Personal Injury Law Journal

Liability coverage is a portion of your automobile insurance policy, which covers you in the event that you are the one who causes a motor vehicle accident. So, if you cause an accident, which leads to the other person sustaining injuries and they file a claim against you, this is the portion of your coverage that will assist in paying for the damages and injuries caused. 

The question is: would your liability coverage adequately cover you in such a case? Maybe…but then again, maybe not. 

What if you have $35,000 liability coverage, and the accident you caused leads to life-altering injuries? Clearly, $35,000 will not cover all of the costs. So what happens in that event? Can the injured party come after your personal assets? The short answer is: YES, and in most cases, you have to assume they will. 

That is why it is so important to be prepared and to spend the extra few dollars (liability insurance is relatively inexpensive) and get additional coverage. If you have questions regarding what coverage you do and don't have, or should and shouldn't have in your insurance policy, please call me. I'd be happy to meet with you, free of charge here in my firm's Lawrenceville, New Jersey office, to review your policy with you in order to ensure that you and your loved ones are covered in the event of an accident. 

Research scientists affiliated with the University of Maryland’s Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering (CALCE) have reportedly found that “Toyota vehicles with potentiometer type accelerator pedal position sensors have a propensity to grow tin whiskers that can and do cause shorts in a highly sensitive engine management area”. These results are consistent with other findings reported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and NASA’s Engineering Safety Center’s investigation into reports of Toyota vehicles exhibiting unintended acceleration.

The researchers conducted a physical analysis of an engine control system from a 2005 Camry XLE, V-6 and a defunct 2002 Camry. CALCE’s report is consistent with that of NASA scientists who found tin whiskers growing in the accelerator pedal unit of every potentiometer they examine.

A few questions everyone should ask themselves before they’re involved in a motor vehicle accident:

• Do I have enough automobile insurance in the event I, or someone driving my car, causes an accident and injures someone?
• If I am injured during a car accident - who will pay my medical bills?
• What happens if an uninsured driver hits me, and causes injuries to me or my family?
• Are there limitations on my ability to be compensated for injuries and my pain and suffering in the event of a car accident?
• What happens if the injuries I suffer during a car accident cause me to be out of work?

Are you able to answer ANY of the above questions with any degree of confidence? For most people, the answer is no. Even if your insurance agent explained these scenarios to you, chances are you said, “just give me the least expensive policy.” Many people do, including myself, before I became a personal injury attorney.

One of the hardest things for me to tell a client who has been injured in a motor vehicle accident is that there isn’t enough coverage for their medical bills, injuries, and their losses. When someone hits you and leaves the scene of the accident, chances are they didn’t have insurance. What’s worse is, in most cases, the injured party’s insurance policy doesn’t include additional coverage for this type of situation.

That’s why it is so important to not wait until you are in an accident to review your insurance policy. Look at what coverage you have now and be sure you understand what it is you have and what you pay for. The cost for additional coverage is usually minimal and could save you thousands of dollars in the event of an accident. Knowing that you have covered yourself and your loved ones in the event of an accident is priceless.

Sometimes understanding what is and what is not included in an insurance policy can be confusing. Feel free to contact us to schedule a free appointment with me here in our Lawrenceville, New Jersey office. I’d be happy to help you and your family get the protection you need.

Michael G. Donahue, Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Accident & Personal Injury Group, will present a seminar entitled, Litigating Product Liability Cases in New Jersey, in conjunction with the New Jersey Law Journal as part of their Autumn CLE Package. 

The seminar will take place Wednesday October 5, 2011 from 4:00 - 6:00 PM at the Sheraton Edison Hotel Raritan Center in Edison, New Jersey and on Thursday October 27, 2011 from 4:00 - 6:00 PM at the Woodcrest Country Club in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. 

Mr. Donnahue will focus his presentation on:

• Is it a case? Using the law and common sense in evaluation and initial investigations
• Selecting the key players: retaining and working with expert witnesses 
• Capitalizing on discovery: using traditional and non-traditional techniques to maximize success
• Preparing for trial: witness preparation, demonstrative evidence and focus groups
• Presenting the case: coir dire to verdict

For additional information, or to register for the seminar, please visit the New Jersey Law Journal's website. 

There is a common misconception among motorcycle riders that if they are injured in a motorcycle accident, their car insurance or the insurance of the car that is responsible for the accident will be responsible to pay their medical bills.  That is not the case.  In New Jersey, as in many other states, car insurance companies are required by law to include minimum coverage for medical expenses associated with an auto accident in every policy they sell (this insurance is known as Personal Injury Protection or PIP).  Insurance companies are not required to provide the same coverage for medical expenses on motorcycle policies.  

What does that mean?  If you are injured as a passenger or driver of a motorcycle and you have standard motorcycle insurance, you will have no medical coverage unless your private health insurance carrier pays your bills.  

It may not make sense that medical expenses associated with a motorcycle accident are not covered by motorcycle insurance, since injuries suffered in motorcycle accidents are often much greater than those suffered in auto accidents.  However, riding a motorcycle is considered a “voluntary risk”.  Therefore, even though medical bills can be catastrophic, laws are not written to protect riders the same way they are written to protect drivers or passengers in cars.  Riders choose to accept the risk of injury for the love of riding.  However, that choice is often based on the general misconception that motorcycle coverage is similar to automobile coverage and as long as insurance is in place, injury to the rider is “covered”.  

Most riders are not aware that most motorcycle policies expose riders to various risks over and above the risk of injury.  An injured rider who paid for motorcycle insurance can end up without appropriate medical care and with enormous debt.  In addition, medical bills from a motorcycle collision often eat into and can easily exceed the other driver’s insurance limits, leaving minimal or no compensation for a rider even for injuries caused by someone else’s wrong doing.  

Some insurance companies offer optional Medical Payments Coverage for motorcycle policies, which is additional coverage that provides some minimal medical coverage to injured riders.  Riders should also check the amount of coverage available to them for collisions involving drivers without insurance or without enough insurance (known as Under Insured Motorist/ Uninsured Motorist or UIM/UM coverage).  In some instances, UIM/UM coverage can mean the difference between an accident and a tragedy.

Without the right protection, on top of physical impairment a motorcycle accident could result in enormous financial hardship.  Riders should manage that risk, by protecting themselves and making informed choices about insurance, before an injury occurs.  Feel free to call for a free insurance review now, before you need it.
                                                                                                                                    
Don’t let someone else’s mistake become your nightmare.

A resounding victory for New Jersey Police and Firemen suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder was handed down by the Appellate Division on July 13, 2011 in applying the Supreme Court’s intention to include psychiatric disabilities as a recognized disability in the matter of Guadagno v. Board of Trustees, PFRS, 194 N.J. 29 (2008). In Hayes v. Board of Trustees of the PFRS, A-2967-09T1, an officer’s mental disability was not obvious until shortly after the five year filing deadline, but because the date of manifestation was not until after the deadline and she filed her application within a reasonable period of time, benefits were allowed.  

Hayes was a police officer for the City of Trenton on December 20, 2001 when she was called to the scene of a domestic dispute. On arrival, she found her brother, a fellow officer, had been shot in the face and neck. As she tended to her brother, shots continued. Her brother survived, but she sought counseling and missed several weeks of work. She resumed work and experienced anxiety and insomnia which she attributed to “the norm for some police personnel”. Then in late summer 2006, she learned that a local gang had a “hit” out on her for her involvement in a highly publicized shooting in 1998 resulting in the death of a 15 year old girl.  

In September 2006 a seemingly inconsequential incident when she was reprimanded for not allowing a civilian employee access to her police computer, resulted in uncontrollable crying. She was placed on indefinite leave and sought medical attention for several months, but when she could no long afford the costs stopped treatment. She was advised not to continue working as a police officer and was terminated. She applied for an Accident Disability Pension on July 20, 2007. Benefits were denied as she did not apply within 5 years from the date of the triggering event. On appeal the Administrative Law Judge found that her failure to apply within the five years was due to the delayed manifestation of her disability, an exception to the filing requirements. She was unaware of the depth of her condition until May 2007 and filed within a reasonable period of time thereafter.  

The court relied heavily on In re Crimaldi, 396 N.J.Super.599 (App.Div. 2007), (delayed manifestation) and Guadagno, (mental-mental disability) in reaching this result. In Guadagno, the Court actually heard 3 consolidated matters that called upon the court to determine whether the mental-mental category of injury was intended to be included in the Accidental Disability Pension statute.  

The Guadagno decision came on the heels of the Court’s decision in Richardson v. Board of Trustess, PFRS, 192 NJ 189 (2007) outlining the requirements to prove a “traumatic event”. Abandoning the great rush of force definition in Kane v. Board of Trustees, PFRS, 100 NJ 651 (1985), it took on a more classic tort definition of “accident”. This standard is worth reviewing. In order to be eligible for a more lucrative accidental disability pension, a claimant must show

1. That he/she is permanently and totally disabled;
2. As a direct result of a traumatic event that is: a) identifiable as to time and place; b) undesigned and unexpected; and c) caused by a circumstance external to the member (not the result of pre-existing disease that is aggravated or accelerated by the work);
3. That the traumatic event occurred during and as a result of the member’s regular or assigned duties;
4. That the disability was not the result of the member’s willful negligence; and
5. That the member is mentally or physically incapacitated from performing his usual or any other duty.

In Guadagno, the Court recognized that a permanent mental disability without a physical injury can qualify for an accidental disability pension if the disability resulted from:

1. Direct personal experience of a terrifying or horror-inducing event that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury; or
2. A similarly serious threat to the physical integrity of the member or another person.

Corrections Officer Guadagno was ultimately awarded an accidental disability pension because the threat of death was made against him, but also against his family by an inmate who had personal knowledge of Guadagno and his family prior to his incarceration and sufficient gang related contacts on the outside to carry out the threats. Submission of prison records, affidavits of Officer Guadagno and his wife and newspaper clippings were convincing evidence that the threats were credible. Similarly in Hayes, Officer Hayes arrived on scene to find her brother, and fellow officer having been shot and injured. As she attended to her brother, the gunfire continued and she had to pull herself and her brother to safety to avoid further harm. She herself was in harm’s way.  

Mental disability claims are very fact sensitive. If you believe you have suffered a permanent disability as a result of a traumatic event, and the Pension Board denies your application, it is well worth the effort to discuss the specifics of your case with our attorneys who advocated on behalf of Officer Guadagno.

In a prior blog entry, I discussed the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises, LLC, case, where our NJ Supreme Court ruled that members of gyms and health clubs can be made to sign away their right to sue over injuries, except those caused by recklessness or gross neglect by the operators. In Stelluti, the Supreme Court wrote that “When a party enters into a signed, written contract, the party is presumed to understand and assent to its terms, unless fraudulent conduct is suspected.”

Now, in an unpublished opinion titled Allen v. LA Fitness International, which was decided on June 15,2011 by our Appellate Division, there the Court considered a case in which plaintiff Allen joined defendant LA Fitness International and signed an agreement for personal training sessions. Allen alleged simple negligence against defendant asserting that she suffered a shoulder injury that she sustained as a consequence of performing an unsafe exercise at the direction of a trainer who had failed to assess her condition and needs. Relying on Allen’s agreement to assume the risk of her activities with the personal trainer  and her release and waiver of claims based on negligence related to that activity, defendant filed a motion for a directed verdict which the trial court judge denied. The jury found defendant LA Fitness International negligent and awarded Allen $525,000. After defendant filed its notice of appeal, the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued its decision in the Stelluti case. Allen argued on appeal that her case is distinguishable from Stelluti because it involves a contract for a personal trainer. The Appellate Division disagreed with Allen and indicated that the holding in Stelluti is stated broadly to include “participation in instructed activity.” The Appellate Division ruled that Stelluti controls and requires reversal of the judgment and dismissal of Allen’s Complaint.

When I read the recent Allen decision, I thought back to Supreme Court Justice Barry Albin’s dissenting opinion in the Stelluti case in which he wrote, “Without the incentive to place safety over profits, the cost to the public will be an increase in the number of avoidable accidents in health clubs.”