Birmingham Personal Injury Lawyer

I was Rearended. Is the other person at fault?

Jon Lewis — Tue, 21 May 2013 14:10:25 GMT

You would think that a rearend collision would be the other person's fault. Not necessarily, especially in Alabama. I just finished reading the May, 2013 issue of the Alabama Jury Verdict Reporter which is a summary of Alabama Jury Verdicts. In this issue, there were eight automobile negligence cases, and five resulted in defense verdicts.

One of those defense verdicts was in Jefferson County before Judge Carole C. Smitherman. In that case, the Defendant conceded liability. Essentially, a plumbing truck of Superior Plumbing ran a red light and rearended the Plaintiff. A police officer witnessed the wreck and cited the Defendant with a ticket for running the red light.

The Plaintiff claimed he suffered injuries to his shoulder, back and neck as a result of the collision. The Defendant minimized the damages claimed by the Plaintiff and, unbelievably, the jury ruled in favor of the Defendant. See Moody v. Miller, CV2011-900903.

So, the Defendants can run a red light and collide with another vehicle and tell the jury that the Plaintiff is not injured. That makes a lot of sense. Doesn't it?

In another case in Limestone County before Judge Robert M. Baker, the Plaintiff was stopped to make a left turn with his left turn signal on. The Defendant did not realize the Plaintiff had stopped and rearended the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff underwent back surgery. The jury ruled in favor of the Defendant. Once again, the Defendant determined the Plaintiff was not injured, and the jury believed the Defendant. Shelton v. Garrison, CV2009-900156.

How does this work? Let me explain. People do not plan a lawsuit. Consequently, you may have some back issues you are living with right now. You may have gone to the doctor and complained about your back or neck in the last five years. Or, you may have degenerative changes in your back that are asymptomatic (you have aged and may have a bulging disk, but have no pain). You are functional. Then, a car collision occurs. You start having significant pain and go to doctors and therapy.

The insurance companies who hire the lawyers to defend the person at fault, gather all of your medical records from your past and argue that all of your issues are pre-existing and not caused by the collision. Juries like this argument, especially if there is minimal damage to the vehicle. So, the jury buys the Defendants' attorney's arguments, and you are left to deal with your injuries. Who wins? The insurance companies of course.

What do you think about this?

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Jon Lewis

Regions Helping Homeowners - Really?

Jon Lewis — Tue, 07 May 2013 18:16:30 GMT

You know, my partner always says we go after the fleas and not the elephants. Whether you agree or not, many on Wall Street made a lot of money on the securitization of mortgages. We aren't talking thousands. We aren't talking hundreds of thousands. We aren't talking millions. We are talking hundreds of millions and billions of dollars. And, as a result, our economy was built on a house of cards, teetered, and fell.

Given all of that, we bailed out some of the major financial institutions. We helped keep the industry in tact. Blue collar workers were affected tremendously. They lost their jobs. They couldn't pay their mortgages, and they paid lip service to helping the homeowner. But, they aren't helping.

Case in point. My client is in a lot of trouble. Lost income. Divorce. In over their heads with two mortgages - both with Regions Bank. A first and a second. They have realized that they can't keep it going. So, what did they do? They offered a deed in lieu of foreclosure. This saves Regions cost and it provides a little credit help to my clients.

Regions said no. A foreclosure sale was set in April, and they came to me. I wrote Regions, and Regions' attorneys agreed to move the date to late May while we tried to work it out. The first mortgage, held by REGIONS, agreed to the deed in lieu of foreclosure. The second mortgage, ALSO HELD BY REGIONS, refused. Why? They called the Fannie Mae call center, and Fannie Mae said, "No."

So, what will happen if I don't file suit? Regions will foreclose. What does that mean? The second mortgage will be wiped out - no difference than if the second mortgage, REGIONS, agreed to the deed in lieu of foreclosure. REGIONS gets no benefit except for persecuting my clients - the same ones these mortgage companies agreed to help.

It's a vicious cycle.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Jon Lewis

Two CRAZY Alabama Laws

Jon Lewis — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:09:23 GMT

From time to time, I'm sure you have seen various laws which are absolutely ludicrous, but they have nothing to do with our everyday lives. But, Alabama has two laws on the books which would surprise most people, AND the use of these laws arise fairly frequently regarding car accidents.

What are they? One is commonly referred to as the Alabama Guest Passenger Statute. The other involves the involuntary loss of consciousness of a driver. The first is a statutory provision. The second has essentially been adopted through case law.

So, what is the Guest Passenger Statute? Read it here:

Section 32-1-2

Liability for injury or death of guest.

The owner, operator, or person responsible for the operation of a motor vehicle shall not be liable for loss or damage arising from injuries to or death of a guest while being transported without payment therefor in or upon said motor vehicle, resulting from the operation thereof, unless such injuries or death are caused by the willful or wanton misconduct of such operator, owner, or person responsible for the operation of the motor vehicle.

(Acts 1935, No. 442, p. 918; Code 1940, T. 36, §95.)

Alabama is about the only State in the U.S. which still has this statute. So, if you are riding with someone and that someone runs a red light or is speeding and has an "accident", they are not liable to you unless you conferred some benefit on them, i.e.: paid for their gas or promised them something for the ride. Or, if you can show they were wanton in their driving, i.e.: had been drinking and driving. In fact, if you have your own uninsured motorist coverage policy, it will not cover you either.

Now, on the sudden loss of consciousness, our courts have held as follows:

An involuntary and unforeseeable loss of consciousness constitutes an affirmative defense to negligence and wantonness claims based on an automobile accident. See Walker v. Cardwell, 348 So.2d 1049 (Ala. 1977).

So, just as happened to a client of mine recently, if a person is driving on the highways of our State and passes out, they are not liable unless they had reason to know they were likely to lose consciousness. This makes a lot of sense. The person who is injured as a result of the person passing out did absolutely nothing wrong, and yet, even if the person who lost consciousness has insurance, that person is not at fault, and their insurance will not cover the wreck (nor will your insurance cover your injuries). So, next time you have a wreck, pretend like you passed out, and you won't be at fault (that is sarcasm, but it shows the idiocy of the law).

What do you think? Are these laws ridiculous to you, or do you think they make sense?

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Jon Lewis

Alabama Wrongful Death - Something to think about

Jon Lewis — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:22:01 GMT

In the State of Alabama, the only claim of damages a family has for negligence causing the death of a loved one is a claim for punitive damages. This is defined in Alabama Pattern Jury Instruction 11.18:

In a suit brought for a wrongful act, omission, or negligence causing death the damages recoverable are punitive and not compensatory. Damages in this type of action are entirely punitive, imposed for the preservation of human life and as a deterrent to others to prevent similar wrongs. The amount of damages should be directly related to the amount of wrongdoing on the part of the defendant(s). In assessing damages you are not to consider the pecuniary value of the life of the decedent, for damages in this type of action are not recoverable to compensate the family of the deceased from a pecuniary standpoint on account of her death, nor to compensate the plaintiff for any financial or pecuniary loss sustained by her or the family of the deceased on account of her death.

Your verdict should not be based on sympathy, prejudice, passion or bias, but should be directly related to the culpability of the defendant(s) and necessity of preventing similar wrongs in the future.

There is not claim for the compensation to the family for the loss of the life. If a father, there is no claim for his future lost wages. If a minor, there is not claim for the loss of the ability to hug that minor, to have that minor's companionship, or to have to live with the loss. All of the focus is on the "wrongdoer".

The Supreme Court of Alabama has explained this rationale as follows:

It is settled that under Alabama law (Code 1975, § 6-5-410) the only damages recoverable in a wrongful death action are punitive in nature, determined by the gravity of the wrong done, the propriety of punishing the wrongdoer, and the need for deterring others from committing the same or similar wrongful conduct. Merrell v. Alabama Power Company, 382 So.2d 494 (Ala. 1980); Airheart v. Green, 267 Ala. 689, 104 So.2d 687 (1958).

Furthermore, argument of counsel appealing to the jury for an award of compensation for an individual's death as measured by the material worth of his or her life is improper. Hardin v. Sellers, 270 Ala. 156, 117 So.2d 383 (1960).

The very purpose of punitive damages, then, in a wrongful death context, rests upon the Divine concept that all human life is precious. The language of § 6-5-410 is that recovery may be had for "such damages as the jury may assess." The judicial interpretations of our wrongful death statute have developed this principle: While human life is incapable of translation into a compensatory measurement, the amount of an award of punitive damages may be measured by the gravity of the wrong done, the punishment called for by the act of the wrongdoer, and the need to deter similar wrongs in order to preserve human life. The wisdom of this principle is all too dramatically exemplified by the station in life of Ronnie Joe Cowan. See Geohagan v. General Motors Corporation, 291 Ala. 167, 279 So.2d 436 (1973).

Alabama is the ONLY State in the country with this type of law. In every other State, compensatory damages and the value of human life are the measures of damages in addition to punitive damages, if warranted. Imagine an incident where someone unintentionally runs a red light. Should the measure of damages be to punish that person who ran the red light? The person's attorney will argue, "He has been punished enough because he has to live with the fact that he killed someone for the rest of his life." OR, should the measure of damages focus on the family who lost the loved one and their compensation for that loss? If the Defendant has insurance, what's the harm in allowing compensation from that insurance company (which you cannot discuss in court)?

I submit that Alabama is once again last in the country. This time, we are last when it comes to assessing damages in a wrongful death situation. Does Alabama have it right, or do the other 49 states have it right? I wonder.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Jon Lewis

Did You Hire a Lawyer or a Marketing Professional?

Jon Lewis — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:41:44 GMT

As consumers, we are fed so much information in the media. Be it television, billboards, radio or the internet, we are constantly told what's good for us, what product is the best, whose service we should use. So, how do we know? Who do we trust? Where can we obtain really good information?

How about word-of-mouth? It's easier than ever these days through social media. Put a question out there, and you will get an answer from someone you know and trust. In fact, you will probably get answers from MANY people you know and trust.

Why let others tell you how good they are? Why not get the real story?

Take attorneys for instance. If you turn on the television from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and even at other times now, you will be inundated with attorney commercials. You will see cartoons, tools, animals, superman, and whatever the next great attorney commercial might tell you. You will see clients saying how great their attorney was, how much money they got them, and how fast and easy it was.

But, will these commercials tell you everything you REALLY need to know? For example, does that attorney, who is advertising, have experience litigating the types of cases he/she is advertising for? Does the attorney investigate the claims, interview witnesses, conduct written discovery, take depositions, attend court hearings, and try cases? Or, does that attorney simply move the cases right on through?

Let me give you an example. A client came to me. She had been in a car wreck and had had two previous attorneys. Typically, that is a red flag, but I listened to the client. She told me that the two attorneys said she should take the insurance company's settlement offer of $15,000.00. This was backed up by paperwork. She didn't want to take it which is why she came to me.

After listening to her story and reading the file and wreck report, I told her, "I have no idea if $15,000.00 is a good settlement, and I won't know until I have more information about the defendant driver. If I conduct discovery and don't find anything, I will tell you to take the $15,000.00 too. However, if discovery shows otherwise, I think $15,000.00 is way too low." So, she hired us, and we filed suit. We conducted discovery. We took her case seriously. We didn't just settle. We practiced law. What's the current offer? $150,000.00. Yes, we found something in discovery.

Had she listened to her two previous attorneys, she would have about $8,000-$9,000 in compensation for her very serious injuries. Now, she might be fairly compensated.

This is the problem with mass advertising for legal services. The legal profession is just that, A PROFESSION. It's not a marketing gimmick. Clients are NOT widgets and inventory. They are people who require professional help, not legal adjusters.

So, next time you need an attorney, ask your friends, ask other attorneys, ask business associates, but don't just listen to some ad on TV or read some billboard. You might not get an attorney who actually practices law. You might get an attorney who knows how to market well. Is that what you want? A good marketer?

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Jon Lewis

Alabama Insurance Enforcement

Jon Lewis — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 09:56:14 GMT

We are always advising our clients, "IF YOU DON'T HAVE UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE ON YOUR POLICY, GET IT!!!!" In Alabama, this is always one of the most important coverages you can have on your car insurance. Why? because it is estimated that approximately 900,000 Alabama drivers have no insurance. Yes, let me repeat that, "900,000 ALABAMA DRIVERS HAVE NO INSURANCE!!" That is approximately 22% of all drivers in the State. That's 6th worst in the nation according to the Insurance Research Council as of April 2, 2011.

Even if a driver has insurance, the minimum coverage is $25,000.00. Uninsured motorist coverage on your policy covers you for UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS too. Underinsured motorist coverage means that you will be able to add your uninsured motorist coverage to the other person's liability coverage if theirs is not enough.

Example: You are in a wreck and injured with $30,000.00 of medical bills. You have no health insurance, and the other driver only has $25,000.00 of liability insurance. If you have the minimum of uninsured motorist coverage on your policy in the amount of $25,000.00, you can pursue your own insurance company for the additional $5,000.00 in medical bills plus pain and suffering and whatever other damages you might have.

For years, no insurance was required in Alabama, but it was made mandatory a few years ago with the passage of the Mandatory Liability Insurance Law "MLI" (32-7A-4 Code of Alabama 1975). If you didn't have the minimum insurance, you couldn't get a license plate. Unfortunately, a lot of people would get insurance, get their plate, and let the insurance lapse, but they still had their insurance card to show police. The State did not have a good method for policing this activity and making sure that the mandatory insurance law had teeth. That is all changing as of January 1, 2013.

On January 1, 2013, law enforcement officers will be able to utilize the State of Alabama Online Insurance Verification System (OIVS). This will allow the officers to immediately verify the insurance status of a vehicle without the necessity of having the driver produce an insurance card. If found guilty of driving without insurance, you may be fined or have your license suspended:

$500 for the first violation

Up to $1,000 for the second or subsequent violations

And/Or a six month driver's license suspension after the first violation

In addition, if a vehicle is registered or operated without liability insurance, the vehicle registration will be suspended, and the vehicle owner will be subject to the following:

First violation, $200 reinstatement fee

For second or subsequent violations, a $400 reinstatement fee and a mandatory four month registration suspension

Evidence of current insurance will be required in order to reinstate the vehicle registration

According to AL.com, Revenue Commissioner Julie Magee's goal is to get the 22% unsinsured motorist figure reduced to 10%. According to Chief of Staff Ragan Ingram :

That would be a relief for staffers at the state Insurance Department. "Our number one or number two complaint every year is: I got hit by someone without insurance. Why is this happening?"

Finally, some help for motorists on our highways. This has been a problem for years, and with technology today, it should be a simple fix. Now, you MUST have insurance or pay the price. However, we still HIGHLY RECOMMEND MAKING SURE YOU HAVE A MINIMUM OF $100,000 OF UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE!!! It does not cost much, and if you raise your deductible, it can even lower your premium; however, you will have much better protection. $25,000.00 is not a lot these days when it comes to auto wrecks.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Jon Lewis

Newtown Tragedy - Advice for Parents from Dr. Robert Pitts

Jon Lewis — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:00:37 GMT

We are honored to have Robert Pitts, Ph.D, of Pitts & Associates, Mental Health Professionals, provide us with the following advice for parents to counsel their children regarding Newtown issues and questions.

ADVICE FOR PARENTS IN THE WAKE OF NEWTOWN

As our hearts are broken for Newtown, CT, and her families fill our thoughts and prayers, our own children and youth may need extra support. They may have seen coverage of the tragedy on TV or the internet, or heard about it at home, school, from friends. The scale and trauma of this incident, that it occurred at an elementary school, age of the victims, and other factors may cause it to have a stronger impact on the young around us.

Here are some tips and strategies for parents and relatives:

Many children and youth will want to talk about it—others may not, and should not have to do so. Follow your child’s signals. Answer their questions, as best you can. Do not tell them more than you think they can handle, nor talk about it at length. Assume a sense of normalcy as soon as possible.

More sensitive children could temporarily show symptoms of fear or anxiety such as tearfulness, bedtime fears, nightmares, difficulty sleeping, school avoidance, brief changes in behavior or appetite. These should pass within a few days to a week.

Children easily confuse time and place, and do not understand the repetitive nature of media coverage. Be watchful of children’s exposure to continuing TV, radio, and internet coverage about Newtown. Upon seeing the same footage or hearing it in the car, children may think it is actually happening anew, over and over, in more places. They may believe it will happen at their school.

If your child mentions or appears to have the latter fear, reassure them that you and their school will do everything necessary to keep them safe. They may ask to be kept home from school this week. As most parents would assume, this is not a good idea. As a rule, schools are very safe places, and events like this week will only make them safer over time. Local police are likely to assume an increased gentle/friendly presence at schools in coming days and weeks to assuage children’s and parents’ fears.

Children and youth may ask why this incident happened, perhaps why God let it happen. Obviously, there are no good answers, parents can say that. It is not wrong to say “I don’t know why it happened.” Parents should be true to their own beliefs and/or faith, consult clergy, children’s or youth ministers for guidance. Based on what your child/youth can comprehend, other helpful responses might include:

It was a terrible choice/evil act/sick person/horrible thing/very bad/he shouldn’t have done it/not OK
It’s OK to be sad/mad
Try not to be scared, we/school will protect you
God didn’t want it to happen, but helps everybody get through it/learn from it
God and many people will help the children and families in Newtown
Those kids and teachers will be remembered forever
We learn things from tragedies/good things come from them, like better safety/security for schools, governments can make better/safer gun laws, communities get closer/pull together/learn how to be more careful/watchful
There is good and evil in the world
If we believe in good, we also have to believe in evil—but God’s on the good side
God gives us free will/ability to choose good or bad/right or wrong
Respecting/caring for ourselves and others is so important
We should never hurt anybody, that is so wrong
God’s still in control

Children and youth often benefit from responding to a tragedy by taking positive/creative action, doing something tangible to help. As is often done in schools, parents can guide children to write caring notes/draw pictures to be sent, save/collect/donate money to related causes. Older children or teens may want to research safety/prevention/community, write essays/papers, make suggestions.

If your child or youth struggles more than you are able to manage, shows extreme reactions, fear, pain, and/or is not improving within a week or so, you can consult with their school guidance counselor, pediatrician, or a mental health professional.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Jon Lewis

State Farm Applies Pressure to Injured

Jon Lewis — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:08:35 GMT

It's a constant battle. First, it was the Made Whole rule. Then, it was the Collateral Source Rule. Now, it's the Offer of Judgment. State Farm and all of the insurance companies continue to fight to lower their rate of paying claims. Injured? Who Cares! Have to take time to go to the doctor? Who Cares! Have to go to Physical Therapy? Who Cares! Worried about future medical problems? Who Cares! Paid your premiums and don't want to go to court? Who Cares!

You will care if it's you, but the insurance companies won't care. They will do and say anything to make light of your injury claim. The damage to the car was minimal (my father says, "The noose that hangs a man doesn't show any damage either"). You have had a history of back and neck problems so the wreck didn't cause your problems. You have filed claims previously. You are looking for something for nothing and trying to profit off a wreck.

NOW, they are filing offers of Judgment to force the injured person to settle. This would be fair if it worked both ways, but it doesn't. For example, if you are in a wreck and injured, you may have $2,000 in medical bills. Let's say you ask for $7,500 for your medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering. If State Farm files an offer of judgment for $4,000, and you refuse to accept it, you have to pay their expenses if you do not receive a verdict over $4,000. However, the opposite is not true. If you receive a verdict over $4,000, they do not have to pay your expenses, AND you CANNOT file an offer of Judgment for $7,500 and make them pay your expenses if you get a verdict over that amount.

Shouldn't these rules go both ways? Why do the insurance companies get all the leverage? Because they lobby for certain Judges and Legislators, and you don't. We, as attorneys, try to protect your rights as individuals, but we are losing the battle. It's up to you to contact your legislators to make changes. It's up to you when you are sitting on a jury to FULLY understand what is going on because we usually cannot tell you under the rules.

Here is the OFFER OF JUDGMENT Rule of Civil Procedure:

Rule 68.

Offer of judgment.

At any time more than fifteen (15) days before the trial begins, a party defending against a claim may serve upon the adverse party an offer to allow judgment to be taken against the defending party for the money or property or to the effect specified in the offer, with costs then accrued. If within ten (10) days after the service of the offer, the adverse party serves written notice that the offer is accepted, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance together with proof of service thereof and thereupon the clerk shall enter judgment. An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence thereof is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs. If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer. The fact that an offer is made but not accepted does not preclude a subsequent offer. When the liability of one party to another has been determined by verdict or order or judgment, but the amount or extent of the liability remains to be determined by further proceedings, the party adjudged liable may make an offer of judgment, which shall have the same effect as an offer made before trial if it is served within a reasonable time, not less than ten (10) days, prior to the commencement of hearings to determine the amount or extent of liability.

In my recent case, my client was rearended. it is CLEAR the other person is at fault for the wreck. The only thing that is unclear is what would fair compensation be. She has over $5,000 of medical bills she owes, and here is the offer of Judgment the Defendant filed, and here is the letter sent by the attorneys (Take the offer in ten days, or it's off the table). My client claims she was injured in the wreck, and doctors treated her for the same. She is not looking for millions of dollars. She is looking to be compensated appropriately so that she can have her bills paid, pay her attorney, and have something left over for pain and suffering. What figure is that? $15,000? $20,000? It certainly isn't $8,000. But, if a jury does not give a verdict over $8,000, she will be responsible for the defendant's expenses, and given the verdicts over the last 10 years, that is a real possibility. So, can she risk it? Maybe. But it's added pressure. Why can our client not add pressure to State Farm?

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Jon Lewis

Our Tort System Ten Years from Now

Jon Lewis — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:23:48 GMT

So, we have a big election coming up next week. Depending on your views of the economy and social issues, I presume you will select the candidate whom you believe will benefit your views. Isn't that sort of like predicting the future. In reality, you don't KNOW if Obama or Romney would be better, and regardless of who wins, you won't know how things would have turned out if the other candidate had won.

I thought it might be fun to try to look into the future of our tort system based upon which candidate won. Here's my idea of our tort system ten years from now starting with the election next week:

If Obama wins, I predict the economy will improve, and our country will continue to focus on individuals over corporations. Tort reform, from a federal level, will either maintain status quo or reverse itself a bit. An Obama administration will be more likely to focus on continuing to improve ObamaCare and the economy in general. I do not see an Obama Administration attempting to impose Federal Caps on damages in medical malpractice claims or any other type of tort claim.

In addition, should Obama win and the economy improve, I see another Democrat winning office in 2016. Who will that be? Maybe Hillary Clinton if she still desires the post. Joe Biden would be the logical successor as the current Vice President, but I don't see that happening. Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, has also been mentioned. I think Hillary would be the choice as our first woman President on the heals of our first African American President.

And, what will our Country look like at the end of one and half of her terms in office? We will be financially stable. Better respected internationally. And, we will have a more even playing field from a tort perspective. I would predict a loosening of the Federal Arbitration Act, or at least, exemptions from many consumer transactions which will allow for greater accountability on corporations and financial institutions.

As far as State tort claims, I continue to see juries swinging back from the far right to the middle. I think people are beginning to see the effect of insurance companies on claims and the failure of said companies to properly compensate their insureds or the individuals their insureds harm. This trend will continue as long as insurance companies continue to squeeze every dollar out of every claim.

If Romney wins, I predict the economy will improve, but corporations will be the central focus of the Administration, not individuals. I think the economy goes in cycles, and consequently, I believe the economy is going to improve regardless of who is in office. In fact, given that we will be out of two wars in the next two years, our economy will have to improve. Money will be either saved or spent elsewhere rather than going to Iraq and Afghanistan. But, I do think Romney will focus on overturning ObamaCare which will take his attention away from more pressing needs. He will also continue to back tort reform efforts such as Federal caps on medical malpractice claims. This is ironic because Republicans are always talking about States' Rights, and yet, they want to impose Federal Caps on State Damages.

Obviously, the difference in Romney winning over Obama is that he will have a potential for 8 years in office. I think he will win a second term because the economy will improve, and he will claim responsibility for turning the economy around. This will allow his Administration to continue tort reform efforts in his second term, and by efforts, I also mean the lack of initiative to remove draconian tort reform measures such as arbitration in consumer claims. Consequently, Federal arbitration will continue in force, another Federal limitation on States Rights. We will also see more preemption of federal laws on bringing State claims for environmental pollution and product liability laws. This is another protection for the corporations which sponsored Romney's election.

Even if Romney wins, I still see State claims continuing to receive more attention from jurors. In fact, with a Romney Administration, I could see verdicts increasing because people will be more aware of the corporate oppression on individuals. Corporations don't stand behind their products and slogans any longer. The customer is not always right anymore, and people are getting tired of it.

There you have it. Two different views ten years from now. Will it be one of more corporate windfalls or one of a continued return to individual/citizen rights and respectability?

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Jon Lewis

Wrongful Repossession, Garnishment or Foreclosure

Jon Lewis — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:07:54 GMT

In this econoomy, everyone is looking to make a dollar and improve their position. Also, everyone is looking to pay their bills promptly if they can. There is nothing worse from a financial standpoint when you are actually paying your bills, but a bill collector or creditor is hounding you and claiming you did not properly pay.

Given the size of many creditors and collection agencies today, mistakes are bound to happen. However, when these mistakes are made, the creditors and collection agencies need to take responsibility. They need to properly train their employees on how to listen to customers and not assume that everyone is a "deadbeat".

We have handled several cases involving these types of claims. Today, we settled a claim for wrongful garnishment where the creditor garnished a father's bank account on a son's judgment. When the father complained, they didn't listen, and when they realized the father was right, they wanted to keep his money and apply it to the son's judgment. You can't do that. Are they kidding? That $500 error cost them five (5) figures.

Today, some new clients employed me on a wrongful repossession of their truck. Clearly, they had documentation that they had made all of their payments on time. Yet, when they kept calling to let the company know, the employees wouldn't listen. One even hung up on the client. Finally, they repossessed the truck, and the clients had to spend their time to go up to their office and show them the documents which they had offered to show them a week earlier. This is a young couple with two kids. They each had to miss work as a result of this, and the stress is added to an already stressful life.

Of course, in this last situation, the company has an arbitration agreement. Why? A jury would pop them for what they did, but an arbitrator may not. So, what's their incentive to watch how they treat people? This is what is bad about arbitration. This is also an example of why keeping good records is necessary so that when these companies do wrong, you can call them out on it. If companies want to be so big and make more money, they have to pay the consequences for their mistakes.

Originally posted at The Legal Examiner by Jon Lewis