Maryland Car Accident Attorney Blog

Maryland Court Discusses “One Satisfaction” Rule in Recent Personal Injury Case

May 13, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a case that originally arose after the plaintiff was injured in a Maryland car accident. The case required the court to determine if the plaintiff’s subsequent medical malpractice lawsuit against her treating physicians was precluded by the one satisfaction rule.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was injured in a car accident that was caused by another driver. The plaintiff was treated for her injuries at the defendant hospital. While she was being treated at the hospital, medical providers punctured the plaintiff’s brachial artery as they attempted to insert a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) line. The plaintiff developed an infection that required additional surgery.

The plaintiff initially filed a claim against the at-fault motorist seeking compensation for “emotional pain and suffering, past and future medical expenses, and the inability to engage in her usual employments, activities, and pursuits.” The plaintiff settled with the at-fault driver’s insurance company for $25,000, and then filed an underinsured-motorist claim with her insurance company. That claim was settled before trial for $125,000. The hospital was not a part of either settlement agreement.

The Importance of Determining the Relevant Standard in Maryland Car Accident Cases

May 7, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When an accident victim is injured due to the negligence of another person, the injured party can pursue a Maryland personal injury lawsuit against the party or parties she believes are responsible for her injuries. To succeed in a personal injury lawsuit, a plaintiff must be able to establish that the named defendants were legally negligent.

The standard used by courts to determine whether a defendant acted negligently will depend on a variety of factors. For example, Maryland law generally imposes a duty on all motorists to drive carefully and in accordance with all applicable traffic laws. On the other hand, Maryland premises liability law may only impose a duty on a landowner not to willfully or maliciously cause a visitor harm.

Most Maryland personal injury cases involve just one standard; however, it is not uncommon for the parties to argue over which standard applies. A recent case illustrates how important the determination of the legal standard can be to a personal injury case.

Pursuing a Maryland Wrongful Death Claim after a Serious Car Accident

April 26, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In the tragic event of the death of a loved one, family members may be able to file a Maryland wrongful death claim against the person or entity at fault for their loved one’s death. In Maryland, the Wrongful Death Act permits certain family members to bring a claim for damages after the death of a family member. The Act is meant to compensate families whose loved ones have died due to the wrongful acts of another person or entity.

The Wrongful Death Act is also intended to compensate families for their own loss as a result of the decedent’s death. Therefore, it can be filed only by certain family members, rather than the decedent’s estate. Generally, the family members that can bring a wrongful death claim are a spouse, parent or a child. If the decedent does not have a spouse, parent or child, any other person who is dependent on the deceased accident victim and who is related by blood or by marriage can bring the claim.

A wrongful act under the Wrongful Death Act is an “act, neglect, or default” that would have allowed the decedent to file a claim and recover damages if the decedent had not died. Plaintiffs may be entitled to recover damages for “pecuniary” losses, as well as damages for pain and suffering, parental care, loss of companionship and guidance. In general, a wrongful death claim in Maryland has to be brought within three years of the date of the decedent’s death. There are several exceptions, however, and anyone considering filing a Maryland wrongful death case should consult with a dedicated Maryland injury lawyer.

Virginia Court Discusses Collateral Source Doctrine in Recent Opinion

April 17, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion explaining how the collateral source doctrine is applied under Virginia personal injury law. The case actually involved a breach-of-contract claim, however, in answering whether the collateral source doctrine applied to breach-of-contract claims, the court thoroughly explained the collateral source doctrine, its origins, and how it applies in Virginia personal injury accidents.

In this case, the claim was between a power plant and contractor what was paid to perform certain work at the power plant. According to the court’s opinion, there was a boiler accident at the power plant that resulted in the deaths of three workers. The families of the deceased workers filed claims against the power plant, the contractor, and several other parties.

Evidently, there was a contract between the power plant and the contractor that required the contractor to obtain certain insurance coverage. However, the contractor did not purchase the specified insurance coverage. Nonetheless, after the power plant paid out nearly $5 million to settle the cases, and incurred nearly $10 million in legal fees, the power plant was fully reimbursed by all available insurance policies. However, the power plant pursued a breach-of-contract claim against the contractor, arguing that it failed to obtain the specified insurance. The court had to determine if the power plant could pursue such a claim, given the fact that it had undisputedly already recovered for the total costs of defending and settling the lawsuit.

Are Maryland Emergency Responders Immune from Liability While Responding to Maryland Car Accidents?

April 11, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When someone is seriously injured in a Maryland car accident, it is imperative that they receive immediate medical treatment. In some cases, waiting to provide an accident victim medical assistance until they arrive at the hospital may increase the risk of further injury or death. Maryland emergency responders (EMTs) are often in a position to provide interim medical treatment at the scene. However, sometimes EMTs are negligent, make the wrong decision, or act recklessly in providing care to accident victims and end up exacerbating a victim’s injuries.

When an EMT’s negligence results in an accident victim’s further injury, the accident victim may be able to pursue a Maryland personal injury claim against the EMT. However, lawmakers want to encourage qualified providers who find themselves in a position to assist the victims of serious accidents. Thus, under Maryland law, certain EMTs, firefighters, and other rescue workers may be immune from liability.

Maryland Code section 5-603 discusses when emergency medical providers are entitled to immunity. Specifically, the law states that a qualified medical provider is not liable for any act or omission related to assistance or medical care they provided if:

Can a Maryland Spouse Recover for Their Husband’s or Wife’s Injuries?

April 5, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Serious Maryland car accidents impact more than just those who are physically injured in the collision. Indeed, an accident victim’s spouse must also deal with the pain, anxiety, and fear that their spouse is going through. The aftermath of a car accident often takes a toll on even a strong marriage.

Understanding this reality, Maryland lawmakers allow for the spouse of an accident victim to pursue a loss of consortium claim against the at-fault parties. These are called loss of consortium claims. Maryland loss of consortium claims do not involve economic losses, most of which can be recovered through the injury victim’s claim. Instead, a loss of consortium claim compensates an accident victim’s spouse for a loss of companionship, affection, and assistance. This includes any negative impact that the accident had on the couple’s sex life.

To successfully establish a loss of consortium claim, the aggrieved party must show that they were legally married at the time of the accident. In Maryland, unlike some other states, there is no exception for couples who are not married but have remained in a committed relationship for a long period of time. Thus, marriage is a strict requirement. The spouse of an accident victim must also be able to show that the accident was the cause of the damage to the couple’s relationship. In other words, courts will not assume that an accident caused damages to the victims’ marriage and evidence must be presented to establish the link between the accident and the marital damage.

The Difficulties of Dealing with Insurance Companies after a Maryland Car Accident

March 26, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In Maryland, all motorists are required to maintain auto insurance. The purpose of requiring motorists to obtain car insurance is to ensure that, in the event of an accident, accident victims have an avenue of recovery to help them recover the costs associated with the accident.

An insurance contract is like any other contract. The insured pays a monthly premium and in exchange, the insurance company provides insurance. An insurance contract is a lengthy legal document, and the details of an insurance policy are typically complex. Among the many issues covered by an insurance contract, the document will explain the situations in which insurance coverage applies, the process by which the insured must file a claim, as well as the obligations of the insurance company to investigate the claim.

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion discussing an insurance company’s obligation to settle a meritorious claim that is within a policy’s limits. Ultimately, the court concluded that although an insurance company does have a duty to settle a claim that is within the policy limits, this duty is only triggered by the insured making an offer to settle. If you have questions about insurance pay-outs after an accident, reach out to a dedicated Maryland car accident attorney without delay.

Maryland Bad-Faith Claims against Insurance Companies

March 18, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Insurance companies want to minimize the amount they pay out in the event of a claim, and unfortunately, do not always compensate Maryland car accident victims according to what they deserve. If an insurer fails to fairly settle a claim, the insured may be able to pursue a claim of bad faith against the insurer. In a recent case before a state appeals court, the state found the plaintiff could pursue a claim of bad faith against GEICO after it failed to timely pay her insurance claim.

The Facts

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was in a car accident and suffered serious injuries. Another driver caused the car crash, and both she and the other driver were insured by GEICO. The plaintiff made a claim under the driver’s insurance coverage, as well as under her own insurance plan for underinsured motorist (UM) benefits.

After the plaintiff did not receive payment on the claims, she sued the driver and GEICO. GEICO then paid the plaintiff the maximum benefits under the at-fault driver’s policy, but refused to pay the plaintiff benefits under her UM policy. The plaintiff then filed a civil remedy notice (CRN) with the Department of Financial Services, and mailed GEICO a copy. GEICO subsequently agreed to pay the plaintiff her full UM benefits, but the plaintiff’s lawyer did not receive the check and release until almost three weeks later. This was 65 days after the CRN was filed with the Department of Financial Services.

Pursuing a Virginia Wrongful Death Case Following a Fatal Drunk Driving Accident

March 11, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In Virginia, like elsewhere in the country, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is against the law. However, despite the known dangers and potential criminal consequences of drunk driving, there are approximately 7,500 Virginia DUI car accidents each year. Not surprisingly, roughly half of these accidents result in injuries and about 250 result in at least one fatality.

Virginia’s Wrongful Death Statute

When someone is killed due to the negligence of another, the surviving family members of the accident victim may be able to pursue a claim for financial compensation against the at-fault parties. This is referred to as a Virginia wrongful death claim.

Under Virginia Code § 8.01-53, a wrongful death claim is brought by the personal representative of the accident victim’s estate for the benefit of the statutory beneficiaries of the accident victim. The statutory beneficiaries are the surviving spouse, any children of the deceased, as well as any grandchildren of the deceased (if the accident victim’s child is also deceased). If no person fits in the above category, the claim can be brought on behalf of parents, siblings, or any other relative who lived with the victim and relied upon them for support.

Maryland Employers Can Be Held Liable for the Negligent Acts of Their Employees

March 4, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When an employee causes a Maryland car accident, anyone injured as a result of the accident may be able to pursue a claim against both the negligent driver and their employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior. However, to establish employer liability in a Maryland car accident, the plaintiff must be able to show that the employee was acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the accident.

A recent decision issued by a state appellate court shows how claims against an employer can be proven, and the type of evidence that may be helpful pursuing such a claim.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was a pedestrian who was struck by a GMC truck as she was attempting to cross the street. Evidently, the driver of the truck (“the employee”) was an employee of the defendant HVAC company. The plaintiff filed a personal injury case against the employee as well as the defendant HVAC company, claiming that the company was responsible for the employee’s negligent acts because they were made while he was acting within the scope of his employment.