In Spectrum v. Titan Insurance Company v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, the Court of Appeals upheld the award of fees and costs to the Plaintiff against the Titan Insurance Company, for failing to timely pay auto no fault PIP medical expenses.
Continue reading "Titan Insurance sanctioned for failure to pay medical expenses" »
The U.S. Sixth Circuit recently held that a District Court did not violate Cynthia Lambert's right to privacy when it published her Social Security number on its public website, as part of a citation report after a traffic citation. The Court held that even though Lambert suffered direct economic injury, damage to her credit rating and to her reputation as a result of the Court's policy of publishing this information, the Court was immune from liability for her injuries because the criminal act of a third person intevened. We wonder if the judges would have felt the same if it was their daughter who admittedly suffered injury from such a bone-headed court policy.
In Suminski v. State Farm, the Michigan Court of Appeals, rejected State Farm's claim that it could enforce a "written consent" requirement in its uninsured motorist coverage, after State Farm waived the clause earlier in litigation.
Continue reading "This week it was State Farm's turn to be slapped down for over-reaching" »
Observers of this week's argument before the U.S. Supreme Court over the massive oil spill caused by the Exxon Valdez warned that a majority of the Justices appeared willing to further reduce the punitive damage award against Exxon.
Continue reading "19 years, 3 weeks' lost profits, and a slap at victims by the Supreme Court?" »
In Laukkanen v. Jason, the injured Plaintiff secured a verdict against the driver who rear-ended her at a stop light. Plaintiff worked as a physical therapist and had to undergo substantial medical treatment after the collision. MRI and EMG testing showed abnormalities consistent with her accident-injury claims, and she endured having to wear a back brace, physician-restrictions on her activities, numerous medical therapies including orthopaedic manipulation, and physical therapy. She provided extensive evidence supporting the limitations on her normal work duties and life activities. Despite this evidence, the insurer claimed she did not suffer a "serious impairment of bodily function", and asked the Court of Appeals to set the verdict aside.
Not only did the trial court and the Court of Appeals reject the insurer's claim of no serious impairment, it also upheld the trial court's refusal to countenance the Defendant's "gamesmanship" in secretly taping the Plaintiff and then lying about it. The Court had required both sides to disclose their evidence months before the trial (a standard scheduling order) and the Plaintiffs had also filed motions to compel the Defendants to produce any surveillance evidence. The Court criticized the Defendant for lying about the existence of this evidence, failing to produce it for more than four months, and producing other photographic and video evidence without producing the hidden surveillance until a few days before trial--too late for the Plaintiff to examine the evidence or respond to Defendant's arguments about what it showed.
The Court held that the trial court did an excellent job of carefully considering the circumstances of the Defendant's "gamesmanship" and blatant violation of the court's discovery rules. The Appeals Judges felt that excluding this imporper evidence was a proper exercise of the trial court's discretion and refused to overturn its decision.
Ever since the hand-appointed Engler Justices took control of the Supreme Court, the four Justices have controlled Michigan jurisprudence and displayed an activist drive to manipulate the law for the benefit of their insurance constituency. One of the Justices was even reported to have made a speech where he described he and his colleagues as allied with insurance tort "reformers" in a civil war with victims' attorneys. As a result, insurance companies have become more aggressive in attempting to restrict the rights and interests of their insureds. In the recent Klida v. Braman case, the Court of Appeals refused to countenance an effort by Farm Bureau to eliminate a child's right to sue.
