Philadelphia Top Injury Lawyer Blog

As a Philadelphia personal injury lawyer, I'm very familiar with the legal concept of subrogation. In personal injury cases, subrogation allows an insurance company to "stand in the shoes" of the insured person, which permits it to sue an at-fault driver even if the insured won't, or collect on any lawsuit judgment the insured wins on his or her own. Courts have frequently stepped in to keep insurance companies from collecting unfair amounts, however, and one way they've done that is applying a legal doctrine saying the insured must be "made whole" before the insurer can collect. So I was interested to see that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the make-whole doctrine in an insurance subrogation case, in Jones v. Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co..

Brenda Jones of Philadelphia County was hit by an at-fault driver and, luckily, suffered only damage to her car. She had collision coverage that allowed her to collect an insurance settlement for the amount of the damage, minus a $500 deductible she paid herself. Nationwide's contract gave it a subrogation right to sue the at-fault driver's insurance company for reimbursement of that payment, so it did. That recovery was 90 percent of the amount that Nationwide actually paid, however. As a result, when Nationwide paid Jones back for her deductible from that money, it paid only 90 percent of the deductible -- $450. This was pursuant to Nationwide's ordinary practice and mirrored a state Insurance Department regulation. Jones filed a class-action lawsuit alleging violations of the make-whole doctrine, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion and insurance bad faith. The trial court dismissed the case and the Superior Court affirmed, finding that a practice permitted by state insurance regulators implicitly modifies the common-law make-whole doctrine.

After reviewing arguments from both sides and Pennsylvania's acting Insurance Commissioner, which filed an amicus brief supporting Nationwide, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court started by ruling that applying the make-whole doctrine to subrogation in collision-coverage-only cases would undermine state laws requiring at least some deductible on any insurance policy. By allowing full recovery of the deductible, it said, the courts would essentially create a no-deductible situation. Furthermore, it said, allowing full recovery in collision coverage cases would be inequitable because the insurer assumes the risk and expense of litigation in such cases. And because there's a deductible, requiring the insurer to pay more than the pro-rated amount would amount to preferential treatment for the insured, who after all agreed to take on the risk of a deductible. Thus, it upheld the lower courts, but on different grounds.

Though this decision was not good for the driver, I believe the underlying logic might be good news for Philadelphia accident lawyers like me. This decision reverses the usual situation in subrogation of personal injury claims, because normally, the driver has sued the at-fault driver and the insurance company steps in to claim a piece of the recovery. In that situation, it's well-established that the insured must be made whole before the insurer may be paid. This decision repeats the equitable principles -- what might be called principles of fairness -- that underlie this policy decision by the Pennsylvania courts. As a Philadelphia injury lawyer, I believe this benefits injured people fighting money grabs more often than it harms them.

Continue reading "Pennsylvania High Court Declines to Apply Make Whole Doctrine to Pro Rated Deductible Reimbursements - Jones v. Nationwide Property & Casualty Ins." »

As a Philadelphia injury lawyer, I frequently work on cases involving more than one insurance company claiming the same limited amount of settlement or verdict money. Health insurers, for example, may be entitled to repayment from insurance companies, reducing the recovery paid to the victim. This can delay the ends of cases, and the payout to the victim, while legal relationships are worked out. But rarely have I read about a case like U.S. Airways Inc. v. McCutchen, in which an employee benefits plan sought to recover so much money from a small settlement that the victim actually would have been unable to fully pay his attorneys, and had nothing left for himself. In this case, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided that U.S. Airways was not entitled to recover all its costs without respect to attorney fees.

James McCutchen of western Pennsylvania was seriously injured after another driver crossed the median of the road and slammed into his car, triggering a chain reaction in which a truck also rear-ended his car. After emergency surgery, McCutchen survived but was permanently disabled at the age of 51. His employee benefits plan, administered and financed by U.S. Airways, paid a total of $66,866 for his medical treatment. The insurance for the driver who hit McCutchen had only $10,000 after paying other victims, and McCutchen was able to recover another $100,000 from his own underinsured motorist insurance. After paying his attorneys, he received less than $66,000 -- but U.S. Airways sued to recover the entire $66,866 it had paid for his care. The attorneys placed their fee ($41,500) in a trust account for the litigation. The airline argued, and the district court eventually agreed, that language in the benefits plan entitled it to recover the entire amount, without respect to attorney fees. The attorneys lost their fee and McCutchen paid an additional $25,366 from his recovery. They appealed.

The Third Circuit's opinion said ERISA, the federal law governing the kind of plan U.S. Airways offered, gives plan administrators the right to enforce terms, but limits the right to an injunction or "other appropriate equitable relief." Previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions have determined that a claim like this one is equitable, but have not established what would be "appropriate" equitable relief. McCutchen argued that the recovery sought by U.S. Airways is not appropriate. The Third's analysis said appropriate equitable relief should be something less than all equitable relief, which in turn is less than all relief under caselaw. Indeed, the court said, it would be strange for Congress to intend "appropriate equitable relief" without including any traditionally applicable defenses or doctrines. Allowing U.S. Airways to collect the full amount would give it a windfall at McCutchen's expense, without the airline exercising subrogation rights or contributing to McCutchen's legal team. The Third sent back the decision to the district court for consideration of what relief for the airline could be "appropriate."

As a Philadelphia accident lawyer, I'm pleased but not surprised to see this outcome for McCutchen. This kind of claim by a benefits plan is not usual -- indeed, the Third observed in a footnote that "U.S. Airways' claim to reimbursement from McCutchen's pocket is unprecedented." It's worth keeping in mind that McCutchen was permanently disabled at the age of 51 because of someone else's bad driving. The money he recovered from insurance was intended to compensate him for the medical and legal bills he incurred as a result. It was far less than he likely needs, but all that was available -- which makes it even more disturbing that a major airline's employee benefits plan felt entitled to take it. It's also worth keeping in mind that McCutchen paid insurance premiums to the plan in exchange for the insurance coverage that U.S. Airways essentially attempted to take away in this case. As a Philadelphia personal injury lawyer, I'm pleased to see that it did not succeed.

Continue reading "Health Insurer May Not Take All of Auto Accident Victim's Recovery, Third Circuit Rules - U.S. Airways v. McCutchen" »

As a Philadelphia injury lawyer, I was disappointed to read about the death of a bicyclist at the hands of a repeat drunk driver. According to WPVI, 22-year-old Brett Truskin of Bucks County is accused of hitting and killing a bicyclist just hours after his release on a previous DUI. Truskin is accused of hitting Gregory Loper, a 49-year-old father of 11, as he rode in a bicycle lane in Kensington, then attempting to flee the scene. The crash happened Friday evening, less than 24 hours after Truskin was arrested for DUI late on Thursday. The earlier crash involved three cars on Interstate 95 but did not result in any reported injuries. Truskin is being held on $475,000 bail.

Truskin, of Ivyland, started his brushes with the law Thursday night when he allegedly caused a three-car accident on the Interstate. No injuries were reported from that crash, but Pennsylvania state troopers tested his blood and found enough evidence to charge him with driving under the influence, as well as criminal mischief. They impounded his car, but he was released early Friday without bail. Later on Friday, Truskin was reportedly driving his mother's car down Lehigh Avenue in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia when he swerved into the bike lane and hit Loper. Witnesses said Truskin also hit several parked cars in the crash, but continued driving until he caused another accident. That crash injured an unidentified 52-year-old man who was taken to the hospital with stomach and back pain. Witnesses reportedly held Truskin at the scene until police could arrive. He is now facing an additional DUI, homicide by vehicle, causing an accident involving death, reckless endangerment and more.

Some of the reports on this focus on why authorities released Truskin without bail so quickly after his arrest. Given the trail of destruction he apparently created as soon as he got behind the wheel again, this question is understandable. While it's impossible to say whether the judge had reason to think Truskin would offend again so soon, it doesn't look like he learned anything from his first DUI experience. The Bensalem Patch.com also reports that Truskin had previous legal problems from which he may not have learned, including burglary charges from 2007 and theft and drug charges from 2010. This is not only unfortunate but tragic, because it caused the death of a father and grandfather who was doing nothing more than returning home from work. It's too late for authorities to stop this crash, unfortunately -- but the family, which may well have depended on his financial support, may still be able to seek justice through a Pennsylvania auto accident lawsuit.

The Philadelphia accident lawyers at Rosenbaum & Associates represent people across eastern Pennsylvania who have lost a loved one or suffered serious injuries because of a driver's negligence. This includes law-breaking and extremely bad decisions, such as the decision to drive under the influence, as well as ordinary inattention. When a crash takes a life or leaves victims with catastrophic injuries, families frequently face financial hardships as well as medical and emotional problems. Medical bills for serious injuries can add up very quickly -- and if the victim was a breadwinner, he or she is likely not working and not earning a paycheck from which to pay those bills. A lawsuit helps victims turn those costs back to the negligent people who caused them, so they can concentrate on recovering.

Continue reading "Bucks County Man Charged With Vehicular Homicide After Second DUI in Two Days " »

As a Philadelphia personal injury lawyer, I was interested to see a recent state Supreme Court ruling removing a barrier between public workers and adequate compensation for injuries they suffered in car crashes that were no fault of their own. In Heller v. Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities et al., the state high court ruled that Sugarcreek Borough police officer Frank Heller should be permitted to claim underinsured motorist coverage for an accident he suffered while at work, even though he was also collecting workers' compensation insurance. Heller's department was insured by the Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities, which had an express exclusion for any employee eligible to claim workers' compensation. In this decision, the state Supreme Court found that this violates public policy and cannot be enforced.

Heller suffered injuries that his complaint described as "severe and disabling" on Halloween of 2002. He successfully claimed workers' compensation and recovered the limit of the at-fault driver's policy, but this was just $25,000. This was inadequate for his injuries, so he notified the borough's auto insurer of a potential UIM claim. The insurer denied it because of the policy exclusion against UIM coverage for workers eligible for workers' compensation, so Heller sued for a declaratory judgment saying this was against public policy. He received it in 2007; in fact, the court noted that this exclusion was expressly illegal until 1993. The Commonwealth Court reversed the decision, finding that in the absence of a specific law or caselaw, the conflicting policy considerations should favor the insurer. One judge dissented, saying the exclusion prevents workers' compensation insurers from subrogating UIM benefits and injured workers from collecting fully.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to review only the issue of whether the exclusion violates public policy -- and eventually found that it does. On appeal, Heller (supported by amicus Pennsylvania Association for Justice) argued that the borough's UIM coverage is "illusory" because nearly all borough employees are eligible for workers' compensation. The court started its analysis by noting that Pennsylvania's auto insurance laws are aimed at cost containment. However, it noted, cost containment is not enough to allow insurers to deny coverage for which the insured has contracted and paid. In this case, the borough voluntarily paid for UIM coverage, which it could have opted not to buy. However, the high court said, the coverage is unlikely to ever attach because of the exclusion that covers basically all borough employees. Thus, it agreed that the coverage is illusory and that the insurer gets a windfall by declining to provide it. To allow this would contravene the intention of Pennsylvania insurance law, it said. Thus, it found the exclusion contrary to public policy and reversed the lower court.

As a Philadelphia accident lawyer, I applaud this ruling. In essence, the high court said that insurers may not charge premiums for insurance and refuse to provide it, even when they write that refusal directly into their policies. The presence of an express written exclusion might normally make the court sympathetic to the insurer -- but in this case, the fact that every borough employee can get workers' compensation benefits means the exclusion functions to negate the purpose of the insurance. By doing this, the insurer was charging for something it knew it would never have to provide, and that's what the court found was against public policy. As a Philadelphia injury lawyer, I doubt that consumers or courts would put up with this kind of fraud in another context, and I applaud the court for not allowing it in insurance, where denying benefits is very much the path to profit.

Continue reading "Pennsylvania Supreme Court Outlaws Insurance Policy Exclusion Forbidding UIM Coverage - Heller v. Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities" »

As a Philadelphia accident lawyer, I was interested to see an insurance coverage dispute arising in neighboring Ohio over a serious auto accident. The Barbee family was traveling through Wisconsin when they were involved in a crash that was not their fault. They spent more than four years seeking full compensation from the at-fault driver's insurance company, but were unable to collect as much money as they needed to cover their injuries -- unfortunately not an uncommon situation. Thus, they sued their own insurer, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., which argued that the three-year deadline to sue had already passed. The trial court and an appeals court found in the Barbees' favor in Barbee v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., but the Ohio Supreme Court reversed, finding the contract unambiguous.

The Barbees' insurance contract contained a provision requiring any lawsuit to be filed within three days of the accident. Other provisions required insureds to fully exhaust all other liability insurance before payment, and said insureds may not sue until they have fully complied with the contract. The Barbees put Nationwide on notice of potential claims after the crash, but Nationwide itself sued the unnamed tortfeasors first, to recover the cost of the family's medical care. More than two years after the crash, the Barbees sued in Wisconsin federal court. They eventually won, but because most of the fault was attributed to a deceased person, the estate could not cover all of their costs. More than four years after the crash, the Barbees sued Nationwide in Ohio state court to collect on underinsured motorist coverage. Nationwide moved for summary judgment because of the three-year provision, but the court denied this because of the exhaustion provision. Nationwide appealed to Ohio's Ninth District Court of Appeals, which agreed -- finding that the two provisions together were ambiguous, and ambiguities in insurance contracts should be construed in favor of the insured.

Nationwide's appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court was more successful. In essence, the court said, the dispute was over when the three-year period starts: at the time of the accident or when the insureds exhaust all other liability insurance limits in service of subrogation rights. While ambiguous contracts are generally construed against the drafter, the Ohio Supreme Court said, caselaw removes some of the ambiguity. Under Ross v. Farmers Insurance Group, the high court found that the right to payment may be limited until after other claims are exhausted, but that does not affect the accrual of the claim itself. The limits of the tortfeasors' policies never changed, the court noted, and there was no other special circumstance. The exhaustion provision limits the insured's right to receive payment, the court said, but does not require the insured to exhaust other avenues before filing suit. The high court rejected the argument that this would create a flood of unnecessary lawsuits, saying it seems to be common practice to file an uninsured motorist suit before the suit against the tortfeasor is finished, with many of these suits being stayed. Judges Pfeifer and McGee Brown dissented, arguing that requiring insureds to sue before knowing that they need the coverage is a waste of everyone's time and money.

As a Philadelphia personal injury lawyer, I must agree. Requiring plaintiffs to sue insurance companies before establishing the need for the coverage makes more work for attorneys like me, so it could be considered a win. But for my injured clients, who are generally not wealthy, it is very much a loss. More lawsuits require more time and money. Both of those are especially precious commodities to people who have suffered a serious injury or a loss in the family, because they are often saddled with huge medical bills and aren't able to earn as much money as they once did. In that situation, drawing out the case creates more unpaid bills and more anxiety and may even delay medical treatment. It may also be considered unfair in situations like the Barbees', where they had no reason to believe they needed uninsured motorist coverage until well into their first case. I agree that it's more efficient as well as more fair to start the three-year waiting period once this is discovered.

Continue reading "Deadline to Sue Insurance Company Applies Even When Policy Not Exhausted, Court Rules - Barbee v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance" »

As a Philadelphia accident lawyer, I handle many cases of auto accidents. In the majority of auto accident cases, one or both drivers caused the crash by negligently failing to pay attention or make good decisions. But every now and then, a case comes along in which the fault lies with the automobile itself, or one of its parts -- which means real responsibility for the crash can be assigned to the company that made the defective part. That was the allegation in Bender v. Mazda Motor Corp., a decision from the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Peggy Bender of Alabama alleged that a defective airbag in a Miata caused the death of a family member. Mazda attempted to remove the case to federal court on diversity grounds, but the federal court denied the motion and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. In this ruling, the Eleventh says an intervening decision did not change its mind.

For federal courts to have diversity jurisdiction, the amount of money being asked for must exceed $75,000. In opposing the motion to remove the case, Bender alleged that there was no evidence that the amount in controversy reached that much. In its answer, Mazda cited a similar case, Roe v. Michelin North America, in which the federal court found that even if the amount in controversy was not pleaded in court, it was "clear" and "readily deductible" that it would exceed $75,000. Mazda asked the district court to follow this ruling, or in the alternative, stay the case until an Eleventh Circuit ruling in Roe. The district court denied this and moved the case back to state court. After the Eleventh Circuit's ruling in Roe, which ultimately stayed in the federal courts, Mazda moved in district court to reconsider in light of the new decision. The district court denied this on the grounds that the case was out of its hands, remanded back to state court. Mazda appealed.

Before the Eleventh Circuit, Mazda argued that under a 1987 Eleventh Circuit case, Ritter v. Smith, the district court should have granted its motion to bring the case back to federal court. Bender counter-argued with another Eleventh Circuit case, 1992's Harris v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama. The Eleventh found Harris most persuasive. That case cited 28 USC sec. 1447, which says in part that orders to remand are not reviewable on appeal or otherwise. In Harris, the Eleventh expressly found that district courts may not review their own remand orders. This trumps the motion to reconsider filed by Mazda, the appeals court found. The appeals court further found that the outcome of Roe did not matter in this case. Even if the remand to state court was legally erroneous, it said, review by the district court or the Eleventh Circuit is still barred by sec. 1447: "The case has been removed to state court, and that is where it will stay." Thus, it affirmed the district court's refusal to reconsider.

As a Philadelphia personal injury lawyer, I am familiar with cases in which large, well-funded companies pull out all the legal stops to avoid liability. This is common because large companies generally have the money to fight cases all the way up to federal appeals courts, when necessary. Because facing legal liability can be very expensive in the long run -- and because fighting a case in appeals courts is expensive for individual litigants like Bender -- it actually does make sense for defendants with a lot of funding to fight small issues to death. This tactic does not give defendants a better argument on the facts, of course -- it helps defendants dodge legal liability by removing facts from consideration.

Continue reading "Court Rules Wrongful Death Case Involving Defective Car Allegations Belongs in State Court - Bender v. Mazda Motor Corp." »

As a Philadelphia accident lawyer, I routinely handle cases that straddle the Pennsylvania state border with New Jersey. Because New Jersey is part of the Philadelphia metro area, it's not uncommon for a New Jersey resident to be involved in an auto accident in Pennsylvania, or vice versa. Occasionally, this can cause problems for drivers making insurance claims outside their home state. In Amica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Fogel, the situation was similar: the Fogel family had moved from New Jersey to Pennsylvania, and taken their Amica insurance policy with them. Amica knew about the move. However, when the family was involved in a bad accident in Pennsylvania, the company had not yet converted the policy to a Pennsylvania policy, which would give the Fogels more compensation. In this ruling, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that New Jersey choice-of-law rules apply to the dispute, but point to Pennsylvania law.

The Fogels moved to Pennsylvania in August 2008, and father Edward Fogel called Amica in September 2008 to notify it that they had moved permanently. The company began billing in Pennsylvania immediately, but told him it could not convert his policy to a Pennsylvania policy until he and his wife had Pennsylvania driver's licenses and vehicle registration. That did not happen until early 2009. However, in October of 2008. Edward Fogel and his three daughters were hit head-on by an allegedly intoxicated driver. The crash killed daughter Melissa Fogel and seriously injured the others. The at-fault driver had liability insurance of $100,000, which was paid but did not meet the family's financial needs. The family had PIP insurance for $250,000 per family member. However, under Pennsylvania law, they would be entitled to "stack" their policies for more than one vehicle, collecting more money; New Jersey did not allow this. The Fogels sought to collect under Pennsylvania law, and Amica filed in New Jersey for a declaratory judgment that New Jersey law applies. This was transferred to Pennsylvania district court, which eventually granted summary judgment in favor of Amica. The Fogels appealed to the Third Circuit.

They had better luck at the appeals court. The Third started by noting that under existing caselaw, New Jersey law should be chosen because New Jersey was the forum in which the case began. It then applied New Jersey law to determine which state's law controls the actual insurance dispute. A 1998 New Jersey Appellate Division case, NJ Manufacturers Insurance Co. v. MacVicar, had strikingly similar facts' to the Fogels' case, the Third said; that family also sought to apply Pennsylvania law to a New Jersey policy after moving but before converting the policy. That case stayed in New Jersey state court, however, and the Appellate Division ultimately decided that Pennsylvania law applied to the crash because New Jersey follows the Third Restatement of Conflicts of Laws, which says to choose the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the parties and the transaction at issue. When the Fogels moved to Pennsylvania, the insured risk clearly also moved to Pennsylvania. Thus, it didn't matter that the Fogels hadn't yet reregistered their vehicles and gotten the rewritten policy; both parties were on notice that they were driving in Pennsylvania. Following MacVicar, the Third also ruled that Pennsylvania law should apply because Pennsylvania has a greater governmental interest in the case. Thus, it reversed and remanded the case for summary judgment on the choice of law issue.

As a Philadelphia personal injury lawyer, I'm glad to see the court apply Pennsylvania law to people who were clearly Pennsylvania citizens at the time of their accident. As the Third Circuit noted, Pennsylvania has a strong public policy interest in its stacking law, predicated on the belief that its citizens should be able to use all of the insurance they have purchased. For people like the Fogels, who are now dealing with serious injuries to three of the four remaining family members, this is significant because their financial needs could be very significant. A severe head injury, for example, could leave its victim permanently disabled, requiring retraining in basic life skills. If any of the victims is too badly injured to work, he or she will need some kind of financial help for life. That's one reason why accident victims come to our personal injury law firm -- to pass these steep financial costs on to the irresponsible people who caused them and the insurance companies that have promised to pay them.

Continue reading "Pennsylvania Law Governs Auto Insurance Coverage Dispute in Fatal Accident Case - Amica Mutual Insurance v. Fogel" »

As a Philadelphia injury lawyer, I was interested to read a rare case that reversed penalties against an attorney accused of misconduct during a personal injury trial. In Yolanda Adams v. Ford Motor Company, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the district court for the U.S. Virgin Islands, which had sanctioned attorney Vincent A. Colianni for contacting a juror after the verdict was reached. Colianni was representing Yolanda Adams, who suffered a serious brain injury in an accident involving a Ford vehicle.

At the trial on the brain injury to Adams, she was awarded $2.3 million in damages, but apportioned 77.5 percent of the fault, while Ford was apportioned 22.5 percent. Thus, Adams was only eligible to collect 22.5 percent of the $2.3 million verdict, or $517,500. After the verdict was reached, Colianni apparently thought there was a clerical error on the verdict form, and got in touch with a juror to explain what he thought was the mistake. Juror Alicia Barnes felt uncomfortable with the conversation and hung up after only about a minute, then contacted the judge to report the conversation. The judge eventually sanctioned Colianni for violation of ABA Rule of Professional Conduct 3.5(c), which restricts post-verdict communications with jurors. Rather than reprimand or suspend Colianni according to local rules, the judge referred him to the Virgin Islands Bar Association for formal investigation. He also refused to seal the record. Colianni appealed.

On appeal, the Third Circuit noted that this was a new issue: whether a formal finding that the rule was violated, and a referral to the local bar association, constitutes a sanction. Ultimately, it held that this was indeed a sanction. The judge's actions affected Colianni's professional reputation, which is a major asset for any attorney and may be especially important in a small community like the Virgin Islands. This decision only gave Colianni standing, however. The court turned next to whether the judge abused his discretion by sanctioning Colianni. The judge must have believed Colianni was guilty of violating the rule's prohibition on "misrepresentation, coercion, duress or harassment," the Third said. The court found no harassment in Colianni's behavior, noting that he had a legitimate purpose for calling, called only once and hung up as soon as Barnes expressed discomfort. Thus, it agreed that there was an abuse of discretion. Finally, the Third found that Colianni's due process rights were violated by a lack of explicit notice that he was facing sanctions, the lack of a hearing and by the court's failure to follow local disciplinary rules. Thus, it vacated the district court's order.

As a Philadelphia accident lawyer, I'd like to note that Colianni was likely trying to do what was best for his client -- make sure she was getting the best judgment possible under the circumstances. If Adams suffered a serious brain injury, as this opinion finds, she likely needs at least some health care and personal care for the rest of her life. Brain damage is irreversible, and when it affects physical movement or mental stability, it can make it impossible to live an ordinary adult life. For that reason, it tends to be very, very expensive to treat, which is why Adams likely needs much more than $517,500 to cover her treatment. If Colianni can be believed, his phone call was an attempt to make sure the judgment was made with all of the available information, to ensure that he missed no opportunity to get Adams the money she needed.

If you or someone you love was seriously injured in Philadelphia or eastern Pennsylvania, Rosenbaum & Associates can help. For a free, confidential evaluation of your case, call us today at 1-800-7-LEGAL-7 or send us a message online.

Similar blog posts:

Car Crashes into Home in Philadelphia

Driver Crashes into Septa Trolley in Philadelphia

Toddler Injured in Philadelphia Car Accident

Philadelphia police are investigating a tragic accident this evening. They are still looking into just what circumstances caused a car to slam into a home early Monday morning. Both the car and the home in this accident were badly damaged.

According to CBS Philly the crash happened when a car crashed into a home between 61st and Sansom Streets in West Philadelphia. Investigators say that the driver of the car may have lost control and slammed into the house hitting both an exterior wall and the front steps.
Luckily, there have been no injuries reported at this time, but the condition of the home owner and the driver of the car both remain under investigation.

More than 6 million car accidents occur in the United States each year, many in Pennsylvania and the areas surrounding Philadelphia. Some sources have even reported that one death occurs due to a car accident occurs every 13 minutes. These terrifying statistics remind us that we must protect ourselves and our love ones and fight to ensure that they are taken care of after sustaining injuries from a car crash that was no fault of their own. If you've been involved in a car accident, contact a Philadelphia injury lawyer or a Philadelphia accident lawyer today.

A Florida man driving a tour bus in New York City is being charged with DWI and vehicular manslaughter after an accident that occurred just before 10 p.m. on Saturday evening. The man ran over pedestrian Timothy White, a Philadelphia resident who was visiting New York City that day. The tour bus struck the victim as it was headed from West 47th Street and making a turn onto 9th Avenue.

Police say the tour bus driver carelessly ran over the victim, who was just 29 years old and found unconscious and severely injured underneath the tour bus after the accident. Victim Timothy White was taken to Bellevue Hospital where he died from the injuries sustained.
Although the tour bus was carrying passengers, none of them were reportedly injured from the accident. It has not yet been reported where the tour bus was coming from or where it was headed.

Fifty-seven-year-old Steve Drappel of West Palm Beach, Florida has been arrested and charged in this case. This incident is sadly one of the many suspected to be caused by the negligence of drivers of mass transit vehicles that has occurred over the past few months in the Philadelphia and New York areas.

Drivers of commercial vehicles, if found guilty, as well as the company they work for may be responsible for providing serious compensation to the victims and their families in order to pay for the injury and tragic losses caused. If you or a loved one has been involved in a similar case, contact a Philadelphia injury lawyer or a Philadelphia accident lawyer right away.

Early Wednesday morning in Philadelphia, a driver and SEPTA trolley collided at 39th Street and Lancaster Avenue in West Philadelphia.

According to reports from police, the driver was driving in the trolley lane at the time of the accident. The driver side-swiped the oncoming trolley causing serious damage to his car and minor damage to the Philadelphia SEPTA trolley.

The driver was taken to the hospital of the University of Pennsylvania Hospital after reporting neck and back pain. It is not yet known if anyone who was riding on the trolley has suffered any injuries from the crash.

The accident is still under investigation, but Philadelphia injury lawyers urge that parties involved in accidents like this to be sure to see a Philadelphia accident lawyer or a Philadelphia injury lawyer right away. Within the last several years, there have been several accidents in Philadelphia and surrounding areas of Pennsylvania involving SEPTA service vehicles.

When it is uncertain at the scene just who may have caused an auto accident, an innocent party could be at risk of being wrongly convicted or not receiving the damages they may be entitled to. In order to help prevent such undesirable outcomes, it is recommended that you call an expert Philadelphia attorney immediately.

Sadly, another Philadelphia toddler has suffered personal injuries after been struck by an oncoming motorist. This is the second report in a week of a toddler running into a Philadelphia street and being injured by a vehicle. The two cases are not related.

The driver, who was driving east bound near the 5500 block Wyalusing Avenue around 5 p.m. on Sunday, reports that he did not see the child running into the street. The two year old child was struck immediately, but remains in stable condition at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia at this time. The driver of the vehicle has not reported any injuries.

It is unclear whether or not any charges will be pressed against the driver in this incident. The driver remained on the scene and cooperated with police before being allowed to leave the scene.

Parents are always advised to keep children from playing in or around roadways, especially on busy Philadelphia streets and drivers should always act as defensive drivers to avoid such incidents. If you or a loved one has been involved in a similar incident and it is unclear just who is to blame, contact a Philadelphia injury lawyer immediately. A Philadelphia injury lawyer will help explain your rights and see that you get any compensation that you may be owed for your case.

Police are speculating that a 20 year old suspect was high on heroin when he caused a terrible car crash that proved fatal for Amari Clark a 12 year old girl from Illinois. The suspect, Andrew Fraticelli is being charged with aggravated DUI and reckless homicide.

Police are saying Fraticelli was under the influence at about 8:30 p.m. on Friday night when he crossed the centerline and crashed head on into a Taurus being driven by Apryl Sherrod, the victim's mother. Sherrod was also injured in the crash and was unconscious at the scene.

Currently Fraticelli is being held on $250 thousand bond. Although the suspect is not believed to have a prior criminal record, these charges are severe enough to put him behind bars for a long time.

Accidents like these in which innocent victims lose their life or are seriously injured occur too often across the Philadelphia area. Victims' families often have a hard enough time coping with the emotional grief, let alone navigating the logistics of a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit. It is important to call a Philadelphia injury lawyer right away, if you should find yourself or a loved one to be a victim. The Philadelphia injury lawyer will see that your case is handled while you take the necessary time to deal with the emotional burdens of this type of case.

There has been a great deal in the news lately about charter bus accidents. Recent tragic accidents involving charter busses have sadly injured and killed many Philadelphia residents as well as citizens from surrounding cities.

Recent events make us take a look back at the tragic Septa Philadelphia bus crash of 2008. On September 13th of 2008 an overnight accident involving a Septa bus injured 20 people in West Philadelphia. The driver of a car traveling on 51st Street was said to have struck the Route 21 bus. The collision forced the bus to veer of the road and into a tree around the 5100 block of Chestnut Street.

After the crash, it was found that 20 people including the bus driver suffered mild to moderate injuries. Fortunately, in this case, none of the injuries were life threatening. The driver of the vehicle that struck the bus, who also suffered minor injuries, was charged with DUI after being treated at a Philadelphia area hospital.

In the case of a commercial auto accident, finding out who is responsible for compensation the victims so that their medical and financial needs are taken care of after the accident can be tricky. Similar complications could be seen in the recent Ride the Ducks accident in Philadelphia in which families of the victims filed suits against multiple parties involved.

Those who find themselves confused about who might be responsible for their injury can contact a Philadelphia injury lawyer. A Philadelphia injury lawyer will be will help you to decipher who just may be responsible.

Philadelphia police have just arrested Crystal Tucker, 43, of Philadelphia. Tucker was seen by officers driving a 2001 Honda Civic in the area of Broad Street and Interstate 76 where she collided with another vehicle according to a CBS report.

Sadly, Tucker tried to flee the scene, putting the other drivers at risk of becoming victims of a hit and run incident. Fortunately, in this case Philadelphia police were able to track down the suspect after she failed to stop, proceeding north of I-95 into Bucks County.

While on the run, Tucker struck a State police vehicle as well as a Philadelphia cruiser before being taken into custody and being charged with several criminal and traffic offenses.

Several hit and run accidents happen in the Philadelphia area each year as guilty driver's attempt to flee to avoid charges and fines leaving victims in a bind. It's important to try to carry uninsured drivers insurance to ensure that you are protected as can be in this situation and can receive compensation. Fortunately in this case, victims may be able to seek compensation from the appropriate party thanks to Philadelphia police. If you or a loved one has been in an auto accident, contact a Philadelphia accident lawyer or a Philadelphia injury lawyer today.