Category: Personal Injuries
To All Do-It-Yourselfers: Call Before Going To Conciliation Court After a Car Crash
July 25, 2011 | John T. BuchmanWith the internet and so many resources available, many people are doing things on their own without hiring others in order to save money. Conciliation Court is actually set up for the “Do-It-Yourself-er” to resolve legal disputes involving up to $7,500.00. However, a person involved in a car crash that uses Conciliation Court can unwittingly lose other rights arising form that same crash. A recent Minnesota Supreme Court case highlights the danger. The Court ruled on July 20, 2011, that the injured party who had previously won a judgment in Conciliation Court for damages to her car could continue for her claim with physical injuries but had to forfeit her Conciliation Court judgment and repay the defendant. The Supreme Court overturned a Court of Appeals decision that threw out her personal injury claim. Plaintiff ran into a little-known doctrine which prevents “splitting a cause of action.” This generally means that you can’t sue the same defendant or an agent of the defendant more than once for different claims arising from the same injury. Plaintiff, at first brought a Conciliation Court claim for property damage when the defendant’s insured failed to pay for all of the damage to her car. She hadn’t hired a lawyer yet but had talked to one briefly. She tried…
Read MoreProtecting Your Family with Car Insurance: Buyer Beware
June 7, 2011 | John T. BuchmanIn the past, I have recommended that you review your insurance coverages, particularly your homeowner’s and car insurance, and increase them when appropriate. This blog post addresses an unexpected exclusion found in some automobile policies that actually deprive you of coverage to your injured family members under certain circumstances. At least two insurance companies have an exclusion known as a “drop down” limitation that dramatically lessens the insurance coverage available to you and your family members if another family member’s driving conduct was a cause of their injuries. This is particularly relevant as we enter the summer family vacation and driving season. Two recent cases, one by the Minnesota Court of Appeals and one by the Eighth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals[1] have both enforced a “drop down” limitation that restricts claims by injured family members to the minimum amount of coverage mandated by Minnesota law, which is $30,000 per person and $60,000 per accident. In both cases, family members were either killed or seriously injured and suffered losses far in excess of these minimum limits. I’m sure that neither of the parents who purchased the insurance ever envisioned that their own family members would be hurt by this unexpected limitation. In the Frey case, the 17 year-old son was driving a car…
Read MoreThe Minnesota No-Fault Act: Long Overdue Changes Needed
May 25, 2011 | John T. BuchmanMinnesota passed the “No-Fault Act” in 1974 and it became effective on January 1, 1975. The purpose of the Act was, among other things, to insure prompt payment of certain types of benefits to replace lost wages and to pay for medical care. Minn. Stat. 65B.42. One of the goals was to reduce public funds being used to help uncompensated victims of car crashes who could not afford medical care or could not work because of injuries suffered in a car crash. Another goal was to eliminate small value lawsuits and reduce the drain on judicial resources. In return, injured people gave up certain rights too, namely that they must satisfy a tort “threshold” to recover any non-economic losses from the party causing the collision. One of the main “thresholds” is whether or not the person suffered a “permanent” injury. At trial, injured people lose approximately 40-50{a0c01d20c42349884e67ff80c137866b0a9fe47aaae8f8a86a605a369ae487c3} of the time and recover nothing because a jury finds that they have not suffered a “permanent” injury. One of the no-fault benefits is reimbursement for lost wages. Initially, the legislature indicated that a person could obtain 85{a0c01d20c42349884e67ff80c137866b0a9fe47aaae8f8a86a605a369ae487c3} of their lost wages subject to a maximum of $200 per week. In 1979 the maximum wage loss amount was increased to $250 per week. Unfortunately, in the…
Read More