July 1, 2009

Missouri and Illinois Personal Injury Law - Insurance Company Duty to Handle Insured's Cases in Good Faith When Considering Demands

Most people outside the personal injury legal profession and liability insurance often do not understand the nature of the parties' relationships when a claim is made against someone for negligence. For example, lets take a Missouri car accident that results in an injury and a driver was negligent. When a personal injury claim is made (the "claimant" or "Plaintiff"), the insurance company for the at fault driver (the "insured" or "Defendant") handles it, if the personal injury claim cannot be settled and the at fault driver is sued the insurance company appoints a lawyer. More times than not, the law firm or lawyer appointed by the insurance company handles many cases for that particular insurance company; however, their ethical and legal duty is to represent the at fault driver or the "insured", that is their client, not the insurance company. This is a line that is all too often blurred in favor of the best interests of the insurance company rather than the insured. Moreover, the insurance company has a duty to defend in good faith and indemnify the insured for any settlement or judgment.

So what does it mean to defend in "good faith", quite simply, it means that the insurance company has a duty to consider the insured's interests and if those interests conflict with the insurance company's interests, good faith obligates the insurance company to sacrifice its interests in favor of the insured's. This was discussed by the Missouri Supreme Court in Zumwalt v. Utilities Insurance Company, 228 SW2d 750 (MO 1950) and affirmed by a recent case which upheld a bad faith judgment against Allstate Insurance Company for a little over 16 million dollars after they refused to settle a Missouri drunk driving case with severe injuries for policy limits of $50,000. See Johnson v. Allstate Insurance Company, 262 SW3d 658 (Mo App Ct WD 2008).

The Johnson case is a perfect example of bad faith by an insurance company involving a Missouri personal injury claim resulting from a Missouri drunk driving collision and subsequent lawsuit. The insured, Davis, had twice the legal limit and struck a car head on when he crossed the center line, both passengers in the other vehicle spent many weeks in the hospital and almost died. Several weeks after the accident the claimants/Plaintiffs were willing to settle the case for $50,000, Davis' (the insured's) policy limits, thus relieving him of any other potential judgment or legal action, done case should have been closed. However, Allstate failed to respond for several months to the demand for a case that was an obvious policy limits case. The demand expired after 60 days because Allstate would not pay its policy limits, why? they were looking out for Allstate rather than their insured. Even if the injuries were not that severe, a drunk driver is open to serious liability after a motor vehicle accident causing injury. The potential for high liability due to the reckless conduct of the drunk driver should have been enough for Allstate to tender policy limits to protect their insured.

So who brings the bad faith claim? In most cases the claimant or Plaintiff takes an assignment of the cause of action from the insured or defendant in exchange for a promise not to try and collect from the insured or defendant personally and just go after the insurance company because they refused to settle the case when they had an opportunity. Under Missouri and Illinois bad faith, the insurance company is liable for any judgment in excess of the policy limits if they refused to settle the case when they had the opportunity and enough information to justify resolving the case for such an amount.

This is a necessary and reasonable tool for Plaintiffs and insureds to have, without it large insurance companies would use their financial clout and resources to spend all victims of personal injury, with viable claims, out of legitimate claims to protect their bottom line and to the determent of victims and their insureds.

Currently we are handling several Missouri and Illinois serious injury claims arising from drunk driving accident wherein the insurance companies are using delay tactics and acting in bad faith while the victims, my clients, are the targets of medical bill collectors, some are close to poverty because their injuries left them with the inability to work, and their lives are forever changed for the worse. These case were previously mentioned int his blog and will be updated:


Good Samaritan struck by drunk driver, severely injured, partial disability

Illinois Drunk Driving Accident - Drunk Truck Driver Severely Injures 4 Teenagers - traumatic brain injuries.

Illinois Drunk Driving Accident Lawsuit - High Speed Rear End Collision at Intersection - Driver Pleads Guilty to DUI

In this above immediately above, we demanded policy limits, Allstate rejected, several months later during the defendant/insured's deposition he testified that he was completely unaware my client had demanded policy limits or that she was willing to settle with in his policy limits. A key indicator of Bad Faith by the insurance company for failure to inform their insured of a settlement offer within auto insurance policy limits. Clear evidence of Allstate looking out for themselves, not their insured. "Good hands", sure they are.

Also, excellent article summarizing Illinois Bad Faith Insurance Law

Illinois Bad Faith Law - Insurance Company refusal to settle - another excellent article regarding bad faith insurance law in Illinois

June 18, 2009

Zicam Lawsuits - Anosmia (Loss of Smell) Resulting From Use

Zicam%20injury%20lawyer%20loss%20of%20smell.jpg As many people have heard, Zicam, a popular homeopathic product that claims its use shortens the length of a cold, was the subject of a 12 million dollar class action settlement in 2006, however, the product remained on the market. Now the FDA has issued an advisement cautioning consumers against using Zicam.

Currently, the personal injury lawyers at Sansone Law are representing several individuals for loss of smell and against Zicam. If you believe you have suffered Anosmia (loss of smell) from the use of Zicam you may have a case.

The loss of smell is a very serious and debilitating problem that also practically eliminates someones sense of taste along with their sense of smell due to the interplay between taste and smell. For more detail on Anosmia - loss of smell and it affects see the Anosmia Foundation.

Contact Us Now - Injury Lawyers that handle Zicam Loss of Smell Cases

Zicam and other Homeopathic remedies largly unregulated - Dever Post Article

June 15, 2009

Obama Speech to American Medical Association - Not Advocating Damage Caps

For about a week myself and other personal injury lawyers were waiting to see the President's speech to the AMA in Chicago, IL today. For about a week there have been concerns that Obama would advocate limitations on medical malpractice cases in order to get the AMA to support his health care initiatives.

Today, I was relieved when I heard him say the following:

"[...] I’m not advocating caps on malpractice awards which I believe can be unfair to people who’ve been wrongfully harmed, I do think we need to explore a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first, let doctors focus on practicing medicine, and encourage broader use of evidence-based guidelines. That’s how we can scale back the excessive defensive medicine reinforcing our current system of more treatment rather than better care.”

Personal injury trial lawyers are usually painted as the special interest group that does not want any limitation on injury lawsuits. This is true as personal injury lawyers are the only group that advocate for those who may be harmed in the future. Individuals and families that have never been affected by medical mistakes usually see this issue as lawyer greed, however, those same people realize the importance of the issue of patient rights and justice as soon as their lives are touched by it.

June 10, 2009

Missouri Injury Law - Court cannot force Plaintiff to consent to Ex Parte meetings or contact by defense lawyer with Plaintiff's treating physician in informal discovery

Recently, a Missouri personal injury defendant sought an order by the trial court compelling the Plaintiff to sign an authorization allowing the defendant's counsel to meet with Plaintiff's treating doctor without the plaintiff or any of their representatives present, as the doctor refused to do so without an authorization. The case went to the Western District Court of Appeals on a writ of prohibition, the Court ruled yesterday that a personal injury plaintiff cannot be compelled to sign an authorization consenting to an ex parte communication with their treating physician.

The court found "nothing in the discovery rules which gives the circuit court the authority to compel a
party to sign a medical authorization form when informal discovery is involved. Of course, a
party may consent to signing a medical authorization form during informal discovery, but the
circuit court cannot force a party to do so."

The full opinion is available here: Ex rel. Collins v Roldan

May 28, 2009

Dangerous Condition on Roadway Caused Cyclist Injuries - Assumption of the Risk Not a Grounds for Dismissal

Recently, a cyclist that was injured due to a dangerous condition on the roadway almost had her case dismissed based on assumption of risk claim by the Defendant. The court of appeals ruled that cycling on the roadway is not assumption of the risk. In their case their was a dangerous "lip" in the roadway due to new asphalt and old asphalt coming together, however, the dangerous part about it was that there was not warning and the lip is not seen until the last second by cyclists. See - Bike Accident Lawyer Article - Refusal to Dismiss based on Assumption of the Risk Arguments.

the primary reasons I discuss this are that I am a bike accident personal injury lawyer and am currently representing an injured cyclist in St Louis Missouri that was injured under similar circumstances. As posted in a previous blog, my client was injured as the result of a a large fire hose laid across the road in spot that is not seen till the last second, at the bottom of a steep hill, and without any warning signs. See - St Louis Missouri Bike Accident Injury Lawyer Case.

May 22, 2009

At the end of any personal injury lawyer advertisement you will hear something similar to "The choice of a lawyer is an important one and should not be based on advertising alone"

This is disclaimer that should be taken very seriously. Think of how many personal injury lawyer advertisements there are where they claim they will get the best result for you, and some even go so far as to diminish the professionalism of our business by making juvenile advertisements and claims. Ask yourself, do they ever is back up their claims with proven experience and results with successful personal injury cases?

I was browsing the Internet recently,and a reputable lawyer in Maryland was discussing his disgust with outrageous and frankly embarrassing advertisements by injury lawyers. See Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog

This attorney cited several injury lawyer ads listed in an Esquire magazine blog showing some of the most outrageous lawyer commercials around. While they are funny, it is also very serious topic, as many people hire lawyers based on these ridiculous and exaggerated ads. If you are form the St Louis are, you should recognize the third commercial down titled "the good guys". See Outrageous Lawyer Ads Article

As stated above and at the end of many injury lawyer advertisements, the choice of a lawyer is an important one and should not be based on advertisements alone. Many of these commercials do not back their claims up with results or discuss cases that were not handled by their own firm.

All cases discussed in my blog are cases I personally handled, each and every case discussed and illustrated on my website were handled by me. Except for only a very few cases discussed on my blog, but then I specifically state it was not a case I handled.

Be careful, many websites will publish outstanding results but do not specify that the case was theirs or not, thus implying to many people that the case was theirs.

So do not decide on a lawyer based on advertising, decide on a lawyer for other reasons, including, personal injury lawyers with experience backed up by past results, not silly claims crafted by marketing managers.

May 20, 2009

Ignition Interlock and DWI - article by visiting author Kimberly Peterson

The recent enactment of legislation in Missouri requires an ignition interlock on drivers who have been convicted of two or more DWI charges, thus making the roadways safer for all drivers. RSMo. 577.600 upheld that this is required on all vehicles that are operated by such repeat convicted offenders and is a required condition of the limited driving privilege for a short period. Only three states in the nation do not have any laws that require ignition interlock devices: Alabama, South Dakota, and Vermont. However, the rest of the nation believe that mandatory ignition interlocks are a necessary need for repeat DWI offenders; 85% of the general public agree with this law and offenders themselves believe it is essential towards helping to curb their addiction with drinking and driving.

Missouri was one of the first states to implement this law for repeat offenders; ten other states have issued the law as prudent for first time DWI offenders, while many other states offer discretionary status of the law. The ignition interlock has been hailed as one of the most effective tools in the fight against drunk driving. Statistics in Missouri alone have revealed that almost 20 percent of highway deaths are a result of drunk driving, many of which were double the legal limit. This new device helps in ending the decades long debate against drunk driving while not infringing on public liberties. It is more useful in noting that offenders themselves believe this sanction to be fair and effective in forcing them to remain sober when operating their vehicle.

The ignition interlock device works by requiring the driver to blow into a type of breathalyzer which does not turn on the engine if the BAC is higher than a predetermined amount, usually around .025 in Missouri. Additionally, many interlock devices now require that the driver blow into them a second time while the car is in motion to guarantee that the driver themselves was the person blowing into the device (many times, a friend initially blows into the device). This second testing is not mandatory on all of the devices, but is an important aspect to guaranteeing the safety of roads from repeat offenders. If the driver fails this test, however, the car does not shut itself off as this is dangerous on a busy street, but rather sets of the alarm and causes the car to honk and flash unless the vehicle stops. This is important to alerting law enforcement to the driver’s condition; the device itself cannot stop the car once it is running, but this method is effective in causing the driver to stop the car.

Thus far, the device has been very effective in curbing the persistence of drunk drivers who continue their repeat behavior after multiple convictions. While many states have passed this law after first-time offenders, Missouri remains in the range of multiple convictions. It therefore becomes important to decide whether or not it should be made a mandatory device of first-time offenders. Organizations such as MADD list the fact that most first-time offenders have driven drunk around 87 times before they are pulled over for a first offense. This consequently determines that the device should be mandatory for many first-time offenders because of their previous actions, although Missouri has yet to include this in the law thus far. The addition of this law in general has proven to be a milestone in preventing repeat drunk drivers and has helped to ensure the general public’s safety on roadways.

This post was contributed by Kimberly Peterson, who writes about the criminal justice degree online. She welcomes your feedback at KimPeterson2006 at gmail.com

This was a contribution by a visiting author not associated with Sansone Law, LLC and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of Sansone Law, LLC or Missouri InjuryLaw Blog or any of its personal injury lawyers or staff.

May 15, 2009

Erin's Corner - #2: Further Discovery and Comment about the World of Missouri and Illinois Personal Injury Law

Continuing on my journey to personal injury law discovery - some would describe as my own “trail of tears” - I have come across many different points of view from different sides. This is in-part a response to some emailed comments and questions I received and in-part a declaration of my recent discoveries. But here is what I know so far:

I don’t like the blemish that personal injury attorneys are seemingly required to wear. It’s the proverbial pimple in the middle of the forehead that detracts from the supermodel’s otherwise flawless face. We have all made our own little snarky attorney comments. We are all well aware of the “sharks” out there. Ad nauseam! I had a great mental picture of how this all worked. Mighty Joe client, down on the field, preparing to charge the innocent and weak defendant (dollar sign appropriately painted on his back), while hundreds of personal injury attorneys stood salivating, with calculators in hand, eagerly cheering Joe on.

Really, not all attorneys are the hostile piranha, ready to devour every doctor, small business owner or large corporation’s bank account, they are made out to be. You simply cannot lump them all together. We don’t hear about every car accident on the evening news because they are unfortunately so common. However, if there is a train wreck, it is covered by every station. They are decidedly less common. We always hear about those greedy personal injury attorneys that have wiped out companies, because they are not the norm. They are train wrecks. They are, without a doubt, the infection causing the big fat zit!

Most of you are visiting this site, obviously seeking an attorney.

Some of you may be feeling a bit guilty for considering a possible lawsuit. You don’t necessarily want to crush the culpable party, but you do need restitution and accountability for their mistake. You do not want to appear greedy, but medical bills are piling up. Ockham’s razor: don’t hire a train wreck! Hire an attorney with a reputation of one that uses the law for the goal of righting wrongs, not for financing dream beach houses. Don’t, not hold someone accountable because of a few trains that fell off the tracks. I find it interesting that personal injury attorneys appear more forgiving than most of their critics. Attorneys meet with some potential clients that literally reek with laziness and greed, yet they do not assume each client that walks through their door is out to retire off someone else. They assume that this person or person’s family has been wronged.

When I wrote in Blog#1, …..”he does not take cases without merit”, I unwittingly assumed readers knew that no attorney in their right mind would take a case destined for failure. Attorneys take cases where they can assume a probability of a positive outcome. By “merit” I was referring to the type of case described in the previous paragraph. Merit - meaning the quality of being deserving. Not “a case I can make a ton of dough off of.” Quite the opposite of that actually. This firm represents injured parties. Not greedy parties.

May 15, 2009

Premise Liability - St Louis Missouri - Defective and Unmaintained Security Doors - Rape of woman inside her own apartment

st%20louis%20missouri%20injury%20lawyer%20-%20premise%20liability%20-%20rape.jpg Currently, I am handling a St Louis personal injury premise liability and negligent maintenance/security case arising from an apartment complex owner or manager's complete failure to maintain and repair outer security doors of the apartment buildings in the complex. The failure to keep these doors operable allowed several assailants to walk right into the apartment building, kick in the inner door to my client's apartment (which is a flimsy wood door) and proceed to rob and brutally rape her at gun point.

Apartment complexes are places that are often open to the public, thus, the apartment property owner has an obligation to provide a safe environment. Especially when the area is a known high crime area. We pulled the St Louis County police records that indicated over 200 calls to 911 from the apartment complex reporting crimes occurring there. Of those, there were about a dozen violent crimes that occurred in the year prior to our client becoming a victim to sexual assault, including two reported rapes. This is direct evidence that the apartment owner or managers knew or should have known about the potential danger, thus putting them on legal notice to substantiate a Missouri personal injury claim based on premise liability and negligent maintenance or security.

Apartment complex owners have a legal obligation to maintain the property in a safe condition, to protect their renters from personal injury. Common injuries include burglary, robbery, parking lot rape, sexual assaults, and murder that result from inadequate or negligent security.

Most shocking was that almost all of the building in the complex had defective, unmaintained, and just plain inoperative security doors. I walked through the entire complex and several residents showed me how easily their young children could just pull on the security doors and they would open or the doors were in such disrepair that the locking mechanism was missing entirely or would not latch to the door frame.

Premise Liability - Negligent Security at Apartment - $9 Million Verdict
Download file

Negligent security at apartment complex, rape in parking lot - $2.5 Million settlement.
Download file


May 11, 2009

Loss of Smell (Anosmia) Injuries - Jury Verdicts and Settlements Across the Country

Currently, I am representing an Illinois personal injury victim that suffered severe injury to his nose after being struck in the face when using a defective log splitter. See - Illinois Products Liability Personal Injury - Nose Injury & Loss of Smell.

My client lost his sense of smell as a direct result of the defective product. The case is currently in settlement negotiations, however, if we are not able to resolve the case we will be proceeding with a lawsuit. This is not a common injury, so a little research revealed some substantial verdicts and settlements wherein loss of smell was a primary injury.

$500,000 awarded to man who loses sense of smell as result of a fall down an Elevator shaft (http://www.siaccident.com/CM/Custom/Results.asp)

$1.2 MILLION. Recovery for emotional difficulties and loss of sense of smell and taste
Plaintiff carpenter fell six-feet from a scaffold, striking his head on the floor. Although diagnostic tests, including an MRI, did not show a brain injury, the plaintiff's family noticed a change in his behavior, and he complained of emotional difficulties and a loss of sense of smell and taste. (http://www.accidentslawyernewyork.com/verdicts-settlements)

$850,000 obtained for plaintiff
Woman strikes head in a car accident causing frontal subdural hematoma resulting in loss of sense of smell.
(http://www.gellerandsiegel.com/CM/Custom/Verdicts-Settlements.asp )

$12,000,000.00 ZICAM maker settles lawsuit over User’s Loss of Smell

Class action lawsuit alleging varying loss of smell for about 300 users.
(http://www.thedenverchannel.com/7newsinvestigates/6279576/detail.html)

$600,000 products liability settlement for loss of smell
Truck driver whose primary injury was the loss of his sense of smell. The truck driver claimed a design defect in a milk truck because it failed to provide a grab handle on the rear driver's side of the truck.
(http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/2006/06/600000_settlement_in_products.html )

May 5, 2009

Missouri Medical Malpractice - "Res Ipsa Loquitur" now a cause of action in Missouri medical negligence cases

If you are not a personal injury lawyer the first question you may have is what does Res Ipsa Loquitur mean and what does it have to do with personal injury law or Missouri medical malpractice?

Res Ipsa Loquitur is Latin for "the thing speaks for itself." It is a legal doctrine which dictates that when a personal injury occurs and there is no way the personal injury could have happened in the absence of negligence, then the injured victim does not have to prove a specific act of negligence.

Res Ipsa, under Missouri law, is an evidentiary rule allowing the jury to infer that a loss or injury was caused by a negligent act of the defendant, without requiring the victim to prove a specific act or acts of negligence.

Generally, res ipsa was not allowed for Missouri medical malpractice cases (except for very limited exceptions) until just recently after the Missouri Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in Sides v St Anthony's Medical Center, 258 S.W. 3d 811 (Mo. 2008). The Sides court ruled res ipsa is possible for all med mal cases as long as the following res ipsa elements are present and a medical expert testifies to such:

(a) the occurrence resulting in injury was such as does not ordinarily happen if those in charge use due care;
(b) the instrumentality involved was under the management and control of the defendant; and
(c) the defendant possesses superior knowledge or means of information as to the cause of the occurrence.

Now tort deform advocates try to argue that res ipsa allows a "presumption" of negligence and allows personal injury lawyers to unfairly target doctors. This is absolutely not true. It allows only an "inference" which still must be proven by the Plaintiff as more likely than not to have been below the standard of care and the proximate cause of the injury or loss.

An obvious example of why this is necessary: if you undergo an operation and wake up with a surgical device left in your body, you may not be able to prove the specific act (i.e. negligent doctor used the device, put it in the body, and forgot to take it out) because you were unconscious and maybe you see nothing about the device being left in you noted in the records as you have no control over them. Clearly, someone was negligent. The personal injury medical malpractice victim should not be forced to prove a specific act of negligence if there is no evidence of it. A surgical tool is not left in your body without someone being negligent. There are many cases that are not as clear and obvious as the example above; however, if a medical expert testifies that a particular result does not occur in the absence of negligence, then there is a submissible cause of action in Missouri for medical negligence.

Clearly, in the medical malpractice field this was a greatly needed victims' right issue, as health care providers possess much superior knowledge to what is going on in the operating room and the defendant is often the only witness to the negligence, which can easily be distorted or simply left out of the defendant's report. Trust me, this DOES happen more often than you may think. I have personally had doctors and nurses admit this to me off the record on several occasions.

Current Missouri medical malpractice case we are pursuing on a res ipsa theory as all the evidence of negligence was within the control of the defendant.

Example of Missouri Medical Malpractice Petition alleging Res Ipsa

May 1, 2009

Erin's Corner - Introduction to St Louis personal injury from the perspective of a non lawyer and former personal injury law skeptic

I’m new to the Missouri and Illinois personal injury law firm known as Sansone Law, LLC and new to personal injury law. I am also the new legal assistant to Mr Sansone and will be writing a blog entry once a week.

My background is as a legal assistant to domestic/family law attorneys. I found myself in need of a job and was referred to this firm by a friend. When I heard this was a St Louis Missouri personal injury firm, I admit, I snarled a bit. Like most of you, my image of personal injury attorneys was of slick, omnivorous ambulance chasers, who dramatized every spilled coffee and grocery store fall. Being a research fanatic, I decided to find out more about this firm and what exactly personal injury attorneys do. So between the introductory phone call and the offer of employment, I did my homework. I have to say, my eyes were opened. I admit….I was wrong. So for all of you kindred cynics out there, let me break it down. This is what this particular personal injury law firm does. And this is why personal injury attorneys are so very needed.

The joke is that waitresses and beauticians are the only people not allowed to make mistakes. But the reality is, food can be remade and hair will eventually grow back. But what about errors made by professionals, corporations and manufacturers that are more difficult, if not impossible, to fix. They should be held to a strict standard of culpability for wrongdoing.

Most people immediately associate personal injury law with medical professionals. I know I did. Doctors do have an especially great obligation to serve their patients. My friend is dying of cancer and it is my belief that the erroneous methods used by her physician took away any chance for her recovery. There was no malicious intent behind his actions, but he was negligent and he should be held accountable.

I hear people question time and time again, what good would filing a lawsuit do, the damage has been done. Through carelessness, their mother, father or child has been injured or has even died. Why exacerbate the sorrow by filing a lawsuit? Two major reasons come to mind: personal injury cases are about accountability and compensation. We must get out of the mindset that lawsuits are for retribution. Lawsuits are not motivated by greed. Filing a lawsuit against a medical professional is supposed to stimulate a greater sense of responsibility in them. Also, families of victims of negligent acts need this option for a small amount of restitution for their loss. While no monetary sum can replace the loss, victims should not be responsible for the financial burdens that have accumulated through other’s carelessness.

Look through some of the firm’s cases listed on this site. You will find that loss is not only defined by the death of a loved one. There is loss of time at work or with family, loss of physical mobility in addition to financial loss. See how this firm has been relentless in making sure negligent drivers, corporations, medical professions, and other institutions and individuals are held accountable for their actions.

How many of you were told as a child, “You are known by the company you keep.” It does not matter if it is the choice of a friend you associate with or boss you work for. I needed a job, but I could afford to be a little picky. I was not going to knowingly choose to work for a person with a bad reputation. As I’m sure you deduced from the first paragraph, I tend to be a little too judgmental sometimes. I’m a tough critic. But, I guess I’m still waiting for the shoe to drop.

Mr. Sansone has a reputation for conquering tough cases where other firms could not. But make no mistake; he does not take cases without merit. Quite frankly, you do not want an attorney who is not passionate about your situation nor confident about your case. I encourage you to look at his qualifications. Look at his track record. Many of these cases you see were hand-offs from other firms that just could not get the job done. Contact him with any questions you may have. You should never be intimidated or apprehensive in speaking with your attorney because they work for you.

I hope you continue to read the blogs posted weekly. I hope you email me with your own experiences, topics you would like to discuss or questions you may have.