Results 1 to 4 of 4

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Unhappy High Demands in Auto Injury Cases

    Hi there superbrutus,

    I am not a lawyer- but as a nurse & victim of a similar situation - I would not accept my insurance company paying out even the 100k to someone with such little vehicle damage.

    Did you speak to your insurance adjuster about if their medical experts investigated this woman's medical history THOROUGHLY?

    True, there are some "egg-shell" sensitive conditions one can have that a liable would be legally responsible for in an accident- but rare. Very rare.

    My husband rear-ended 2 cars in front (2nd car barely scraped the 1st) at 25 mph when he couldn't stop in time for a couple of cars at a yield sign due to the sun glare.

    The 1st car driver the policeman even chuckled at when writing my husband the ticket- bc she was 300lbs. & needed 6 paramedics to put her on a gurney. This is after she called her husband on her cell. She had no problem using her cell, but when the husband & ambulance came, her neck all of a sudden "froze!"

    This is just the 1st one. Anyway, she gets a lawyer & they want 100k (policy limit of course) Turns out she had a preexisting condition of her neck (C3-C4 bulge) which is common in obese individuals. My insurance company caught that. They are up to 14k (which would include the lawyer's fee & her medicals) So much for her C3-C4 bulge & the rest of the medical expenses related to her diagnoses & treatment. It was not caused by the scraped bumper accident!

    The middle car we had to wait to hear. Her lawyer made sure she went to a doctor that he recommended.
    She also was caught exaggerating her preexisting injuries. She had initially seen the same chiropractor she saw prior to the accident. They were looking for 100k plus I received a letter from my insurance at 1st, that the lawyer was claiming her claim was to be worth 600k! The woman didn't even work & have lost wages!

    Well, her lumbar/ sacral disc bulge is NOT an acute injury. A fresh herniation would be on MRI- but that is not her case. Plus rear-ended at 25mph - plenty of people (including my husband at 40mph) took a hit once AND walked away easily! They are being offered 14k also. I don't think the lawyer knew about her pre-existing degenerative disc disease treatment prior.

    So, make sure if your insurance doesn't thoroughly scrutinize their medical records- that you do get yourself a lawyer that will.

    I hope your insurance company can determine if the woman is exaggerating a pre-existing injury & took advantage of the situation for getting surgery now.

    Good luck. I don't think anyone should be liable for the a person needing surgery from a minor accident. And doctors are not going to say to anyone NOT to have surgery- if they can justify a reason for the pt's surgery. There are conservative treatments to be considered, another doctor may recommend. But of course, it's too late to undo her charges for surgery.
    But if it can be determined that it was not caused by your accident- in reality - your insurance may have to scrutinize her medical records.

    Not knowing exactly what injury & surgery she needed, I cannot say what your insurance company will determine.

    I know I would find out & make sure of why I would be liable for the woman having or even really needing surgery due to a minor hit. People can be ugly for $, including the lawyer of course, so be careful!

    Good luck!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Rear Ended Someone- Lawsuit is More Than Insurance

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Quoting rymfire4
    View Post

    I am not a lawyer- but as a nurse & victim of a similar situation - I would not accept my insurance company paying out even the 100k to someone with such little vehicle damage.
    First, it isn't your choice and second, to ignore the very realistic possibility there is nothing improper about the claim is foolish.

    Did you speak to your insurance adjuster about if their medical experts investigated this woman's medical history THOROUGHLY?

    True, there are some "egg-shell" sensitive conditions one can have that a liable would be legally responsible for in an accident- but rare. Very rare.
    or maybe she has a broken neck due to the accident. Depending on a lot of facts not presented here, it is a possible injury for that accident.

    My husband rear-ended 2 cars in front (2nd car barely scraped the 1st) at 25 mph when he couldn't stop in time for a couple of cars at a yield sign due to the sun glare.

    The 1st car driver the policeman even chuckled at when writing my husband the ticket- bc she was 300lbs. & needed 6 paramedics to put her on a gurney. This is after she called her husband on her cell. She had no problem using her cell, but when the husband & ambulance came, her neck all of a sudden "froze!"
    and you, of course, are a medical expert that had checked her and found her to be without injury. Ever see somebody use a broken arm to do something and then, after the adrenaline rush they were on wore off realized they actually had a broken arm? An impression immediately after an accident is often incorrect. Dang, I know a guy in a motorcycle accident that rode to the hospital in the front seat of the ambulance. In the hospital, it was discovered he had a broken back which ended up taking several surgeries to repair with a resulting disability that caused him to quit his job. Yet, at the time of the accident when asked he reported he felt fine.

    This is just the 1st one. Anyway, she gets a lawyer & they want 100k (policy limit of course) Turns out she had a preexisting condition of her neck (C3-C4 bulge) which is common in obese individuals. My insurance company caught that. They are up to 14k (which would include the lawyer's fee & her medicals) So much for her C3-C4 bulge & the rest of the medical expenses related to her diagnoses & treatment. It was not caused by the scraped bumper accident!
    sorry to tell you but you take them as they come. If your impact caused added injury, then you are liable. Her prior condition becomes irrelevant as long as they are not claiming the preexisting injury as being due to this accident.



    Well, her lumbar/ sacral disc bulge is NOT an acute injury. A fresh herniation would be on MRI- but that is not her case. Plus rear-ended at 25mph - plenty of people (including my husband at 40mph) took a hit once AND walked away easily! They are being offered 14k also. I don't think the lawyer knew about her pre-existing degenerative disc disease treatment prior.
    and I personally know somebody that was in an accident no more severe than the op's that now has an artificial shoulder and some disc problems in her neck due solely to the accident.

    So, make sure if your insurance doesn't thoroughly scrutinize their medical records- that you do get yourself a lawyer that will.
    you seem to be under the incorrect impression that the insurance company cannot simply write the other party a check if that is what they decide to do. You would be wrong if you believe that.



    Good luck. I don't think anyone should be liable for the a person needing surgery from a minor accident. And doctors are not going to say to anyone NOT to have surgery- if they can justify a reason for the pt's surgery. There are conservative treatments to be considered, another doctor may recommend. But of course, it's too late to undo her charges for surgery.
    But if it can be determined that it was not caused by your accident- in reality - your insurance may have to scrutinize her medical records.
    How about a person being liable for the injuries they cause regardless of it being a minor accident or severe?

    and yes, a lot of doctors tell people to not have surgery. Suggesting a doctor treats based on financial gain and not medical need is ridiculous. While there are some unscrupulous doctors out there, they are in the minority.

    Not knowing exactly what injury & surgery she needed, I cannot say what your insurance company will determine.
    then why all the BS about " nobody should be liable for surgery resulting from a minor accident" statement? That is in direct contrast to this statement.


    I know I would find out & make sure of why I would be liable for the woman having or even really needing surgery due to a minor hit.
    well, you see, it just isn't your choice nor right to have that information. You also seem to misunderstand the difference between what your actual liability might be and what the insurance company is willing to pay to put the case to rest.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Rear Ended Someone- Lawsuit is More Than Insurance

    yes jk,

    I read about the example of the person with the "egg shell injury" The only reason why I had no criticism about something like that is bc someone said the defendant "purposely" rear-ended someone at the stop light.
    I just got a renewal letter from our personal car insurance & very good - they are giving us the accident forgiveness for the pending accident claims, etc. But the PIP (personal injury Protection) has been raised ($25 a month) anyway due to the "INCREASE IN BODILY INJURY CLAIMS IN FLORIDA"

    So there you go. When someone can sue anyone (bc lawyers take contingency) & make exaggerated injury claims, which they in turn charge the medicals to the insurance- & those medicals are inflated 250% for the insurance companies. Then, in turn, the insurance company usually settles anyway (even the smaller claims) -which were really exaggerated medical injury claims- but the insurance wants to protect their insured legally anyway- so they settle.

    Now, PIP going up in Florida bc of the frequency of abuse. The laws need to be changed where one cannot retain a lawyer unless they pay upfront- or have obvious major injury from the accident scene or directly from the accident.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    10

    Default Re: Rear Ended Someone- Lawsuit is More Than Insurance

    in the other driver's defense, a 3000 pound vehicle moving at 25MPH does have a great deal of energy in it. the severity of the injuries to the car occupants depends mainly on how much energy the vehicles absorb. so occupants are likely to suffer fewer injuries in a car that crumples up and appears to get really mangled than they are in a car with a really stiff chassis that appears to have very little damage.

    from your physics classes in school, remember that kinetic energy rises by the square of velocity. so a 20MPH collision has four times as much energy in it than a 10MPH collision.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Error by Mechanic Creating High Risk of Injury
    By berbes in forum Cars and Dealerships
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-19-2011, 04:27 PM
  2. Traffic Accidents: Possible Injury Claim After an Auto Accident
    By Rogerfl86 in forum Accidents and Injuries
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-16-2009, 04:05 AM
  3. Traffic Accidents: Auto Injury Settlement and Arbitration
    By mike909 in forum Accidents and Injuries
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-29-2006, 08:18 AM
  4. Auto Insurance: Auto insurance for high risk teenager
    By mike in forum Insurance Law
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-29-2005, 09:03 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources