Stockton Injury Lawyer Blog

Stockton news reports that a nine-year-old girl was killed in a pedestrian accident as she was crossing street. The Stockton girl suffered head trauma and burn injuries after being struck by a van. She was taken to the University of California, Davis, Medical Center in Sacramento for treatment.

If you have suffered serious personal injuries as the result of any California accident, including car accidents or pedestrian accidents, it is important to speak to an experienced Stockton injury attorney to answer your personal injury questions and determine your next steps.

Reports indicate that the girl was crossing the street and in the crosswalk with other people when she was struck by a Chevrolet Astro van headed west. A CHP Officer noted "The driver was driving toward the sun, and this shows that sometimes your blind spot doesn't have to be on the sides or behind you; it can be in front of you."

Although it is unknown whether the young girl in the crosswalk was walking or riding her motorized scooter at the time of the accident, the bike caught fire when hit by the van. The fire subsequently burned her arms, legs and chest. The girl was in stable condition when she was flown to the Sacramento trauma center.

Police are investigating whether the woman who was driving the van was speeding or ran a red light. Alcohol doesn't appear to be a factor.

Continue reading "Car Accident Injures Nine-Year-Old Stockton Girl In Crosswalk" »

The Merced Sun-Star reports that two separate car accidents have resulted in the deaths of three people over the last few days.

In one automobile accident, two 19-year-old women were killed after their car struck a power pole on Lake Road. The car had drifted onto the shoulder, and after the driver corrected, she lost control and the car began to spin clockwise. Two other passengers in the car suffered minor injuries.

In a second car accident, a 57-year-old man was killed after being injured in a truck accident.

If you have been injured in a car accident and suffered serious injuries or if a loved one has died in a car crash, it is important to contact an experienced California personal injury lawyer to protect your rights and explore options for compensation. In many situations, the extent of your coverage will be determined based on the insurance contract you have. If you are the party being charged with negligence, your insurance company is required to defend claims made against your policy. If you are the one injured or wronged, your insurance company should cover your claims and then may bring a "subrogation claim" against the responsible party.

Continue reading "Merced County Accidents Result In Three Deaths" »

Saturday night a female dog groomer, along with three dogs, was killed when her car was broadsided at a rural two-way stop outside of Stockton. This intersection is particularly dangerous and it the site of many car crashes.

The woman, Judith Smith, was returning home with a client's dogs when her car was hit at the intersection of Van Allen and Gawne roads. Smith was headed north when Marcos Gomez, driving west on Gawne, failed to stop at the stop sign and collided with Smith's car. Smith's car was knocked off the road and burst into flames.

Many issues exist in this tragic case. First, the intersection where the accident occurred was known as dangerous. A friend of the victim stated that "this is a known corner for accidents." Trees and high grass often make it difficult to see on coming traffic. An experienced attorney is necessary to conduct an investigation of the area and determine whether the trees and grasses did in fact obscure Ms. Smith's car.

Often the specific location of the cars, the condition of the roadway and the maintenance of an intersection may significantly impact the determination of who is at fault in a car accident, and consequently affect the compensation an injured party or loved one may recover.

Complicating matters, the driver who hit Ms. Smith failed to carry insurance. Pursuant to California law, all drivers must carry car insurance in the amount of $15,000 per injury and $5,000 for property damage. However, in cases where a driver is uninsured, the victim's own insurance or that of another responsible party may compensate her or her loved one's for the injuries sustained.

Continue reading "Tragic Stockton Car Accident Occurs At Dangerous Intersection " »

The Central Valley Business Times reports that a consumer fraud investigation of Mercury Insurance, sponsor of Proposition17, by the Department of Insurance has revealed that the insurance company has disregarded California's consumer protection statute and overcharged consumers for over 15 year.

Under California law, all automobile drivers must carry insurance. Minimum insurance requirement include $15,000 per injury or death per accident and $5,000 for property damage. Where a person has been in a previous accident, premiums may substantially increase.

Drivers in the Central Valley and throughout California who have sought car insurance from Mercury may have been subject to fraudulent activities including the denial of coverage of drivers in certain occupations, failure to consistently apply insurance premiums when they were due, resulting in overcharges, and failure to collect the appropriate information regarding previous accidents to ensure accurate fees were charged.

Ironically, Mercury Insurance is now sponsoring Proposition 17, promising it will lower car insurance premiums by offering a discount to new customers who switch from one insurer to another. Although Proposition 17 allows for "continuous coverage" in switching insurance company it would also allow insurance companies to substantially increase rates for drivers who's insurance has lapsed for any reason, such as a prolonged absence due to military service, hospitalization from a car accident, or those who can't simply can't afford the premiums for a period of time.

Many critics point out that Mercury's message in support of Proposition 17 is deceptive. Not only did it pay $2.2 million to gather the signatures necessary to have the measure placed on the ballot, but it also seeks to legalize some of the practices Mercury has been fined for - such as canceling policies and denying driver's favorable rates.

Continue reading "Insurance Company Sponsoring California's Proposition 17 May Have Illegally Overcharged Thousands" »

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of a company whose insurer was ordered to pay the full cost of treating an accident victim.

The outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in Howell v. Hamilton Meats, will likely have a major impact on almost every personal injury matter in Marin County and all over California, by affecting how medical damages are calculated.

For many years, California courts have unfairly limited a victim's recovery of medical damages to the "discounted amount" paid by the insurance company. The discounted amount is the actual payment amount a hospital is willing to accept from an insurance company in exchange, for example, for business or prompt payment. This amount is often significantly less than the victim's actual medical bills.

In a rare victory for accident victims, in November the state appeals court in San Diego determined that an injured person who has insurance could recover the full cost of treatment from the person responsible for the injury.

In Howell v. Hamilton Meats, a woman - Rebecca Howell - was injured when a truck made an illegal U-turn and hit her car. Her medical bills for surgery and treatment at 2 separate hospitals totaled $190,000, but the hospitals agreed to accept $60,000 from Howell's insurer. In a 3-0 decision, the state appeals court determined that Howell was entitled to the full $190,000, in part because it was her foresight in getting health insurance that allowed for the discount in the first place. The court reasoned that Hamilton Meats shouldn't reap the benefits of Howell's planning.

The California Supreme Court granted review of this decision on March 11.

Continue reading "California Supreme Court To Review Damage Calculations For Accident Victims" »

As President Obama strives to implement health care reform - "tort reform" has become a hot button issue. "Tort reform" typically refers to caps on non-economic punitive damages in lawsuits where individuals have been injured by gross medical malpractice. Tort reform advocates erroneously blame medical malpractice lawsuits for high insurance premiums, causing doctors to flee states without caps and practice "defensive medicine," further increasing health care costs.

However, as medical malpractice victims living in Marin County and throughout California know, the real cost of tort reform is born by those who been seriously injured or harmed by medical negligence. California currently has one of the nation's most restrictive tort reform laws with its 34 year old "cap" of $250,000 on pain and suffering for injured patients, which essentially prevents victim of severe cases of malpractice from going forward in the courts and receiving just compensation.

Further, studies show that many of the tort reformer's arguments are false and based on inaccurate information. According to a November report issued by the American Association for Justice, lawsuits do not drive up insurance premiums. In fact, studies show that jury awards, settlements and administrative costs add up to less than $10 billion a year - less than 0.3% of what the U.S. spends on health care every year.

The costs of defensive medicine are also greatly exaggerated. Recent studies show estimate that defensive medicine at most accounts for 3% of medical spending - and much of what is identified as defensive medicine is not motivated by liability, but simply the desire of physicians to generate more income.

Finally, little correlation exists between malpractice payouts and malpractice premiums. In fact, researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) noted, "increases in malpractice payments made on behalf of physicians do not seem to be the driving force behind increases in premiums." Declining interest rates and investments in the insurance industry drive the rate increases - not malpractice payouts. One study found that insurers artificially raised doctors' premiums and misled the public about the nature of medical negligence claims in order to justify "tort reform."

Continue reading "California Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Not Responsible For High Insurance Premiums" »

Do You Have Sufficient Insurance Coverage? Driving a vehicle in today's society you are legally obligated to insure yourself in the event your actions cause harm to others. You also want to insure yourself against the other hazards posed to you on the roadway, i.e. underinsured drivers, drunk drivers, or drivers with no insurance at all. Let's say you, with your wife and two children, own a home, two cars, a boat, and a vacation home. You of course look to an insurance company to protect your assets. Either you contact an agent or you get on line to check boxes to create your own policy. Regardless of which route taken most people focus on how much is this coverage going to cost me a month and like other things in our lives, we tend to skimp to save a little. Problem is, the amount you're saving in no way justifies what your skimping on.

The family above decides to get a motor vehicle liability policy of 100/300, that is, $100,000 per person or $300,000 per incident. They feel $100,000 is adequate to protect their investments. What they don't understand is the cost of medical care; ambulance to the hospital, admitted for a couple of days, perhaps a surgery and medical costs can already exceed $100,000. A savvy lawyer may look at the family's assets and conclude the family is capable of contributing to that single limit policy of $100,000 so before they agree to settle the matter that attorney can compel that family to pay out of their own pocket.

The cost difference on a policy of 100/300 and say 250/500 is so nominal there is no argument justifying not paying the additional amount to have the additional coverage. Furthermore, given the numerous policies our family needs a $1,000,000 umbrella policy makes sense. This umbrella would kick in to provide coverage for any claim that exceeded the policy on the car, boat, home. It costs in the ballpark of a couple hundred dollars a year to have.

Lastly, and this one gets me every time: the aforementioned family has a good liability policy of 100/300 but saved a few dollars by having 25/50 on their uninsured motorist's policy. This part of your motor vehicle policy is for you, to protect you against the uninsured and underinsured drivers. The family hurts themselves by not getting at least limits equal to the liability limits. When you want to insure yourself against other drivers on the road make sure you have good uninsured motorist's limits. If the time comes that you need to access that portion of the policy you will be glad you paid a little more to have high limits.

I carry a $500,000 flat limit for my two cars and have a $1,000,000 umbrella. The umbrella doubles and underinsured coverage as well so it costs a bit more, approximately $400 a year. Well worth it in the event the need arises.

Save money but don't save it when it comes to having sufficient insurance. I'm not the biggest fan of the insurance industry but when it comes to your own policy it can turn out to be your best friend.