Case Study: Insurance Company Tries To Minimize Injuries To Avoid Paying Damages

On May 6, 2002, thirty-two year-old Sarah Brown was
rear-ended on Interstate 405 near the Renton S-curves. The
other driver was insured by Farmers Insurance Company. Ms.
Brown received injuries to her neck and back. Her medical
expenses were $18,205, including $10,500 in chiropractic
charges. A lumbar spine MRI revealed a protruding disc that
was non-surgical according to her doctor. The last offer
from Farmers was $50,000. Mr. Davis presented just four (4)
witnesses, including Ms. Larsen and two of her doctors.
After a 3-day trial, a jury awarded $500,000.

The Facts Of The Case On May 6, 2002, Sarah Brown was
rear-ended while stopped on Interstate 405 in Renton,
Washington. The police were called. Ms. Browns's car
received moderate damage. She was able to drive away from
the scene. The defendant, Jennifer Combs, was 23 years old
at the time. She was cited for inattentive driving.

Ms. Brown drove to work but then left after a few hours.
She complained of pain to her neck, shoulders, back and
hip. She saw a doctor the next day. The doctor diagnosed
her with straining injuries to her neck and back, and
contusions to her chest and left breast. She was referred
to physical therapy and given medications for pain.

Ms. Brown decided to see a chiropractor for her ongoing
neck and back pain. A cervical spine MRI revealed a small
bulging disc at C5-6. Her neck pain largely resolved after
one year.

Approximately one year following the accident, her low back
pain worsened. She was admitted to the ER at Evergreen
Hospital in Kirkland, Washington. Ms. Brown continued to
see a chiropractor for her ongoing low back pain. The pain
had worsened by going down her legs and into her right big
toe.

A lumbar spine MRI was ordered in October 2005, which
revealed a protruding disc at L4-5. Ms. Brown was referred
to a neurosurgeon who did not believe surgery was
necessary. The neurosurgeon advised Ms. Brown to continue
with chiropractic care since her complaints were being
managed with this treatment.

Ms. Brown sought a second opinion from a doctor that
specializes in minimally invasive spine surgery. This
doctor also advised her to continue with chiropractic care
instead of surgical intervention.

Seattle attorney, Christopher M. Davis attempted to settle
Ms. Brown's case after she underwent the lumbar spine MRI
in October 2005. However, Farmers ignored his offer to
settle and tried to minimize the extent of Ms. Brown's
injuries. At that point, Mr. Davis started to prepare for
trial. He met with Ms. Brown's doctors and prepared trial
exhibits. More than $5,000 was incurred in litigation costs.

About one month before trial, Farmers finally offered to
settle the case for $50,000. Mr. Davis advised his client
to reject the offer and go to trial.

The attorney hired by Farmers requested that the case be
heard by a jury and paid the required jury fee to the court.

Trial commenced on June 22. Mr. Davis presented just 4
witnesses, including Ms. Brown, her friend and two doctors.
After 3.5 hours of deliberation, the jury awarded $500,000,
including past economic damages of $20,605, future economic
damages of $275,000 and noneconomic damages of $204,395.

*Some names have been changed to protect our client's
privacy.


----------------------------------------------------
Christopher M. Davis is the managing partner of Davis Law
Group. He brings over 15 years of practical yet innovative
experience to personal injury cases. He practices law in
Seattle, WA. You can learn more about Mr. Davis at
http://www.InjuryTrialLawyer.com .

What To Expect At The Final Divorce Court Date

The final date before the Judge in a divorce case is often
referred to as the prove-up date. It is where a
recitation, including testimony of the petitioner, is
presented before the court. It is basically a final
request by the petitioner to have a Judgment for
Dissolution entered before the court so that the terms of
the agreement become embodied in a court order.

The first part of the prove-up is the introduction by the
attorney. The attorney will set the facts to be presented
before the court. The attorney will tender to either the
Judge or the Clerk of Court the appropriate documentation
in order to proceed. The documents typically include:

1) Proposed Judgment for Dissolution;

2) Settlement Agreement;

3) Joint Parenting Agreement (if applicable);

4) Stipulation by the parties;

5) Military Affidavits; and

6) Other documents required by local or county rule.

The attorney will begin to examine the petitioner in open
court. The petitioner will answer yes/no questions
pertaining to the facts of the case. For example, the
attorney may ask: please state your name and address for
the record. Were you married on such and such date in the
city of wherever? Were there any children born to or
adopted by the parties and are you currently pregnant?

The attorney will then move to the particular Judgment and
Settlement Agreement at issue. The petitioner will likely
identify the signatures that appear throughout the Judgment
as hers and her spouses. The attorney will then illustrate
the important provision to see if the petitioner agrees
will the terms therein and if she wishes to be bound by
said terms. The court will then likely have a few
questions for the petitioner. The court likes to have the
topic of maintenance addressed. If there is a maintenance
provision, the court will recite the terms, amount,
duration, etc. If there is no award of maintenance, the
court will make sure that the party is aware of the waiver
of maintenance and of the inability to come back into court
at a later date to seek maintenance.

Provided the court is satisfied with the terms of the
Judgment and provided that all statutory requirements are
met, the court will likely enter the Judgment instanter.
Once the Judgment is signed, it becomes the legal document
binding the parties from that day forward. Any issues that
arise after the judgment is entered are considered
post-decree. Most final court dates are heard without
incident. In a minority of cases, the Judge may wish that
additional language be added, removed or clarified prior to
entry.


----------------------------------------------------
David M. Siegel is an attorney practicing divorce and
family law. Additional information is available at
http://www.divorce-lawyers-newyork.com .

Bankruptcy Reform Can Assist Homeowners From Foreclosure

Chapter 13 bankruptcy reform is what is truly needed to
stem the time of the current foreclosure crisis. Even if
the code were modified for a short period of time, it would
give homeowners the opportunity to restructure loans that
are subject to or already in foreclosure. As the law
currently stands, a homeowner in Chapter 13 cannot alter
the contractual terms of their loan. A homeowner can repay
mortgage arrears over three to five years, however, the
post-petition mortgage payment must be made pursuant to the
original terms of the contract. Under several proposals to
modify Chapter 13 bankruptcy, a homeowner would be
permitted to restructure the loan.

For example, the loan can be reduced with regard to
principal, the rate of interest can be converted to a
fixed-rate, and the duration of the loan can be extended to
thirty years. This would effectively alter the loan so
that the homeowner has the opportunity to stay in the home.
Although the banking industry would vehemently object to
such restructuring, it is the banking industry that helped
create the current crisis. Under a revised Chapter 13
case, the mortgage company would receive the same of type
status as that of a conforming loan. The interest rate
would be no less than that of a conforming loan. The
length of the loan would be no less than that of a
conforming loan. In essence, the mortgage company would
have to bear some of the burden of the current crisis by
allowing homeowners to amend their loans.

Now this may seem like a drastic measure to force upon the
already decimated mortgage industry. However, if Chapter
13 cases could be modified, all parties will benefit in the
long run. First, homeowners would be permitted to save and
keep their homes. Second, the mortgage companies would be
paid an amount greater than what they would lose should
the property fall into foreclosure and subsequent sale.
Lastly, the communities would be protected against blight
and falling home prices if homeowners were allowed to
restructure loans through Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

It will be interesting to see if the proposed changes to
the bankruptcy code make it out of committee. There will
be a huge opposition from the banking industry. That same
industry spent over 8 years lobbying for the bankruptcy
reform act of 2005. I doubt that they will be willing to
give back one inch of the reform measures that they fought
so long and hard to obtain. It is also possible that the
big reform push may occur after the upcoming election. If
the Democrats retake the white house, more liberal reforms
will surely follow. I hope that homeowners can hang on no
matter who is elected.


----------------------------------------------------
David M. Siegel is the author of Chapter 7 Success: The
Complete Guide to Surviving Personal Bankruptcy. He is a
member of the American Bankruptcy Institute and currently
practices bankruptcy law in Chicago and its surrounding
suburbs. Additional information is available at
http://www.chapter7success.com .