by

In an issue of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled recently in an Indiana car accident lawsuit that a vehicle that is insured but denied coverage following a crash should be considered uninsured under state law. car

The case has implications for future uninsured motorist (UM) claims in Indiana.

Indiana requires every newly-written auto liability insurance policy to include uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage – unless it’s rejected in writing by the insured. Minimum UM/UIM liability limits are $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident of UM benefits, $25,000 per accident for property damage, and $50,000 per accident for UIM benefits. This coverage protects insureds in the event they are involved in a crash with an at-fault driver who either doesn’t have auto insurance (as required by law) or doesn’t have enough auto insurance liability coverage to cover the full cost of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

Continue reading

by

If you are a victim of violence in Indiana leading to injuries, you are probably aware that a pending criminal case against your attacker(s) could involve an order of restitution upon a conviction. What you may not know is that you have further legal options in a civil lawsuit.bar

Individuals who are deemed liable for the injuries of another person – whether through negligence or intentional conduct – can be ordered in civil court to cover damages for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. This is separate and apart from any order of restitution in a criminal court, since the two operate independently of each other. While no insurance company will pay for the cost of intentional injuries inflicted by an insured, they could be responsible to cover third-party liability in such a case. For example, if you are injured at a bar in an attack by a fellow patron, you may have grounds to sue the bar itself in an Indiana premises liability claim if there is evidence such an incident was foreseeable, and the bar’s security was inadequate.

It’s often in a victim’s best interest to explore civil injury case options, since restitution orders often only take into account actual damages and often do not calculate payouts based on intangible losses, such as pain and suffering and mental anguish.

Continue reading

by

If you are injured on property owned or occupied by someone else, you may have the right to sue that person or company for coverage of your injuries under a portion of law known as premises liability.warning

Premises liability refers to the duty owed by the property owner to the visitor. If that duty was breached and injuries resulted, the person hurt can pursue an Indiana premises liability claim against the property owner. The question of “duty” relies heavily on the determination of the visitor’s status. For example, a business invitee, someone invited to a business property for the benefit of the business, is owed the highest duty of care. Property owners must not only warn business invitees of potential dangers and address them quickly, but also they must regularly check for them. By contrast, if you are a trespasser, a property owner need only not intentionally harm you or set traps (although there may be exceptions for child trespassers).

Recently, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a premises liability plaintiff who alleged she was seriously injured when she tripped and fell on a missed step at an aviation company during an open house with her young grandson.

Continue reading

by

An Indiana dentist, under fire for allegedly over-billing Medicaid and over-treating patients, will not have to face a civil trial for at least three of those patients, after their Indiana medical malpractice claim was shot down for failing to comply with the statute of limitations.dentist

In a recent decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled the plaintiffs’ claim could not proceed because it was not filed within the two-year window allowed for claims involving medical negligence and personal injury.

According to the joint complaint filed by three patients treated by the defendant dentist in January 2012, one claimant underwent conscious sedation for the removal of a single tooth, only to awaken and learn the dentist had removed 11 teeth. In the other two cases, both patients agreed to the removal of all of their teeth, but only because the dentist told them if they did not, they would be at immediate risk of heart attack, stroke, or death.

Continue reading

by

Nothing is more devastating than the loss of a child, especially when it occurs because of another person’s negligence, or the failure to use reasonable care. pool

Recently, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that Indiana’s Child Wrongful Death Statute, Indiana Code 34-23-2-1, allows for attorney fees and litigation expenses. This was an issue of first impression for the court and important to plaintiffs for two reasons:

  • When attorney’s fees are awarded in addition to the damages award, it means more money goes directly to the plaintiffs, as opposed to attorneys receiving a cut of that damages award. Generally, attorneys in wrongful death or personal injury lawsuits are paid on a contingency fee basis, taking no money upfront but instead accepting a pre-determined portion of the damages if and when the plaintiff wins. If a defendant is ordered to pay those fees separate and apart from the plaintiff’s damages award, the plaintiff is able to keep the full damages they were awarded.
Continue reading

by

The parents of a teen killed in a drunk driving accident in Muncie have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the motorist accused of killing him. The negligence lawsuit comes little more than a year after the defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated causing death and driving while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury. The 25-year-old defendant is now serving eight years in prison.keys

This case underscores the options drunk driving victims have to seek compensation for a serious injury or death caused by these actions. That’s because drunk driving, in addition to being a form of negligence, is also a crime. Still, the criminal trial is completely separate and apart from the civil case. There is a separate standard for the burden of proof, and the outcome of one case won’t necessarily affect the outcome of the other.

Furthermore, our Highland injury lawyers can explain Indiana’s liquor liability laws are such that you may be able to hold accountable the bar or restaurant that served that drunken driver, as well as the driver and potentially the owner of the vehicle.

Continue reading

by

Liability will be a hotly disputed issue in a recently filed Indiana truck accident lawsuit.truck

According to NWI.com, the lawsuit was filed on behalf of a 35-year-old man with autism who suffered significant brain damage and multiple fractures when the medical transportation van in which he was riding was broadsided by a semitrailer. His 72-year-old father is seeking damages for help with medical bills and other expenses that will be associated with his now-constant care. Although his son was not fully independent before the accident, he had much higher function than he now does. He had been on his way to a trade workshop at the time of the crash.

The father said his son would soon be transported home from the hospital, and the elderly man is the only one available who can render his care.

Continue reading

by

Jurors in an Indiana medical malpractice lawsuit ruled against a now-deceased physician accused of performing an allegedly unnecessary surgery on a 16-year-old athlete. X rays

The South Bend Tribune reports the lawsuit was filed in June 2015. The defendant physician died about a year later, but the case continued against his estate. The plaintiffs alleged their athlete son underwent a shoulder surgery he did not need, resulting in pain that will follow him the rest of his life. A two-day trial resulted in jurors deciding an award for $744,000 to be paid to the family. The boy reportedly suffered a wrestling injury and sought treatment.

Although he did not initially seek medical attention, the pain later became unbearable. The physician reportedly recommended surgery for the low-grade injury, involving an operation to remove part of his clavicle. The plaintiffs’ attorney now says the choice the doctor gave them – have surgery or live with the pain – was a “false one” because there were numerous other conservative treatment options that could have been employed first. It was not a decision that needed to be either-or.

Continue reading

by

A default judgment in an Indiana personal injury lawsuit can occur when there is a failure to take action by one of the involved parties. In most cases, it’s a judgment in favor of the plaintiff (the injured person) when the defendant (the tortfeasor/alleged wrongdoer) has failed to respond to a summons or appear in court. shopping cart

This was exactly what occurred in a recent Gary injury lawsuit considered by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The case involved a grocery store injury at the store involving a defective shopping cart.

The appellate court records don’t spell out many details from the original complaint, except that the plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of using a malfunctioning shopping cart at the store. She filed a personal injury lawsuit against the store, alleging they were liable for her injuries on the basis of premises liability.

Continue reading

by

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a $2.13 million judgment favoring a woman who suffered a permanent injury in a trucking accident that killed her fiance. truck

The case stems from a 2008 trucking crash in which a tractor-trailer driver stopped his truck on the interstate after hitting a deer, but he failed to immediately activate the truck’s emergency flashers or deflective triangles behind the truck or near the remains of the deer. He got out to examine the damage and then got back in his truck and at this time activated the emergency flashers. It was at this same time that the plaintiff, a passenger in a vehicle driven by her fiance, approached and, while attempting to avoid the dead deer, lost control of the vehicle and slammed into the parked truck.

The plaintiff suffered serious injuries, while her fiance died at the scene. She sued the trucking company and driver for her injuries. At 22 years old, she suffered severe traumatic brain injury, ruptured spleen, multiple skull fractures, permanent facial nerve palsy, scarring on her forehead, deafness in one ear, and memory loss. She continues to have trouble learning new things, suffers migraines and balance problems, and is at increased risk of early-onset dementia.

Continue reading