninsured motorist coverage as it would duplicate coverage she already had through her mom's policy. It was represented that when client moved out of mom's house, she would need to purchase her own uninsured motorist coverage. (note: the insurance agent has not denied the client's version of the transaction) Client purchased "good neighbors" insurance policy and paid her premiums by automatic bank withdrawal. If there had never been a car accident, client would have continued to pay, insurance company would have continued to collect, and that would be the end of the story. Natrually, things didn't work out that way. One afternoon a few months after the policy was purchased, the client was driving down the road minding her own business when a vehicle made an illegal left turn in front of her. She had no time to stop and struck the vehicle broadside. The impact caused client's car to roll several times and despite the use of a seatbelt, client was ejected from the car suffering siginificant injuries requiring emergency surgery to repair a severely fractured pelvis/hip and a lacerated arm. The client is still undergoing intensive physical therapy to regain the strength to walk without the assistance of a walker and has had several surgeries on her arm due to on-going problems with infection. Following the accident, client applied for Personal Injury Protection benefits through her own policy and Uninsured Motorist benefits through her mother's policy (the at fault driver of the other car had no insurance and the owner only had minimal bodily injury liability coverage). Uon receipt of the uninsured motorist claim from client, "good neighbor" insurance company quickly denied coverage because while daughter was a "resident relative" in mom's household for uninsured motorist coverage purposes, mom's policy specifically excluded coverage for a household resident who was driving a vehicle not listed on the policy. Since client was driving her own car, this provision of mom's policy excluded the client for uninsured motorist coverage! While the "good neighbor" agent may have overlooked this issue when advising our client about the coverage she needed, they didn't miss the issue for a second when a claim was filed. Now our client is forced to pursue an "errors and omissions" lawsuit against the "good neighbor" insurance agent rather than simply filing a claim and receiving payment of the benefits she was told she would have if she was injured by an uninsured/underinsured motorist. The moral to the story is never rely completely on the "insurance professional" regarding what your policy covers. When you receive the written policy, read through it, at least the coverage and exclusion sections. Then, if there is anything you don't understand, ask the insurance company for clarification in writing. If that doesn't clear up the issue for you or if they refuse to give you a written explanation, it's worth your time and a few dollars to consult an attorney before you find yourself in the same boat as our client and many others who depend on the expertise and the integrity of their "good neighbor" insurance agent/company. As I said, if this is a "good neighbor", I'm changing neighborhoods!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Tom Copeland

Allstate Admits it has Dirty Hands

Jeffrey Meldon — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:02:33 GMT

Allstate the "good hands" people have decided to forgo hundreds of millions of dollars in profits rather than show their "dirty hands" to Floridians. Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty announced on Friday that Allstate Corp. will give it's existing Florida policyholders an additional 5.6% rate cut, forgive a $175 million dollar loan, and pay a $5 million dollar fine to the State of Florida rather than produce rate-related documents regulators had demanded.

This interesting settlement was only agreed to by Allstate after the Florida Insurance Commissioner suspended Allstate from writing new policies in Florida . The agreement resolves McCarty's legal action that accused Allstate of failing to produce rate-related documents, falsely claiming that the material requested contained trade secrets, and falsely certifying a request to raise rates by more than 40%.

Allstate has long had a reputation among consumer advocate groups for their policy of increasing premiums while reducing payouts to customers when they have a legitimate loss, thus increasing their overall profits. Apparently the State of Florida felt Allstate was trying to fleece it's policyholder's when it requested a rate increase after the State implemented a new program to reduce the exposure of all insurance companies in Florida that write homeowner's insurance policies. That program was designed to allow insurance companies to reduce rates after a rash of hurricanes in 2004 and 2005 had caused skyrocketing increases in premiums.

Allstate was facing an upcoming court hearing to determine whether it had to produce these internal documents that would have disclosed how they evaluated their requests for increases in premiums from consumers. That hearing has been canceled as part of this settlement. Allstate must have been concerned about the public outcry that would have resulted from the release of these rate-related documents.

Allstate will continue to be investigated for other violations of state law regarding claims handling and potential collusion with rating organizations, trade associations, and other entities. The company could still face further fines, suspension or revocation of it's license to do business in Florida. Allstate spokeswoman Kathy Thomas said the settlement was in the best interests of Allstate, its agents and customers. Many Allstate agents were losing huge profits when the State suspended Allstate from writing new policies in May.

It is encouraging to see our Insurance Commissioner finally ask the same questions consumers have been asking for years "Why are they raising our rates?" Apparently the answer to that questions was simple: "To make more money" The consumer is getting squeezed by the rich and powerful oil companies and now the insurance industry. Both have something in common: we need gas for our cars and we need insurance for our homes and cars.. Finally Florida has a watchdog in Kevin McCarty, at least' as far as insurance companies go. Maybe the State can find a watchdog for the oil companies as well.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeffrey Meldon