Washington Injury Law Blog

No texting while driving!

Drivers are banned from text messaging while driving starting in 2008. Police say they are going to put special emphasis on this new law. So beware! It’s at least $101 fine if caught. However, the police have to stop you for some other traffic law violation before you can get the texting ticket.

What about banning cell phones while driving?

Ask and you shall receive. As of July 1, 2008 cell phones are banned while driving unless used with a hands free device. So those of you who have been salivating over a new blue tooth headset its time to buy. I for one am counting down the days until this law takes effect. As a lawyer I use my cell as much as the next guy, but people need both hands while driving. How many times have you been following someone and they’re swerving all over the road, speeding up then slowing down, and you’ve thought they must be drunk, only to pull along side and see a cell phone glued to one ear with the driver oblivious to any traffic around them. It drives me crazy! Plus there’s at least one study that states driving while using a cell phone distracts people as much as if the were actually driving drunk. That’s just scary to me. Be safe, hung up the phone and just drive!

Boat license anyone!

Starting in 2008 anyone under 20 years old will have to take a boating safety class before they can obtain a boat license. After 2008 the age increases by 5 each year thereafter. So by 2018 anyone under the age of 70 will have to take a safety class to get a boat license. The good news is that taking such a class often gets you cheaper insurance and the class can be done online.  Also, if you’re born before 1955 you’re grandfathered in and never have to take the class. Call it an early senior discount!

Have a safe and happy New Year!

Attorney Jonathan Stein author of the California Personal Injury and Insurance Blog has an interesting recent post about Allstate. It appears that Allstate thinks a Missouri judge and the Missouri Supreme Court do not know what the law is. This seems to be Allstate’s position in a bad faith case in Missouri. The bad faith case arises from a rear-end car accident that an Allstate customer caused and Allstate refused to pay the claims its customer owed for years. 

According to Joe Lambe of the Kansis City Star Allstate was ordered in September to turn over documents that plaintiff’s attorneys allege may show that in the 1990’s Allstate set up a claims payment systems that short changed clients while earning Allstate huge profits. The MO judge set the fine for Allstae’s refusal to produce the documents at $25,000 per day. In November the MO Supreme Court agreed with the judge, yet Allstate continues to refuse to produce the documents.

This is where it gets good. Allstate’s attorney told the MO judge that Allstate had a principled difference they’re “not able to resolve until somebody says what the law is.” Everyone generally knows it’s the courts who tell us what the laws is. The courts decide what the law is and we follow what it says, it’s that simple.  Allstate’s attorney then told the judge Allstate would not turn over the 12,500 documents without protective order sealing the records from public view. You have to wonder what is Allstate fighting so hard to hide?

The judge in response told Allstate he had told them what the law was. But Allstate seems to have decided the judge was wrong, the Mo Supreme Court is wrong, and the law doesn’t apply to them. Apparently, Allstate lives by some other set of laws that only apply to them. 

As Jonathan Stein said in his post Allstate is fighting awfully hard to keep these documents secret and I’ll bet that if made public they would strike a might blow to Allstate and its image of “good hands.” We’ll have to see how this turns out.

An argument is being floated that bicyclists should pay for the bike lanes, paths or trials they use. I think this is just plain crazy. Some people believe bicyclist should pay a license to use the lanes, paths and trials. The license fees could then be used to pay for, build and maintain dedicated bike lanes, paths or trials. The Seattle Post-Intellegencer ran an article about this today.

Do we charge a fee to those who walk on the sidewalks? Of course not! Charging a license fee to bicyclists would act as a barrier to people ditching their car for a bicycle. We ought to encourage people to ride bicycles and save our environment from another car on the road. I don’t believe we should do anything that discourages anyone from seeking alternatives to gas burning vehicles. Plus, I could use the exercise!

Till next time happy pedaling!!

One of my goals in this blog is to help those of you handling your own injury claim. I found a great blog post by attorney Jonathan Stein at the California Personal Injury & Insurance Blog about the various levels of insurance adjusters that may shuffle through your case. Here is his post:

Their is a hierarchy of adjusters. It goes something like this:

Step 1:         When you first report a claim, if the report comes in as property damage only and it is a clear liability case, the claim is assigned to a fast-track adjuster. These people handle claims quickly, but do not deal with injuries or arguments about fault. Some insurance companies, if not most these days, use these people to deal with any non-injury claim.

 

Step 2:          Your claim involves clear liability (in other words, everyone agrees that the guy who hit the parked car is at fault) and an injury, then you get into an adjuster who handles injury claims. But, as you probably figured, there is a catch. Call them step 2A and step 2B.

              Step 2a:  2a involves clear liability claims with subjective injuries. In other words, soft tissue type claims like whiplash. There is one type of an adjuster for these cases, usually someone promoted from step 1.

              Step 2b: 2b involves clear liability claims with objective injuries. In other words, someone has a broken bone. This is usually a promotion from 2a.

 

Step 3:          Step 3 involves disputed liability claims with an injury. At this point, most insurance companies do not break claims down into subjective and objective. Disputed liability with an injury usually ends up here.

 

Step 4:          Attorney represented claims. Up until now, steps 1 through 3, the claims involved people trying to do it themselves. Once you get an attorney, you move to step 4. And you are lucky. Seriously. These are better quality adjusters with more experience who understand the system. They try to resolve most cases without lawsuits being filed.

 

Step 5:          Litigation adjusters. These are the adjusters who take step 4 claims after a lawsuit has been filed. Usually, they are the most experienced adjusters and understand how to resolve cases, and what a case is truly worth. These are, in my experience, the best adjusters.

 

Now, is this true for every insurance company? Of course not. But, it is true often enough. Now you will at least have some idea who you are dealing with and why you may be passed around like a hot potato.

In Washington the same type of adjuster switching occurs. Please remember that the insurance adjusters at all levels are trained how to speak to you and how to use your words against you. Don’t give that records statement or sign anything until you have ordered my FREE book – The Guide To Washington Injury Cases and get the basic info you need before speaking with any insurance adjuster.  

Come January 1, 2008 all of you in Washington who text message while you drive will be breaking the law. The law banning text messaging while driving takes effect at the new year. Please for my sanity stop texting while you’re driving it’s so dangerous.

In my view the law isn’t strong enough. The police cannot pull you over for texting while driving because such an offense has been classified as a secondary offense. This means the police must wait for you to break another law that they can pull you over for. Then the police can add a second charge of texting while driving on top of the reason for pulling you over in the first place, so you get two tickets. Two tickets sounds good but I’d rather have people ticketed simply for texting while driving without the need for anything more.

There are some exceptions as there always is.  You are allowed to text message if you are driving an emergency vehicle, reporting an emergency, or reporting illegal activity. So you can text message the police that another driver is text messaging while driving. That makes sense!

For more info here’s an interesting article by the Seattle PI about cell phone use while driving. All you cell phone users, you’re day is coming. July 1, 2008 the ban on cell use while driving takes effect. After July 1, 2008 only hands free cell phone devices may be used while driving. Can I here an Amen?

Be safe, stop texting while driving and Merry Christmas! 

In Washington everyone is required to wear a seat belt while traveling in a motor vehicle. When you fail to wear a seat belt and you’re in a car accident bad things can happen. Yesterday, a 61 year-old woman suffered fatal injuries following a car accident she was in while not wearing a seat belt. Traffic on I-520 stopped quickly and she was thrown into the windshield and steering wheel suffering head and rib injuries. A tragic death that was preventable.

According to the Washington Traffic Safety Commission between 1996 and 2006, there were, on average, 551 motor vehicle occupants killed each year on Washington roadways.  State data shows that, on average, only 45% of these people were wearing seat belts, while nearly 85% of those who were unhurt WERE wearing seat belts. Research conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that a seat belt increases a person’s chance of surviving a collision by 45% and a seat belt reduces your risk of being seriously injured by 69%. The data is clear: seat belts save lives.

It’s winter now in Washington and the weather conditions have been a bit crazy. Please protect yourself by wearing your seat belt!

My mother-in-law on more than one occasion has asked me about a bicycle rider who was in her way while driving. Bless her heart, but she is one of the many drivers on the road who find bicycles on the roadway a nuisance more than anything else. The latest question was whether bicycles can be ridden at night without lights?

The answer is yes and no.  Washington law (RCW 46.61.780) states that when a bicycle is used during the “hours of darkness” it must be equipped with a visible white light on the front of the bike and a red reflector mounted on the rear of the bicycle.  A working light that actually emits a light beam, like a headlight, must be used on the front of the bike, but a taillight is not required, only a red reflector. A taillights are permitted and may be a steady or flashing type of light. 

You may be thinking at this point great, but when exactly are those “hours of darkness.” Have no fear our legislature has provided some guidance.  Hours of darkness according to another Washington law (RCW 46.37.020) are any time from a half hour after sunset to a half hour before sunrise, and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavorable weather conditions, bicycles on a roadway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 100 feet.  During a Washington winter and assuming you get off work at 5:00 p.m. you’ll more than likely need to be using a headlight on your bicycle ride home.  

If you’re looking for a more accurate determination of exactly when the hours of darkness is on a particular date you can click here to go to the Pacific Science Center and find a helpful table for calculating sunrises and sunsets.

According to a news report in the Seattle Post Intelligencer the family of Bryce Lewis filed a lawsuit against the dump truck company and driver that was involved in a dump truck versus bicycle accident that took the life of Bryce Lewis in September 2007.  The lawsuit alleges that Bryce who was traveling in the bike path on Eastlake Ave. E. in Seattle when the dump truck turned right onto a side street in front of Bryce causing the bicycle accident. Bryce, only 19 years old, was killed instantly. My prayers and condolences go out to his family and friends.

A tragedy like this is becoming more and more common as the Seattle and surrounding area populations continue to grow by leaps and bounds.  The Seattle area is one of the most bicycle friendly places in the entire U.S. There are miles and miles of bike trials and bike lanes for the public to use. Many people ride bicycles to and from work or for recreation on a daily basis.  Not so long ago I was a very active bicyclist and spent many days riding up and down the Burke-Gilman Trial.  Unfortunately, many motorist are not in the habit of looking for bicyclist or even motorcyclist on a regular basis. 

Bicycles are entitled to the same rights as a car or other vehicle when traveling on a roadway or bike path. Other vehicles must yield to a bicycles right of way, just as a bicyclist must yield right of way to other vehicles.  Bicycles and vehicles must obey the various traffic control devices found through the roadways. Riding defensively and assuming that other vehicles have not seen me has served me well whenever I’m riding my bicycle or my motorcycle. Wearing brightly colored clothing is also a good idea, especially during the grey winters we have in the Seattle where everything seems to meld together on the dark cloudy days. Sometimes these things are not enough and accidents happen. 

So Ride safe, share the road, and keep your eyes peeled for the unexpected!

On September 20, 2007 Tanya Rider, a Maple Valley woman, crashed her small Honda SUV into a ravine off the Maple Valley Highway near Renton, Washington. Her SUV plunged 12 feet down a brush covered ravine, concealing her vehicle from passing vehicles and searchers.  She was trapped in her vehicle for 8 days. Her husband, Tom Rider, reported her missing almost immediately but police department policy would not allow for a search to begin until days later. It wasn’t until police finally obtain a court order to get her cell phone records a week later that revealed where she last made cell phone calls.  This allowed police to also track her cell phone signal and find her still buckled into her crashed SUV.

In the last few months King County Police Department has been under fire for failing to do more sooner.  In todays Seattle Post Intelligence it was reported that Mr. Rider supports having a box on cell phone bills that a person could check to share their records with police without a warrant.  Those who do not want to share the information could check a box to decline. My first reaction was that it sounds like a good idea, but on second thought is it? 

I cannot imagine the horror of being trapped in a car for 8 days after a car crash. My wife would want the police to do everything they could to find me, just like Tom Rider did for his wife. However, the lawyer in me is screaming that releasing phone records to the police without a warrant by checking a box on my cell bill is dangerous. If police could access my cell records without a warrant how do I know they will only do so when I’ve legitimately gone missing or crashed my car?

The potential for abuse it seems is great and many people may not fully understand the scope of such a release when they check that box on a cell bill. For example, I can imagine a suspicious spouse filing a missing persons report so she can track down and determine whether her husband is cheating on her. Additionally, I could no longer trust that my cell phone records are private thus further eroding my sense of privacy. Then again, knowing if I somehow was lost and my life depended on being found that my cell could one day save my life is comforting.

Technology is fascinating and frightening at the same time. Would I could check a box on my cell bill so police in case of emergency would have easier access to my records? Yes, probably. Because I would rather spare my family the heartache than attempt to protect my rapidly decreasing expectation of privacy. Others would likely disagree with me and argue that Big Brother is within sight with such a suggestion. 

Car accidents can cause serious injuries and even death, so any measure that can help people avoid these tragedies is definitely worth exploring. That being said, I think checking a box on a cell bill to give the police warrantless access to my cell records is not the best way to solve this problem. The cellphone companies are discussing the issue with police departments statewide, and hopefully they can come up with a better way to solve this important issue. 

When I get a call from an accident victim they usually start off by tell me about the car accident, but eventually they work their way up to dropping the big one.  “The guy who hit me doesn’t have car insurance what can be done?” This can spell trouble for you if you find yourself in such a situation.  My first response is to ask if they have Uninsured / Underinsured Motorist Coverage on their own car insurance policy.  Many times there is silence, followed by the question what’s Uninsured / Underinsured Motorist insurance?  Good question, let’s take a look.

So what happens if while you’re driving you’re hit and injured by someone driving a car without any insurance? Unfortunately, this happens all the time despite Washington law stating all drivers must carry at least $25,000 in liability insurance. Uninsured Motorist (UM) Insurance steps into the shoes of a person driving without any insurance who then hits your vehicle. UM provides the insurance coverage that the car that hit you should’ve had. UM protects you against those people who break the law by driving without insurance in the State of Washington and then get in a car accident.

In Washington all auto liability insurance policies must (unless you sign a waiver declining it) carry at least $25,000 in UM / UIM benefits to cover injuries suffered by an individual because of another person’s negligence.

There’s also a second situation that comes up. What if the person who hit you has some insurance but no enough to cover all of you damages suffered in the car accident?

In this second situation Underinsured Motorist (UIM) Insurance steps into the shoes of the driver who has insurance but not enough coverage to pay for all of your damages, like medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. UIM provides an additional lay of protection for you. UIM gives you added protection when a motor vehicle accident has  caused to suffer serious injuries.

In a car accident involving an uninsured or underinsured but negligent defendant, you make an injury claim under your own UM/UIM insurance policy. Your own insurance company then steps into the shoes of the negligent person who caused the accident and settles your claim or pays you any verdict by a jury. You should not feel bad about using your own car insurance to pay for damages from a car accident caused by someone else because that is exactly what UM/UIM insurance is designed to cover and why you purchased it. You paid the money for the coverage, so you shouldn’t feel bad when you use it!

What happens if I’m a passenger in a car that is hit by an uninsured driver and the car I’m a passenger in does not have any or enough UM insurance to cover my medical bills, but I have a UM/UIM policy under my own car insurance policy?

In this situation there are two insurance polices that can provided benefits to you. The car that you were a passenger will provide the primary coverage for you. If that policy does not exist or is not enough to fully compensate you for your injuries, then you can make an injury claim under your car’s UM/UIM policy. The amount available to you depends on the language in your UM/UIM policy.

Washington law sometimes allows the “stacking” of these two UM/UIM insurance policies to give you an adequate pool of funds to cover all the injuries you suffered in the car accident. For example, if the car you were a passenger had $25,000 in UM coverage available, and your own car insurance had $100,000 UIM coverage, you would have a $125,000 pool of funds to cover your injury claim.

However, sometimes the language of your UM/UIM insurance policy prohibits “stacking” of policies. When “stacking” is not allowed, the UM/UIM insurance policy available with the highest policy limits sets the total amount that is available to you. So, if the car you were a passenger had $25,000 in UM coverage available, and your own car insurance had $100,000 UIM coverage, your car insurance would set the limit on the total amount of insurance coverage available to you. The total available insurance for your case would be $100,000.00, because your UIM insurance had the highest policy limit. Therefore, the first $25,000 would come from the car you were a passenger in and your UIM insurance would only be responsible for the remaining $75,000. I know it gets complicated fast, that’s why you may want to consult an experience injury attorney if you been in an injury accident.

Uninsured / Underinsured Motorist insurance coverage is a way for you and your family to protect yourself against irresponsible drivers who drive without insurance or without adequate insurance coverage. I carry the highest limits that my insurance company will sell and I think you should as well.

Hopefully, this post has helped clear up some questions for you.  If you have additional questions about UM/UIM you contact me by filling out the form on this blog or giving me a call.