Massachusetts Injury Lawyer Blog

A new study shows the property/casualty insurance industry creates periodic crises in which insurance becomes unaffordable or unavailable. It alleges the industry is currently trying to create such a crisis now to drive up profits.

The study was undertaken by the Americans for Insurance Reform (AIR), a coalition of nearly 100 consumer and public interest groups which represent more than 50 million people. Casualty and property insurance is important because it provides coverage for accidents for individuals, businesses and governments. Rate hikes could stifle their ability to operate and prevent accident victims from obtaining fair compensation.

The Study
The study is called "Repeat Offenders: How the Insurance Industry Manufactures Crises and Harms Americans." It presents data showing the typical insurance rate cycle for and the dramatic rise in insurers' current surplus - the amount insurers set aside to pay estimated future claims. In 2010, the insurers had an all-time high $580 billion surplus on hand, more than double the amount in 1996.

The United States has been in a "soft market," since 2006, during which insurance rates have been stable and dropped in states where no tort reform has been enacted.

But the AIR report states in early 2011, the insurance industry began pushing the country into a "hard market," when rates skyrocket and become unaffordable. It says the insurance industry is attempting to use Hurricane Irene as another push into a hard market. The next step, AIR says, is the insurers will deny the cycle's existence and hire lobbyists who call for tort reform legislation.

Call for Action
AIR is releasing its report to all 50 state insurance commissioners, the new Federal Insurance Office and key members of Congress. It calls for the following steps to protect property owners, car owners and business owners who carry insurance as well as accident victims:

Data Disclosure. AIR calls on the industry to provide meaningful insurance data to state insurance departments. They ask that officials be allowed to substantiate or refute allegations about the industry's health for accident coverage and recent legal action.

State Repeal of Anti-Competitive Laws. AIR said states should enact stronger regulation and oversight of the industry, while also repealing anti-competitive laws.

Repeal Federal Anti-Trust Exemption. The AIR calls on Congress to repeal the federal anti-trust exemption under the McCarran-Ferguson Act and have the new Federal Insurance Office review the impact of the McCarran-Ferguson Act on consumers.

Continue reading "Study: Insurance Industry Pushes for 'Hard Market,' Rate Increases" »

September is the month when thousands of college students across Massachusetts settle into campus life. And many students enjoy the extra freedom of bringing a car from home to school.

But students often forget one essential step in the transition to college life and this mistake can be costly. Students who have Massachusetts car insurance policies are required to inform their insurance companies about where the car is primarily kept. Otherwise, if there is a car accident, the insurance company might disclaim coverage, leaving the accident underinsured or uninsured completely.

Even if a student is relocating a short distance, such as from Dedham to a dorm in Boston, he or she must inform his car insurance of the new location where his vehicle will be kept. The reason? Car insurance companies rate the coverage -- and therefore the cost -- on where the car is principally kept. If the car moves from a low-rated area (with fewer accidents) to a higher-rated area, the cost goes up. And if you are not paying the premium for the place where the car is principally kept, the insurance company has the legal right to disclaim coverage. And that can be nasty. 

Students who fail to report their change of address and get into a car accident can be denied the Optional Insurance coverages on their policy. Optional Insurance coverages include:

Bodily Injury: This protects you from claims against your personal property if you cause a serious car accident.

Uninsured Auto: This coverage protects you and the people in your car if the person who causes the motor vehicle accident has no insurance.

Medical Payments: The first $8,000 in medical bills and lost wages are covered under the Personal Injury Protection (PIP), part of the Compulsory Coverage all Massachusetts drivers must purchase. Medical Payments provides policy holders extra protection for medical and health insurance.

Collision Comprehensive: If you are involved in a car accident, this coverage insures the damage to your vehicle.

Insurance issues can be very complicated, and you should not hesitate to call your agent if you have any questions. 

Click here to read our article, "Understanding and Buying Massachusetts Car Accident Insurance."

Continue reading "Massachusetts Car Insurance Tips for College Students" »

The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently ruled that Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company may have violated state law when it failed to make prompt payments on a no-fault claim. The ruling reversed a trial court decision, and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings on the plaintiff's claims against the insurance company for bad faith.

Importantly, the court stated that the emotional distress the plaintiff claims she suffered could be considered as part of her damages under the Consumer Protection Act, M.G.L. c. 93A. There is very limited authority in Massachusetts for emotional distress damages in claims under M.G.L. c. 93A.

The facts of the case were straightforward. Ms. Chery was injured in a car accident and obtained medical treatment. Metropolitan was responsible for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits, but failed to pay the bills within thirty days, as required by M.G.L. c. 90, Sec. 34M. The plaintiff filed suit, claiming violations of c. 90, c. 93A, and c. 176D, which governs claims and settlements. The insurance company eventually paid the bills, then claimed it could not be liable for its bad faith claims handling. The District Court judge agreed and plaintiff appealed.

The Appeals Court agreed that the claimant had no further right under the insurance contact itself, as the bills had been paid. However, the court found that there was evidence of bad faith, and the simple payment of the bills did not cure the harm caused by the delay. Among other things, the plaintiff had to file suit, incur litigation expenses, and suffer the unreasonable delay. The plaintiff also claimed that she suffered emotional distress, as her bills were put into collection, and she worried about her credit being affected. The court specifically ruled that the emotional distress damages, even though not readily quantifiable, may be considered compensable under Massachusetts law.

The case was a victory for Massachusetts consumers.

The case is Chery v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Massachusetts Appeals Court No. 10-P-103 (June 16, 2011).

Continue reading "Massachusetts Court Rules Against Insurer in Bad Faith Case - Victory for Consumers" »

The Massachusetts Appeals Court just said NO today to a greedy insurance company, OneBeacon Insurance, which tried to collect an extra several hundred thousands of dollars as reimbursement for an insurance claim. The case was a victory for Massachusetts consumers in general, and for one family in particular who recovered a treasured family heirloom.

The case centered on a family portrait which had been painted in Italy in 1765. The portrait was of family ancestors and was painted by an artist whose works had appreciated in value significantly in the last thirty years.

Unfortunately, this family portrait was one of several items stolen from the family home in 1975. The family had a total of $32,500 in insurance to cover the loss (the loss was much greater). The painting itself had recently been appraised at $25,000. The insurance company (which was a predecessor to OneBeacon) paid the policy limits.

Fortunately, the painting was recovered in 2007. But unfortunately, OneBeacon Insurance Company claimed it owned the work of art, which had increased in value to between $400,000 and $800,000. The family offered to reimburse OneBeacon for the payment of $25,000, but the insurance company refused to settle.

The Massachusetts courts had little regard for the insurance company's avarice. The Superior Court and the Appeals Court both ruled that the insurer's "subrogation" right ended with reimbursement; that the contract had no ambiguity whether the family should receive the art if they made the reimbursement; and that the insurance company had no basis for its insurance claim for compound interest on the payment for the claim.

The family portrait has now been returned to its rightful owner.

Massachusetts legal and insurance expert David White said, "This was a clear example of an insurance company attempting to overreach. They had no regard for this family or even their own insurance contract."

So score this legal battle: Massachusetts Consumers 2, Greedy Insurance Company 0.

The name of the case is Apthorp v. OneBeacon Insurance Group, LLC, Massachusetts Appeals Court No. 09-P-1258 (October 18, 2010)

Some practical consumer advice: If you are a homeowner, make sure you are fully insured for any property loss. You can sometimes actually save money by having valuables, such as jewelry or art, appraised and scheduled separately on the homeowner's insurance policy. Make sure your home and personal property are fully protected in case of fire, theft, or other loss.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Appeals Court Just Says "NO" to Greedy Insurance Company" »

It's always a tragedy when someone leaves a bar after a night of drinking, steps in his or her car, and causes a motor vehicle accident resulting in personal injury.

For years, that tragedy was compounded by Massachusetts law, which let bars and restaurants operate without liquor liability insurance. Like other businesses, Massachusetts restaurants and bars have traditionally carried general commercial liability insurance covering on-site problems, including slip and falls and other injuries. But this insurance offers no assistance to drunk driving accident victims.

In late May, Massachusetts lawmakers corrected this and passed a law requiring restaurant and bar owners to carry liquor liability insurance. Establishments must carry a minimum of $250,000 per person/$500,000 per accident coverage. In other words, policies must provide a minimum $250,000 for bodily injury or death of one person and a total of $500,000 per incident involving bodily injury or death.

Innocent victims of drunk driving accidents still face the traditional hurdles in proving their cases against bars. One hurdle is strong juror bias. Juries do not hesitate to hold the drunk driver responsible. But juries are often reluctant to blame a drinking establishment for over-serving a patron, even though the law is perfectly clear that a bar has a legal duty to not serve someone who is intoxicated.

Restaurants and bars seek to avoid liability for over-serving patrons, and they typically claim they did not recognize that the patron was intoxicated. The recent Massachusetts Appeals Court case of Rivera v. Club Caravan, Inc., 77 Mass. App. Ct. 17 (2010), reviewed the legal standards for "dram shop cases." Generally the plaintiff must prove the patron showed outward signs of intoxication by the time he or she was served her last drink. However, circumstantial proof can also be sufficient. If the patron had consumed excessive quantities of alcohol, a jury can draw an inference that he would have been visibly intoxicated. So, where a patron is served fourteen drinks in two hours, as in the Rivera case, or was served six or more white Russians, as in another Massachusetts case, the circustantial evidence is strong enough.  

Personal injury attorney Ronald Gluck called the new law "a step forward" for the safety of Massachusetts residents.  "Restaurants and bars will want to have strong policies in place--and to follow them--not just to avoid liability but also to avoid large increases in their insurance premiums. The new liquor insurance law should help reduce drunk driving accidents in Massachusetts."

Click here for the full text of the law.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Bars Must Now Carry Liquor Liability Insurance" »

If you're a bicyclist, you know safety's first. Knowing the rules of the road and riding defensively are the best ways to protect yourself from harm. But you must also think finances in case of personal injury. Between lost wages and medical costs, the bills can add up fast. Even if a motorist's involved, their car insurance may not cover all your expenses.

There's good news. You can protect yourself financially in a bike accident with a few changes to your own car insurance. The two smartest things a cyclist can do are:

• Purchase adequate amounts of Underinsured and Uninsured Motorist coverage


• Purchase adequate Medical Payments coverage

These coverages are affordable. In fact, you can access up to $100,000 of Medical Payments coverage for just $71! Read on as Boston personal injury lawyer David White shares his advice to cyclists for keeping safe and protecting their wallets.

Click here for full article.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Bicyclists Can Protect Themselves With Car Insurance" »

David White, a principal at the Boston personal injury law firm of Breakstone, White & Gluck, recently appeared on Money Matters Radio for their mid-day show. Here is the audio from the presentation.

Money Matters Radio Broadcast

David talks about what car insurance you should have to protect yourself, and others, in the event of a car accident; about medical malpractice; and about insurance bad faith in Massachusetts.

To download the broadcast, click here.

Many thanks to our good friends at Money Matters Radio and host Chris Findlen.

The state Attorney General is in the preliminary stage of a systematic review of the Massachusetts healthcare system and has already made some startling discoveries about healthcare costs. Martha Coakley's office found significant cost variations among hospitals and physicians based on factors other than quality of care.  Although the investigation is still ongoing, Attorney General Coakley has expressed concern about affordable and accessible healthcare if the identified systematic failures are not addressed and has urged policymakers to implement cost containtment measures.

As part of the investigation, the Attorney General's office reviewed documents from insurance companies and healthcare providers representing the bulk of the healthcare market in the state to examine healthcare costs and costs drivers. Specifically, the Attorney General examined insurance contract prices between insurance providers and hospitals between 2004 and 2008. The concern is that although Massachusetts has improved access to the healthcare market--97 percent of the population has healthcare coverage--this improvement could be compromised by cost increases.  Attorney General Coakley warned if left unchecked, price disparities in the market could create a  provider marketplace dominated by expensive "haves" as lower priced "have-nots" are forced to close down or consolidate with higher priced providers. 

The initial findings of the investigation showed that:

• In the same geographic area and across similar levels of service, prices paid by insurance carriers to hospitals and physician groups varied, at the extreme in excess of 200%.
• Price variations are not correlated with quality of care, complexity of the illness or population being served, extent of patients on Medicare or Medicaid, or whether the provider is an academic or research facility.
• Price variations are correlated with the relative market position of the hospital or physician group as compared to hospitals within a geographic region or within a group of academic medical centers.
• Price variations on a per-member, per-month basis are not correlated with the method of payment (e.g. globally or fee-for-service).
• Price increases cause most of the healthcare cost increases in the state.
• Contracting practices distort the commercial healthcare market and reinforce disparities in pricing.
• The report noted that health care costs are increasing much faster than wages.

The investigation is expected to be completed by March 16th and the findings will be presented to the Massachusetts Office of Health and Human Services, Division of Healthcare Finance and Policy.   

For more information on Massachusetts' unique approach to healthcare access, see the following website on the state mandate and statute.  If you need to obtain health insurance coverage, see the following guide to choosing a health plan.

If you have questions about medical negligence or medical malpractice, please feel free to contact our firm for a free consultation at 800-379-1244 

In a case decided late last year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a Massachusetts company would be permitted to bring a second lawsuit against its insurance company seeking damages for unfair and deceptive practices, a violation of G.L. c. 93A, Sec. 11. In the case, Andrew Robinson International, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, 547 F.3d 48 (2008), the court determined that the earlier declaratory judgment action in a state court action was not a bar to the second action, which sought monetary damages against the insurance company.

The first case between the parties was a delcaratory judgment action. The plaintiff sought a determination that the insurance company was required to pay for the damages suffered when the business premises were contaminated with lead-laden dust from a remodeling project in a neighboring office. The insurance company argued the claim was barred by a pollution exclusion clause. The state court disagreed, and entered judgment for the plaintiffs. The insurer paid.

The second action sought damages for unfair and deceptive acts in violation of c. 93A, frequently referred to as a bad faith insurance claim. Hartford removed the case to Federal court (diversity jurisdiction) and then moved to dismiss the case, arguing it was improper to allow the plaintiffs to bring a second suit. Hartford argued that the claim was barred under principles of res judicata, and that plaintiffs could not split their claims.

The Appeals Court found no Massachusetts case directly on point, so did its best to determine what Massachusetts would likely do. It found that the action was not barred, carving out a special exception for declaratory judgments. Ordinarily, however, when claims arise from the same transaction and occurrence, a plaintiff is wise to bring all claims in a single action; the exception saved the day for these plaintiffs.

Read More on this case: First Circuit Court of Appeals Allows c. 93A Case to Proceed Against Insurance Company; Previous State Suit Did Not Bar Claim 

This week, the Massachusetts Appeals Court continued its trend of expanding insurance coverage for victims injured in hit-and-run car accidents when it granted a trial to an 18-year-old woman who suffered injuries in a car accident as a passenger in a taxi cab.

In this case, the plaintiff suffered neck injuries when the taxi cab in which she was riding rear-ended another car. Although the drivers spoke to each other to assess the damage to their vehicles, neither driver called the police or exchanged information. The plaintiff, who did not think she was hurt, took down no information. In addition a police report was never filed.

After unsuccessfully trying to track down the identity of the cab driver after the accident, the plaintiff's attorney filed a claim for uninsured motorist benefits under her mother's insurance policy to cover the cost of her injuries. The policy provided coverage for accidents involving "uninsured or hit-and-run autos."

The trial court dismissed the case on summary judgment, ruling that the insurance company was not liable. However, the Massachusetts Appeals Court said, "Not so fast," and explored the question of whether or not the taxi cab in which the plaintiff was riding could be considered a hit-and-run vehicle.

In short, the answer is yes: the taxi cab could be considered a hit-and-run vehicle. The courts have broadly interpreted the phrase "hit-and-run" in order to protect victims like this passenger. In previous cases, the Supreme Judicial Court has found that uninsured motorist claims were viable in other, similar scenarios:

• A driver is forced off the road and into a guardrail by an oncoming vehicle, despite the fact the two cars never made contact with each other; and

• A passenger in a car that is rear-ended realizes that he is injured, hours after the two uninjured drivers had gone their separate ways after concluding that there was no property damage or injuries.

In summary, the court held, "a passenger in an at-fault vehicle who is injured in an accident and who, unaware of her injuries... leaves the vehicle without obtaining identifying information about the vehicle is entitled to recover under the hit-and-run provisions of the policy."

Importantly, however, the court noted that if a passenger realizes immediately after a car accident that he/she has been injured, the passenger is under an obligation to obtain identifying information from the driver(s), as long as his/her injuries are not so grave as to prevent an exchange of information.

The court also rejected the insurance company's claim that it was prejudiced by late notice. The court said this was a factual determination to be made at trial.

The name of this case is Pilgrim Insurance Co. v. Molard. Other key cases in this area of insurance law include Surrey v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 384 Mass. 171 (1981) and Commerce Ins. Co. v. Mendonca, 57 Mass.App.Ct. 522 (2003), which each address the bulleted scenarios above.

Uninsured motorist insurance is statutorily required in the state of Massachusetts in order to provide financial protection to those injured by other negligent drivers.

Important Consumer Tips 

• If you are in a car accident and are wondering what to do, it is usually best to err on the side of caution, and obtain identifying information from the other drivers. For more tips about what to do if you are in an accident, visit the Mass. Registry of Motor Vehicles' Driver's Manual page.
• Always notify your insurance company promptly if you are in an accident, even if you are a passenger is somebody else's car.
• Make sure you have enough car insurance to protect yourself if you are injured. You should have enough uninsured and underinsured coverage on your cars to protect yourself from injuries caused by other drivers. Please see our car accident insurance information for Massachusetts drivers.
  

If you were injured as a passenger in a car accident, or are the victim of a hit-and-run accident, call the Massachusetts injury attorneys at Breakstone, White & Gluck at 800-379-1244 for a free consultation.