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.

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:

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.

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Continue Reading

While the number of Maryland drunk driving accidents continues to slowly decrease year over year, impaired driving is still a leading cause of Maryland car accidents. Indeed, according to the most recent government statistics, there are on average 443 people seriously injured and 160 killed in Maryland drunk driving accidents each year. Drunk driving poses such a danger to Maryland motorists that impaired driving prevention and enforcement consume nearly half the state’s budget for traffic safety programs.

Over recent years, Maryland lawmakers have taken steps to discourage people from getting behind the wheel after having too much to drink. Most of the new measures focus on the criminal penalties associated with a drunk driving conviction. For example, new laws mandate an ignition interlock device be installed on certain offender’s vehicles. While the new laws may deter some motorists from driving drunk, the laws provide little consolation to those who have been seriously injured by a Maryland impaired driver.

That is not to say that Maryland accident victims are without a means of recourse. Anyone injured in a Maryland DUI accident can pursue a civil case for damages against a driver they believe to be responsible for their injuries. Similarly, those who have lost a loved one in a Maryland car accident can file a wrongful death claim against the at-fault driver. While seemingly simple in theory, in practice these cases can be exceedingly complex and should be handled by experienced Maryland personal injury lawyers.

Continue Reading

Under Maryland law, a party in a personal injury lawsuit may present testimony from an expert witness only in certain circumstances. That being the case, expert witnesses do not testify in most Maryland car accidents. However, there are cases where the need for an expert witness arises. Typically, this is when a case presents complex medical or scientific issues that are beyond the scope of a typical juror’s understanding. A recent case illustrates a situation in which the court held that the plaintiff’s claim required the testimony of an expert witness.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiff was involved in a chain reaction car accident. Evidently, one motorist collided with another driver, whose vehicle then struck the plaintiff’s car. The plaintiff was transported to the hospital, where he was treated and released later that day. The record does not indicate the treatment that the plaintiff received at the hospital.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against two of the other drivers involved in the accident. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged injuries to his neck, head, back, right foot, right ankle, right hip, both shoulders, and both knees.” The plaintiff presented the testimony of medical experts to establish the extent of his injuries.

Continue Reading

Earlier this month, a fatal Maryland car accident claimed the lives of five children and seriously injured two adults. According to a local news report covering the tragic accident, all seven passengers were in a single minivan, and no other vehicles were involved in the crash.

Evidently, the accident victims were traveling northbound on Route 301 in a Chrysler Pacifica when, just before 5 a.m. the driver of the vehicle lost control of the minivan. The vehicle slid off the road into a wooded area, where it struck several trees before spinning out into a snowy field. When police responded, they found two adults in the driver and passenger seats. Both were seriously injured. All five of the children in the back, ranging in age from five to 15, had been ejected during the crash and were pronounced dead at the scene by emergency responders.

Police began an investigation into the cause of the accident, but told reporters that it seems as though none of the children were properly restrained in the back of the minivan. However, the two adults in the vehicle were wearing seatbelts.

Continue Reading

Contact Information