Contested Versus Uncontested Cases

It amazes me that so many potential clients do not know the
difference between contested and uncontested cases. For
example, many who call my office believe that a case is
uncontested simply because both parties agree that they
want a divorce. What they fail to realize is that each
party desiring to dissolve the marriage is just the
beginning. For a case to be truly uncontested there needs
to be an agreement or resolution to all the issues
involved. These issues include, but are not limited to:

1) Grounds;

2) Custody, Support, Visitation;

3) Division of Marital Property;

4) Allocation of Debts;

5) Division of Pensions and Profit Sharing Accounts;

If there are children involved, the list of issues expands.
For example, who can claim the child or children as
dependants for tax purposes must be resolved?
Additionally, who will provide the medical coverage and who
will cover any extraordinary or uncovered medical expenses?
Who will have the children for the Christmas Holiday,
summer vacations and winter vacations from school?
Importantly, will there be a life insurance policy, naming
the minor children as irrevocable beneficiaries for as long
as there is a duty to support the minor children? These
and other issues can be very important to the parties and
to the court.

What if there is not a complete agreement on all the above
issues? Well, the parties have just crossed over into a
contested case. A contested case simply means that there
are issues involved that cannot be resolved by the parties
and there will need to be negotiations among parties and
counsel and possible, orders of court. Thus, if there is
even one issue in dispute, the case is contested. Albeit,
not hotly contested, contested nonetheless.

In such a contested case there can still be ongoing
discovery issues. This is where each party requests of the
other and must disclose the nature, location and extent of
all of their property, assets, and debts. This can be a
very exhaustive exercise or simply an effort to force the
other party to stipulate. In any event, the cost of a case
will increase as discovery efforts continue. Attorneys
charge by the hour and must painstakingly review the
information submitted by opposing counsel. Additionally,
the attorney must review and submit the information
provided by his client as well.

Thus, a contested case can involve a much higher degree of
work, expense and time. So when a caller states that the
case is agreed upon or uncontested, I must ask additionally
questions to insure that there are no issues in dispute.

----------------------------------------------------
New York City divorce and family law firm handling divorce
and family law cases throughout New York City and the
surrounding areas. Results driven law firm with experience
and skill to handle the most difficult cases.
http://www.divorce-lawyers-newyork.com

Divorcing in New York is not Simple

New York State is not one of the states that allows a
no-fault divorce. In other words, to obtain a divorce in
the state of New York, there must be proven grounds for the
dissolution. If the non-filing party has not committed any
act that would constitute grounds for divorce, the person
desiring the divorce will not be able to obtain it.

Some of the grounds for divorce in New York are as follows:

Incarceration: meaning the confinement of the defendant in
prison for a period of three or more consecutive years
after the marriage.

Adultery: meaning the commission of a voluntary act of
sexual or deviant sexual intercourse by the plaintiff with
a person other than the spouse.

Abandonment: meaning the desertion of the plaintiff by the
defendant for one or more years. Abandonment usually is
physical, where one spouse moves out of marital residence
and literally deserts the family. There is also
constructive abandonment also known as constructive sexual
abandonment. This ground is often used when both parties
want to divorce as quickly as possible.

Cruel and inhuman treatment: meaning conduct by the
non-filing party that endangers the physical or mental
well-being of the plaintiff to make it unsafe or
inhabitable for the plaintiff to cohabit with the defendant.

New York State is a state that encourages marriage. They
make it very difficult to obtain a divorce unless both
parties want the divorce. Just to the north in
Connecticut, they allow no-fault divorces. In Connecticut,
the two parties typically sign a stipulation stating that
irreconcilable differences have led to the irretrievable
breakdown of their marriage. They simply wait out a short
time period, and are able to obtain the dissolution of
marriage. Quite a contrast to the laws in the state of New
York, which is a border state to Connecticut. In New York,
if one of the parties who does not want to divorce has done
absolutely nothing to provide grounds for the divorce, the
person wanting the divorce will not be able to obtain it.
The majority of states are not like New York and that they
do allow for no-fault divorce. The legislature and the
state congresses are geared towards doing the will of the
people. The people of the United States have shown that
they do not want to be held into a marriage against their
will. The court system also does not want to be bogged
down in hearings and contested issues regarding fault.
That is why the majority of states in the United States are
in fact no-fault states. New York, however, is not one of
those states and there must be fault for sufficient grounds
to obtain a successful dissolution action.

----------------------------------------------------
New York City divorce and family law firm handling divorce
and family law cases throughout New York City and the
surrounding areas. Results driven law firm with experience
and skill to handle the most difficult cases.
http://www.divorce-lawyers-newyork.com

How the insurance industry shortchanges accident victims to earn billions more in profits

Recently discovered secret documents held by Allstate
Insurance Company show how the company purposely
shortchanged legitimate claims to reap billions more in
profits.

The documents were created by a business consulting firm
hired by Allstate in the early 1990's. The firm, McKinsey
and Company, recommended that Allstate adopt a policy to
intentionally pay out less money to accident victims who
filed legitimate claims. Although the claims filed by
accident victims were clearly valid and involved legitimate
injuries, Allstate found that by intentionally undercutting
the value of the claim by 20, 30 or even 50%, Allstate
could earn much more in profits. This policy was
revolutionary in the industry since no other company
adopted a specific policy of intentionally undercutting
valid claims and forcing people to file lawsuits
unnecessarily.

Allstate soon learned that the policy urged by McKinsey
would help them reap billions more in revenue. Allstate
found that most accident victims would not fight the policy
by hiring an attorney and filing a lawsuit. Most victims
would simply accept Allstate's lowball offer, even if
begrudgingly and with animosity towards the company.
Allstate realized that when the company settled thousands
of claims at a 10, 20, 30 and sometimes 50% discount, it
meant the company could recover literally billions more in
profits. Given the numbers involved, it is very easy to see
how Allstate could reap a windfall, albeit at the expense
and disadvantage of legitimate accident victims.

The consulting firm of McKinsey and Company is located in
New York. The documents created by McKinsey and utilized by
Allstate are now known as the "McKinsey documents." These
documents have been requested in many lawsuits filed
against Allstate across the nation. Allstate has vigorously
contested releasing these documents. In one case Allstate
has violated a court order by refusing to release the
documents. The judge was not pleased and thereafter fined
Allstate $25,000 for each day that it refused to comply.
Allstate has appealed that ruling.

When other carriers learned about the astronomical profits
Allstate was earning from its new "business model," many of
them followed suit including State Farm, Farmers and
Safeco. The model essentially turned the insurance industry
upside down on its head as far as the ability to earn more
in profits without having to sell more insurance policies
or without having to raise premiums.

I have experienced Allstate's "business model" first hand
in dozens of cases that I have handled for injury victims
over the years. The model is now used by several other
insurance companies who do business in Washington state.
These insurance companies have a specific goal to make it
as expensive and time consuming as possible for accident
victims to recover fair compensation for their injuries.
With this goal in mind, many times accident victims will
not even receive an amount sufficient to cover all of the
medical bills. The backlash has resulted in more lawsuits
which clog our justice system and are a tremendous strain
on our limited resources.

Seattle's King 5 TV investigated Allstate's practices and
interviewed some accident victims who have encountered the
unfair settlement practices utilized by Allstate and other
carriers.

In Washington State, a new law was adopted by the
legislature to protect accident victims who encounter the
hard-ball tactics employed by Allstate's new business
model. This law was then appealed by the insurance industry
and petitioned as Referendum 67 which is up for a vote this
November. The insurance industry has spent more than $8
Million to defeat Referendum 67.

The Washington State Insurance Commissioner has publicly
voiced support for Referendum 67. Many Washington
newspapers have also endorsed the passage of Referendum 67
including The Seattle Post Intelligencer, The Olympian, The
Everett Herald, and the Tacoma Tribune.

Referendum 67 needs to become law to combat the unfair
settlement practices utilized by the carriers who purposely
undercut and devalue legitimate claims. Without Referendum
67 insurance companies like Allstate will continue to earn
billions more in profits at the expense of legitimate
accident victims.

----------------------------------------------------
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 or at
http://www.WashingtonAccidentBook.com .

Escalators, Footwear, and Severe Foot Injuries

According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, over a
period of five years there were 53 reports of escalator
footwear mishaps and Crocs were named in four injuries. The
fact that Crocs has practically become a household word
since their inception in 2002 is quite amazing. Crocs
popularity might be part of the problem since they have
sold 50 million pairs of shoes in five years. And yes, the
knock-offs are getting caught in elevators too.

Shoe entrapment happens to young and old, to people wearing
galoshes, rubber soles, and even stiletto heels. Escalators
are powerful complex pieces of equipment with moving parts.

Hidden Dangers

"This is a hidden danger, not only in terms of the
escalator equipment, but in the design of the shoes", said
Philadelphia Lawyer Joel D. Feldman, Esquire and co-author
of Elevator and Escalator Accident Litigation and
Reconstruction, 2nd edition. "The soles of these shoes are
sticky and thus easily can become stuck in equipment.
Since they are made of a soft substance, they provide
little protection from the power contained in the motors of
an escalator. So, no slip is not always safe in terms of
contact with escalators." Mr. Feldman is a shareholder at
the Philadelphia Law Firm of Anapol Schwartz Weiss Cohan
Feldman & Smalley. Lawsuits have been filed for slip &
fall cases involving escalators.

Escalator Injury Rips off Child's Toe

For example, a 4-year-old boy got his foot caught in an
escalator last month in a Virginia mall. His mother
managed to yank him free, but the nail on his big toe was
almost completely ripped off, causing heavy bleeding.
Initially mom had no idea what caused the boy's foot to get
caught. It was only later; when someone at the hospital
remarked about the child's shoes - Crocs -- that she did an
Internet search.

According to reports appearing across the United States and
as far away as Singapore and Japan, shoe entrapments occur
because of the shoe's flexibility and grip. Some report the
shoes get caught in the teeth at the bottom or top of the
escalator or in the crack between the steps and the side of
the escalator.

The reports of serious injuries have all involved young
children. Crocs are commonly worn by children as young as 2.

In Japan, the government warned consumers last week that it
has received 39 reports of sandals - mostly Crocs or
similar products - getting stuck in escalators from late
August through early September. Most of the reports appear
to have involved small children, some as young as two years
old.

Kazuo Motoya of Japan's National Institute of Technology
and Evaluation said children may have more escalator
accidents in part because they bounce around when they
stand on escalators, instead of watching where they place
their feet. In Singapore, a 2-year-old girl wearing rubber
clogs - (brand unknown) - had her big toe completely ripped
off in an escalator accident.

At the Atlanta airport, a 3-year-old boy wearing Crocs
suffered a deep gash across the top of his toes; one of
seven shoe entrapments at the airport in less than nine
months, and all but two involved Crocs.

As for escalator safety, you should always have your child
stand right in the middle of the steps so if you're on the
escalator with your child, your hold the railing and then
you hold your child's hand and make sure the child is right
in the middle, nowhere near the sides because that's where
the accidents can happen.

And then when you get down to the bottom, make sure that
you help your child get off.

During the past two years, shoe entrapments in the
Washington Metro subway have gone from being relatively
rare to happening four or five times a week in the summer,
though none have caused serious injuries.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said escalator
accidents caused more than 10,000 injuries last year, but
the agency has few records of specific shoe problems. Only
two shoe entrapments have been reported by consumers since
the beginning of 2006. One reported in May involved rubber
footwear.

Agency spokesman Ed Kang urged people who have had problems
to report them on the commission's Web site at
http://www.cpsc.gov/talk.html/.

----------------------------------------------------
Anapol Schwartz, on the web at http://anapolschwartz.com/ ,
has a long history as a "personal injury" firm; however a
closer look reveals that the firm has grown through
diversification, while maintaining a tradition of
excellence. Anapol Schwartz now handles a wider range of
cases, including securities and employment litigation. For
more information on the dangers of Croc shoes, visit
http://www.anapolschwartz.com/attorneys/joel_feldman.shtml