Blog Home

Maryland Legislature Passes Major Insurance Reform Bill
Posted by: Larry Lapidus
April 08, 2010
Topic: Maryland Legislature Passes Major Insurance Reform Bill

Maryland General Assembly To Increase Protection for Maryland Accident Victims

My comment: The increase in the minimum coverage for motor vehicle insurance (from 20k to 30k per person and from 40k to 60k per accident if more than one claimant) is an improvement, but still not enough coverage for any significant injury which causes functional impairments in the activities of daily living. See article below.

Every consumer should check their UIM coverage in their own policies to ensure you have a MINIMUM of 100k, which is still not enough for a catastrophic loss, so buy more UIM coverage if at all feasible. If you do not own an automobile or live in a household with one owned by an immediate family member, buy a non-owners policy of insurance to protect you if struck as a pedestrian or if a passenger in a vehicle. Everyone should purchase as much insurance as the can comfortably afford, but no less than 100k UM/UIM insurance and 5-10k for Maryland PIP coverage.

Columbia, MD - April 7, 2010 - Today the Maryland Senate passed House Bill 825, which for the first time raises minimum automobile insurance requirements in Maryland. The Senate vote was 27 to 20. The measure previously passed the House on a vote of 97-36 with broad bipartisan support (over 25% of House Republicans - including the Assistant Minority Leader and a Deputy Whip voted for the measure). Based on past public statements, Governor O'Malley is expected to sign the bill into law.

This vote follows a growing trend among states to increase minimum insurance requirements to recognize the effect of inflation on medical bills for people injured by negligent drivers.

The purpose of minimum liability insurance is to ensure people have money to pay their medical bills and recover their lost wages if hit by a negligent driver. Maryland first enacted mandatory minimum insurance in 1972 to provide for $20,000 coverage per individual and $40,000 coverage per incident. At that time average income was $11,800, the average cost of a doctor's visit was $5, hospitals charged $350 for delivery of a baby, the average cost of a new car was $3,853, the average new home cost was $27,550, average rent was $147 per month, and a gallon of gasoline cost 50 cents.

Over the past 38 years since 1972 until today, Maryland had never adjusted minimum insurance requirements to account for the devastating effects of inflation. A full inflation adjustment would require raising minimum insurance to $103,000 per person and $206,000 per incident.

Assuming the Governor's signature, enactment of the measure will NOT cause insurance premiums to rise for over 90% of Maryland drivers (i.e.
those who already purchase $30,000 or more of liability insurance).

Insurance companies opposed to the bill assert that the remaining less than 10% of drivers will see a premium increase; however, that claim is doubtful and disputed. Historically, the insurance industry has always opposed insurance reform by claiming rates will rise as a result (for example, in opposing repeal of parent-child immunity, in opposing a bill to bar the "family exclusion" and in opposing a bill allowing insureds to sue insurance companies for lack of good faith in settling claims).
In each instance, subsequent history did not bear out the insurance industry's assertion.

Interestingly, this bill marked the first time that the Maryland Hospital Association (MHA) and the Maryland Association for Justice
(MAJ) worked together for insurance reform. MAJ hopes to work with the MHA and others in the future to tackle abusive insurance practices.

Permalink

Settlement Reached
Posted by: Larry Lapidus
March 11, 2010
Topic: Settlement Reached

A settlement has been reached between Prince George's County and a man who was allegedly beaten without provocation by one of the county's police officers in December 2007. According to the lawsuit, Robert L. Scott Jr. was severely beaten outside a Bladensburg nightclub by a police officer who claimed he was "resisting arrest." The lawsuit also claims the officer conspired with another to falsely charge Scott with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. The charges were dropped when the officers failed to show up for trial. The settlement figure was $100,000. - Ruben Castaneda, The Washington Post


My comment: I handle these type of cases. Security guards at nightclubs are frequently not trained and violence-prone with no judgment. Sometimes, they have anger management issues which come out when dealing with innocent patrons. If you or someone you know was injured through the actions of a nightclub security guard, you should contact me immediately to find out whether there is a case worth pursuing.

Permalink

Toy Chest Dangerous, Lawsuit Claims
Posted by: Larry Lapidus
March 10, 2010
Topic: Toy Chest Dangerous, Lawsuit Claims

Retail giant Target has been named in a lawsuit by a Butler County, Penn., family who claim a wicker trunk they bought from the store and used as a toy chest trapped their toddler daughter's neck and left her in a vegetative state. Eric and Laura Surman say in the lawsuit that the lid of the trunk snapped down on their daughter's neck, cutting off oxygen to her brain. She suffered a severe lack of oxygen to the brain, resulting in spastic quadriplegia, severe psychomotor mental retardation. The lawsuit claims Target should have inserted a lid support on the chest or put a warning label on the product, and that Target has known for years that the trunks were potentially hazardous. - Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10068/1041229-54.stm

Permalink

Trial Lawyers & Health Care Reform
Posted by: Larry Lapidus
September 30, 2009
Topic: Trial Lawyers & Health Care Reform

Trial Lawyers & Health Care Reform

By: Anthony Tarricone President

American Association for Justice

August was quite the month in the ongoing health care saga. Death panels. Scaring seniors. Angry mobs discovering new villains to blame for the terrible health care system we find ourselves having to fix today.

And then we have the tried-and-tested scapegoat for all of America's ills and woes: trial lawyers.

Let's face it: Trial lawyers - and all attorneys, for that matter - aren't revered by the public at large (unless you need one). But for those who want to stick it to the trial bar, this bill is your chance.

We can lower costs, help cover the uninsured and even put trial lawyers out of business.

No, it's not tort reform. We're demanding solutions that actually work.

And preventing medical errors in the first place - an epidemic that plagues our entire health care system - will result in less litigation, lower costs and healthier patients.

Let's cut the wheat from the chaff: Tort reform will do nothing to fix health care. Forty-six states have already done it, and costs have continued to skyrocket. The Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office have said tort reform will save practically no money, and they found no evidence of defensive medicine. Medical malpractice suits are less than 1 percent of all civil filings - and this has declined 8 percent during the past decade. The research is definitive and absolute, and those claiming otherwise are just trying to obstruct health care reform altogether.

More than 98,000 people die every year from preventable medical errors, according to the Institute of Medicine. That report is 10 years old, and estimates are the number has gotten significantly worse. This is the equivalent of two 737s crashing every day for a whole year. If planes were crashing like this today, would we focus on giving airlines immunity or making air travel safer?

So this is how you really put trial lawyers out of business: Just cut down on the errors. Fewer errors mean fewer complications - or fewer people who will need legal recourse. Electronic medical records, bar-coding equipment, tagging surgical instruments and routine operating room checklists are just a few measures that can decrease errors. And there are countless more that can corral this epidemic and make patient safety a priority once again.

In the past few weeks, some pundits or talking heads have demanded to know, "What have the trial lawyers sacrificed to get health care passed?" But this isn't about trial lawyers. It's about patients, hurt through no fault of their own, left with debilitating injuries or worse.

This bill is about health care, not bargaining away people's legal rights.

But health care reform may still provide ample opportunity to put away the trial bar. We would welcome it. Fewer people who need legal recourse means injuries are more infrequent and health care is getting safer.

But taking away people's legal rights is the entirely wrong way to do it. That's saying it is acceptable for 98,000 people to die every year, with thousands more injured, because of preventable medical errors. And that's also saying it is OK to dictate what their lives are worth or whether they should have any recourse at all. Such a proposition is ridiculous.

We welcome a health care system that has fewer injuries, safer patients and lower costs. But bargaining away people's legal rights isn't a suitable alternative. That isn't a bill we can call health care or reform.

Permalink

Surgical Accident
Posted by: Larry Lapidus
August 11, 2009
Topic: Surgical Accidents

On July 9, 20 year-old Airman Colton Read underwent routine surgery on his gallbladder. During surgery, however, a relatively inexperienced doctor nicked his aorta, resulting ultimately, in the loss of both his legs. This tragedy has helped to shine new light on the Feres doctrine, which prevents active-duty members of the military from filing suit for medical negligence.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram's story is available here:

Permalink