| |
March
2007
Dear friend,
Insurance companies in America strongly embrace the old adage: Less is more. And why shouldn't they? Less coverage has always meant more profits for the nation's insurers, especially when the cost of premiums remains the same or actually increases. The losers are the policy holders and the victims of negligence, who, with increasing frequency, find themselves surprised if not financially destroyed by this dangerous trend. Insurers are increasing their earnings by quietly stripping policy holders of the coverage they assume they have. Take the case of a young man viciously attacked by a neighbor's dog, suffering profound and permanent facial disfigurement, only to learn that his neighbor's homeowner's policy limited coverage for dog bites to just $25,000. The victim's medical bills alone were a multiple of this coverage and the likelihood that the victim will see even a dime in compensation is virtually non-existent. And what of the dog's owners? They face the potential loss of their home on account of inadequate insurance coverage previously available to more fully compensate the victim. This month's lesson: review your coverage. Don't just think about it. Take 30 minutes out of your life to review your homeowner's, auto and umbrella coverages each year and learn what you actually have or don't have in the way of liability coverage. Your time will be well spent.
Eric Parker
Does Your Insurance Cover Dog Attacks?
Each year on average, more than 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs. Of that number, an estimated 800,000 people require medical attention; half of those are children, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
In the majority of cases, dog owners are considered legally responsible for any injuries caused by a dog they own or "control," unless the owner can prove that the plaintiff teased, tormented or abused the dog prior to the attack. Many states, including Massachusetts, hold dog owners "strictly liable" for their dog's violent behavior; while in other States, owners are liable only if they had prior knowledge that their dog had the potential to become violent.
Read
full article...
|
| |
Premises Liability - Truck Driver Recovers $900,000.00 Following Off-Loading Incident
The plaintiff, a 60-year old professional truck driver, was delivering load of heavy material to an industrial vendor. During the off-loading process, being conducted by the defendant, a portion of the shipment fell on the plaintiff, pinning his legs to the ground. The plaintiff suffered a severe fracture of his tibia-fibula, which required the implantation of a metal rod to stabilize, and resulted in a severe post-operative infection and painful physical therapy. While the plaintiff managed to recover most of his mobility, he is unable to return to work as a professional truck driver. The case was settled prior to trial for $900.000.00. Eric J. Parker and Susan M. Bourque represented the plaintiff.
Trial
report for this premises liability case
Woman Suffers Severe Head, Neck and Knee Injuries, Resulting in Payment of $1.3 Million Dollars.
The plaintiff, a 50-year old former child abuse prevention counselor, was struck from behind by a passenger van being driven by the defendant. The plaintiff was at a complete stop with her left turn signal activated preparing for a left turn when she was struck by the plaintiff. Diagnostic tests revealed severe posterior disc herniations. The plaintiff also suffered a severe injury to her knee, later requiring a total knee replacement, which was complicated by a post-operative infection. The plaintiff also suffered from severe depression following the accident and memory impairment due to her injuries. The case was settled prior to trial for $1.3 Million Dollars. Eric J. Parker and Susan M. Bourque represented the plaintiff.
Trial
report for this car accident / motor vehicle negligence case |
