Home » Personal Finance Articles » Insurance Settlement Case May Affect Thousands of Injured Californians
Insurance Settlement Case May Affect Thousands of Injured Californians
California's Supreme Court will hear a landmark insurance settlement case that may dramatically alter personal injury lawsuits throughout the state and even the nation.
June 13, 2010 /Personal Finance PR News/ -- California's Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a landmark insurance settlement case that has the potential to dramatically alter personal injury lawsuits throughout the state and possibly around the nation. While this case involves one specific instance of a disputed insurance payment to an injured victim, it is being heralded by some as a figurehead for changing the parameters of plaintiff recovery in all future personal injury cases.
The implications of the Supreme Court's decision will be wide-ranging, and could affect payments made or received in all manner of injury-related lawsuits, regardless of whether resolution comes by settlement negotiations, a judge's order, a jury verdict or an appellate court's reversal.
A Possibly Precedent-Setting Case
The dispute in this case involves San Diego County resident Rebecca Howell who suffered serious injuries when an employee of Hamilton Meats & Provisions (Hamilton) made an admittedly illegal U-turn while operating a company vehicle. The truck, upon making the U-turn, crossed into the path of Mrs. Howell's car, causing the collision. Her injuries were extensive, resulting in several surgeries, including two spinal fusion operations and removal of bone from her hip to replace broken ones in her neck.
The costs involved in treating Mrs. Howell amounted to nearly $190,000, but her insurance company negotiated with the medical providers and ended up paying around $60,000 for the care she received. At the conclusion of the lawsuit, the jury awarded Mrs. Howell just under $700,000 in damages, including the essentially unpaid medical expenses covered by the discount her insurer had arranged - their award was based on the billed expenses, not on the amount actually paid for her treatment.
The November 2009 ruling allowing Mrs. Howell to recover those forgiven medical expenses was the first of its kind. The trial court based their decision upon the fact that the bills were only discounted as the "direct result of [Mrs. Howell's] thrift and foresight" of having health insurance in the first place, so they reasoned that she should not be punished for having done so.
Hamilton appealed the award in part, not disputing the fault of their driver or the great majority of the payment to Mrs. Howell. They argue, however, that she should not be allowed to recover the approximately $130,000 in medical bills that were forgiven by the hospital and treating physicians. The company reasons that giving Mrs. Howell the additional money would violate a time-honored legal principle that plaintiffs are entitled to recovery that "makes them whole", not one that provides them with a windfall.
The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District agreed with Hamilton, reducing Mrs. Howell's total award by a little over $130,000, the amount of the unpaid medical expenses.
The Stakes Are High
Mrs. Howell's appeal of the appellate court's decision is the case currently before the California State Supreme Court. They will now decide the propriety of awarding a personal injury victim the total amount of medical expenses incurred instead of the actual amount that his or her insurance company paid to the providers.
Given the fact that thousands of personal injury cases are brought or decided in California each year, hundreds of millions of dollars could be lost by personal injury plaintiffs if this case is decided in Hamilton's favor. Furthermore, if the reduction in Mrs. Howell's award is upheld, it would erode years of effort put forth by plaintiff's attorneys to finally reverse the traditional view that plaintiffs do not deserve to recover the full value of their medical expenses (versus recovering only the negotiated amount).
What Will This Mean in the Future?
Should the court decide in favor of Hamilton, they would be upholding years of legal precedent that limits plaintiff recovery to actual amounts paid for medical treatment instead of the total costs incurred. In that regard, very little impact will be had upon personal injury victims - the status quo will not change.
On the other hand, if the Supreme Court agrees with the trial court's rationale and understands the validity of the argument that not allowing the full, "undiscounted" amount would essentially punish people trying to do the right thing by having private health insurance, there will be a whole new world of opportunities for plaintiffs. They would receive the same amount they would have if they had not been insured - the "real world" value of their injuries.
All the legal community can do now is wait for a verdict to see what impact, if any, Mrs. Howell's case will have upon the personal injury case landscape in California. In the meantime, though, if you or a loved one has been injured by the negligent or reckless behavior of another party, you should seek the advice of an experienced attorney in your area. Doing so can be an important step toward protecting your rights.
Article provided by Miller Law Inc.
Visit us at www.millerlawinc.com
---
Press release service and press release distribution provided by http://www.24-7pressrelease.com |
|
|
Press Release Contact Information:
Findlaw PR
|
|
|
|
|
| PERSONAL FINANCE ARCHIVE SEARCH |
|
|
| |
| SUBMIT PERSONAL FINANCE NEWS |
|
|
| |
|
|
Advertise With Us |
About Us |
Contact Us