In 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 MoreMinnesota 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 MoreA couple of months ago I posted some information regarding the dangers of “texting while driving.” Since then this topic seems to have been in the news on a daily basis. Anyone watching the Minneapolis nightly news during the last couple of days was again reminded that texting while driving can lead to devastating consequences. In October 2010, a twenty year old mother with two kids in her car is alleged to have struck a motorcyclist in Eden Prairie, MN while texting/talking on her phone. Luckily the motorcyclist was not killed but sustained life changing injuries requiring multiple surgeries. This week she was charged with multiple counts including criminal vehicular operation with injury. This felony charge in and of itself warrants a prison sentence. The tragic consequences are endless for all parties involved. While I make no claim to be an expert in this matter, I believe a good practice is to inform, inform and inform. Simply put, all drivers (young and old) need to know the real consequences that texting while driving creates. The following is an article prepared by Abhijit Naik detailing some meaningful statistics, regarding the topic, published by the Virginia Tech Driving Institute and the NHTSA. Dangers of Texting While Driving: Statistics A study by Virginia Tech Driving Institute…
Read More