 |
|
|
From the Washington Post
Cindy Lohman, a public health nurse who helps special-needs children, said she had always believed that her son’s life insurance funds were in a bank insured by the FDIC. That money — like $28 billion in 1 million death-benefit accounts managed by insurers — wasn’t actually sitting in a bank.
It was being held in Prudential’s general corporate account, earning investment income for the insurer. Prudential paid survivors such as Lohman 1 percent interest in 2008 on their Alliance Accounts, while it earned a 4.8 percent return on its corporate funds, according to regulatory filings.
“I’m shocked,” Lohman said, breaking into tears as she learned how the Alliance Account works. “It’s a betrayal. It saddens me as an American that a company would stoop so low as to make a profit on the death of a soldier. Is there anything lower than that?”
Millions of bereaved Americans have unwittingly been placed in the same position by their insurance companies. The practice of issuing what they call “checkbooks” to survivors, instead of paying them lump sums, extends well beyond the military.
Jazlowiecki & Jazlowiecki is in the early stages of preparing a class action lawsuit against these insurers. If you would like to be involved, please contact them at once. JazlowieckiLaw@gmail.com
From The Livingstone County News
The attorneys who obtained a $2.25 million verdict from a Livingston County jury on behalf of three victims of the Jan. 29, 2005 Windsor Wildcats bus accident have been granted leave by the Appellate Division 4th Department to appeal the case to the New York Court of Appeals.
The issue of whether these Canadian victims’ damages will be limited by a $326,000 cap specified in Canadian law will be decided by the state’s highest court.
“We feel this is a very significant development and continue to be optimistic that New York law will be applied to the case,” said Marc Albert of the Buffalo firm Seeger Weiss LLP, which is representing 11 of the accident victims.
The issue is a critical one because the value of the vast majority of the victims’ claims far exceeds the Canadian cap on damages, Albert advised.
“We firmly believe that New York law – not Canadian – applies here,” Albert continued. “Not only did the accident take place in New York, but it involved commercial vehicles owned by defendant companies who were regularly using New York roadways for profit.”
“Application of a $326,000 Canadian cap to victims who sustained crippling orthopedic injuries, brain damage or death is incomprehensible,” stated Albert’s partner Moshe Horn. “This is especially so, given that the Court has already determined that New York law and un-capped damages will be applied to the claims of the truck driver, who has been held to be partially at fault for the accident. We’re very pleased that the Appellate Division has allowed us to appeal this issue to the Court of Appeals.”
The three victims so far awarded compensation were Windsor Wildcat hockey players Carly Labadie and Tory Gault, both mid-20s, and assistant coach Jason Mailloux, 35. In addition to orthopedic injuries sustained, all three were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Eight more cases represented by Seeger Weiss await trial, including Sheila Edwards, who lost her husband Richard and son Brian in the accident.
The family of the fourth deceased victim, Cathy Roach, is being represented by Connecticut attorney Ed Jazlowiecki. Also represented by Jazlowiecki is player Jessica Newton, who has settled her case out-of-court for an amount less than the $326,000 Canadian cap.
The three cases heard so far are by no means the worst injuries suffered.
Among those other victims, one girl has suffered coma and brain trauma and three others have permanent disabilities after suffering massive orthopedic injuries requiring multiple surgeries. Another victim suffered compartment syndrome and has permanent disability.
From The New York Times
GAITHERSBURG, Md. — Government experts and a panel of medical advisers repeatedly voiced skepticism on Tuesday about the trustworthiness of GlaxoSmithKline, which makes the controversial diabetes drug Avandia.
The committee is to vote Wednesday to advise the Food and Drug Administration on whether the drug, Avandia, which is widely used despite persistent concerns about its safety, should remain on the market. In recent days, internal company documents have shown that Glaxo hid important safety data from the public. A federal medical officer’s review of a major clinical trial, nicknamed Record, found multiple instances of heart attacks that were not included in the study’s final tally.
And on Tuesday, the company settled a lawsuit with plaintiffs who claimed that Avandia caused heart attacks and strokes, lawyers for the plaintiffs said. J. Paul Sizemore, a California lawyer for 2,132 people who had filed suit over Avandia, said his cases were settled on Friday for “a substantial portion” of the $460 million company lawyers told him was being paid in total. The company had no comment.
Dr. Nancy L. Geller, a committee member who is director of the Office of Biostatistics Research at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, said she was “concerned about data quality over all.” Told that death estimates can usually be trusted in clinical trials, she quickly retorted, “Not if you report the wrong follow-up date and not if you withdraw someone from a trial just before their death.”
From ABC News
Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty Monday afternoon to trying to explode a car bomb in Times Square on May 1, and to receiving terror training from the Pakistani Taliban, and warned that further attacks on the U.S. were coming.
From CBS NEWS
Nine months ago, most of America had never heard of Brooke Hundley.
But then a tabloid detailed her steamy affair with baseball analyst and former general manager Steve Phillips, a married man. Both Hundley and Phillips were fired from their jobs at ESPN. Now, Hundley is suing, saying she suffered emotional distress.
The scandal made for damaging headlines, CBS News correspondent Jeff Glor reports. Brooke Hundley, a 22-year-old production assistant at ESPN, was having an affair with one of the network’s baseball analysts, Steve Phillips, former general manager of the New York Mets.
Phillips had been married to his wife Marni for 19 years.
His affair with Hundley began after a meeting at major league baseball’s all star weekend last July, Hundley 24-years Phillips’ junior.
Phillips claims when he tried to end the relationship a month later, Hundley turned to stalking, sending Marni Phillips a letter detailing lurid sexual encounters and describing birthmarks on her husband’s body.
Brooke Hundley was also dismissed due to quote “misconduct.” She is now suing the sports network for at least $15,000 dollars in damages from lost wages, emotional distress, and damage to her reputation ( Read the 5-Count Complaint ).
Richard Hayber, Hundley’s attorney, told CBS News, “It may be that ESPN is more concerned about their own public image than they were about Mrs. Hundley’s rights. You’ll have to ask them.”
In a statement to CBS News, ESPN says, “Hundley’s claims are without merit and we will vigorously defend against them.”
From the New York Times
ALBANY — The State Senate on Tuesday, clearing aside decades of opposition, put New York on a course to adopt no-fault divorce — the last state to do so. It approved legislation that would permit couples to separate by mutual consent, a major shift with sweeping implications for families and lawyers.
Under current divorce law, one spouse must take the blame, even if both sides agree that a marriage cannot be saved. To get a divorce, one party must allege cruel and inhuman treatment or adultery or abandonment, or the couple must be legally separated for one year.
The new legislation still has to pass the State Assembly, which is considering two bills that would include some version of no-fault divorce. But advocates said Tuesday that they believed that victory in the Senate, which was controlled by Republicans until last year, gave the measure momentum and a high likelihood of gaining approval in the Assembly, which is also controlled by Democrats.
From our colleague Stu Ketaineck (ketainecklaw@gmail.com)
In a case to be released on June 8, 2010, the Appellate Court reverses summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant UM insurer. ERICA TODD v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (AC 31041). The following quotes and paraphrases from the decision.
The plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident in which her vehicle, which was covered by the defendant’s underinsured and conversion coverage policy, was struck by another vehicle that was operated by Christopher Bernacchi. Bernacchi’s vehicle was a leased vehicle that was owned by American HondaFinance Corporation (Honda) and insured by Pacific Employers Insurance Company (Pacific) under a liability policy with limits of $1 million. The plaintiff brought an action alleging negligence against Bernacchi and alleging that Honda was vicariously liable for Bernacchi’s negligence. The plaintiff also alleged that Bernacchi was an authorized driver of the leased vehicle. Bernacchi had a liability policy with GEICO with limits of $100,000. Bernacchi’s carrier paid the plaintiff the $100,000 limit of his policy, and the plaintiff settled with Honda for $275,000 through its carrier, Pacific.
The plaintiff then brought an action against the defendant for underinsured and conversion coverage benefits. The plaintiff, purportedly having discovered that Bernacchi had not been an authorized driver of the leased vehicle at the time of the accident, alleged the payment of $100,000 by Bernacchi’s carrier and, further, that the ‘‘plaintiff has exhausted all bodily injury liability bonds or insurance policies applicable at the time of the accident.
The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that the plaintiff had not exhausted all bodily injury liability bonds or insurance policies applicable at the time of the accident since Pacific, as the liability insurer of Honda, paid only $275,000 out of its available coverage of $1,000,000 to settle.
Summary judgment was granted. The trial judge concluded the plaintiff’s acceptance of the $275,000 settlement precluded the recovery of underinsured motorists benefits, as the applicable liability policies had not been exhausted.
On appeal, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to establish that the Pacific policy covering Honda’s leased vehicle was an ‘‘ ‘applicable policy’ ’’ within the meaning of § 38a-336a because there was still a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Bernacchi was an authorized driver of the vehicle. The Appellate Court agreed.
In order for the defendant at the summary judgment stage to establish that the Pacific policy was applicable at the time of the accident, within the meaning of the statute, it was necessary for the defendant to make it quite clear that Bernacchi was an authorized driver under the terms of the lease. The defendant failed to do this. The Appellate Court rejected the defendant’s reliance on the assertion that, as a matter of law, if the insured has accepted funds in settlement from any of the third parties involved in the negligence action, he is precluded from thereafter recovering uninsured, underinsured or conversion coverage benefits under his own policy.
The case was remanded for further proceedings.
*(Stu is currently available for assistance in Alternative Dispute Resolution. He can be reached at ketainecklaw@gmail.com)
|
|
|
|
Uncategorized | personal_injury_attorney_connecticut August 3, 2010 | 
Comments (0) 