Articles Posted in Motorcycle Accidents

Published on:

On 12 August 2003, a Staten Island woman, who was insured by a certain insurance company, was involved in a motor vehicle accident. She was driving her van when she made a left turn directly into the path of a motorcycle operated by a certain man. The impact caused the operator of the motorcycle (the victim) to be ejected and landed about nineteen feet away. Thereafter, the Manhattan police and paramedics arrived and the victim was taken to the hospital, and it was determined that he sustained serious injuries. The victim stayed in the hospital for thirteen days, and was later transferred to a nursing home.

After the said incident had occurred, the aforesaid woman immediately reported the car accident to her insurance company. In response, the insurance company assigned someone to handle the claim (the agent), who spoke generally about the accident with the said woman (the insured woman); ascertained that neither the insured nor her daughter, who was in the van with the woman at the time of the accident, was injured; advised her that she had $10,000 coverage limits, that is, $10,000 in property damage coverage and $10,000 in bodily injury coverage; and concluded that the insured was probably at fault in causing the accident. After that, the agent assigned attempted to call the victim, who was still in the hospital, but was unable to reach him. The agent then ordered an appraisal of the victim’s motorcycle and assigned that portion of the damage claim to the insurance company’s claim service center in Virginia.

On 18 August 2003, the insurance agent received a call from an attorney (lawyer-one), who indicated that he was representing the victim. However, ten days later, lawyer-one notified the agent that he was no longer representing the victim and provided him with a notice of his attorney’s lien.

On 20 August 2003, the agent obtained the car accident report. The report stated that the woman turned directly in front of the victim who was ejected nineteen feet, and thereby suffered an incapacitating injury. On 26 August 2003, the appraisal of the motorcycle revealed that it was a total loss. Thus, the agent authorized payment of the full $10,000 property damage policy limits. On 29 August 2003, the agent sent the insured woman a certified letter advising her that, because the property damage would exceed her insurance coverage, she was personally exposed to an excess judgment for both property damage and bodily injuries; acknowledged that it was reported to them that the claimant sustained serious bodily injuries, and cautioned that the insurance company will make every effort to resolve the claims within the insurance coverage, but that, due to the serious nature of the accident, it may not be possible; and that under no circumstances will the Claims Service or the insurance company assume responsibility for any claims or judgments in excess of the insurance coverage.

On 9 September 2003, the victim’s new attorney, lawyer-two, sent a letter to the agent asking for the policy information within thirty days, but the insurance company did not provide that information until sixty days later. On 9 October 2003, the agent spoke with the lawyer-two’s paralegal and was informed that the victim sustained a significant spinal cord injury, with several broken bone injuries, among others, and that he might be paralyzed. After this conversation, the agent set the reserves for the bodily injury claim to the full $10,000 policy limit and sent a letter to lawyer-two’s law firm asking for the victim’s medical records and bills stating that they would like to settle the bodily injury claim as soon as possible; informed them of lawyer-one’s lien; and indicated that the said lawyer’s name needed to be on the settlement check. On 19 December 2003, the new lawyer sent medical authorization forms signed by the victim to the agent, but the agent did not order such records, and requested only the hospital records on 13 January 2004, or almost five months after the accident. On 30 January 2004, the agent received the said hospital records. On 4 February 2004, the agent sent a letter to lawyer-two acknowledging the serious injuries the victim suffered and offered to settle the claim contingent upon placing lawyer-one’s name on the settlement check or obtaining an agreement regarding the lien; and that he would be contacting lawyer-one to ascertain whether such lawyer intended to pursue his lien, however, the record does not reflect that the agent ever contacted the first lawyer.

On 5 February 2004, the agent sent a status report to the insured woman informing her that the victim had an extended hospital and nursing home stay due to his serious injuries, which included a spinal cord injury, several broken bone injuries, particularly, vertebrae fractures, rib fractures, along with a punctured lung, and a scalp laceration. The agent advised her that he offered to pay the bodily injury liability limit of $10,000 but cautioned that because of the serious injuries it might be impossible to settle within the policy limits.

On 11 February 2004, the agent sent another letter to lawyer-two identical to the February 4 letter. On 17 February 2004, lawyer-two responded and advised that if and when the policy limits are tendered, he will discuss it with the victim; and that he would be responsible for any alleged lien on the part of lawyer-one. On 2 March 2004, in response to lawyer-two’s February 17 letter, the agent expressed uncertainty as to the word “tender.” He thought he had already tendered the policy limits, even though no check had been enclosed, and he again wanted assurance that lawyer-two would be responsible for the payment of any potential attorney’s lien. On 8 March 2004, lawyer-two explained that there had not been a tender of policy limits and that, if the agent was unsure of that term, he needed to check it with his legal department; that, due to the catastrophic nature of the victim’s injuries, there should have been a tendering of policy limits; and, yet again, advised the agent that the victim would be responsible for any potential attorney’s lien. On 24 March 2004, the agent faxed a copy of lawyer-one’s 28 August 2003 attorney’s lien to lawyer-two, and on the cover sheet, he again expressed confusion over the term “tender of policy limits”. On 25 March 2004, he also sent a letter indicating that the insurance company’s offer to settle the victim’s claim is tender of the limits; and that if lawyer-two wanted the settlement check, he would need to put in writing that he would settle the attorney’s lien from the proceeds of the check. Lawyer-two responded by insisting that his demand for a tender of policy limits was clear and reiterated that, if the agent needed clarification, he needed to check with his legal department; questioned the potential insignificance of the attorney’s lien stating that the value of lawyer-one’s lien is unimaginable considering the period that lawyer-one’s services was engaged, noting that the accident occurred on 12 August 2003 and the letter advising them of the lien is only dated 28 August 2003.

On 1 April 2004, after an almost eight months from the date of the accident, the insurance company formally tendered the policy limits of $10,000. However, by reason of the insurance company’s delay, he already filed suit against the insured woman, as directed by the victim. Lawyer-two was so surprised at how long it took the insurance company to tender the limits especially due to the catastrophic nature of the injuries, noting that the victim would have settled the claim at any point through February.

The victim and his wife filed suit against the insured woman, while the insured woman filed a bad faith claim against the insurance company. Thereafter, a stipulated judgment in excess of the policy limits was entered by agreement among the victim, the victim’s wife, the insured woman, and the insurance company, but it expressly left open the issue of whether the insurance company had acted in bad faith in failing to settle the victim’s claim.

In the bad faith action, the insurance company filed a motion for summary judgment. The insurance company alleged that, as a matter of law, it did not act in bad faith; that it had orally offered to settle for its policy limits within a day of receiving the medical records; thus, final judgment should be entered in its favor. In opposition, the insured woman filed two affidavits, one by a claims-handling expert and the other from an attorney. In the affidavits, it was stated that, based on the low limits of the insured’s policy and the potentially catastrophic injuries to the victim, the insurance company should have tendered its policy limits not later than October 2003; that the method of claims handling followed by the insurance company was not appropriate under the circumstances; that the insurance company failed to conduct a thorough and prompt investigation using all sources available to all parties; that the insurance company demonstrated a lack of urgency and lack of concern to its insured; that the insurance company violated its fiduciary duty to its insured by failing to understand the duty to make a tender of policy limits as soon as the adjuster determined it was likely that the value of the claim would exceed the policy limits; that the insurance company breached its duty by refusing to protect the insured until it received medical records documenting the nature and extent of the injuries and requiring written confirmation of those injuries when it already knew of the severity of the injuries; and that the purported attorney’s lien should not have been a factor in the settlement considerations. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company. Hence, an appeal followed.

The ultimate issue in this case concerns whether the insurance company acted in bad faith in failing to settle a claim against its insured. On the standard of review in appeals of this case, the trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment is a question of law and is subject to the de novo standard of review. Summary judgment should be granted only when there is a complete absence of genuine issues of material fact. Where material issues of fact which would support a jury finding of bad faith remain in dispute, summary judgment is improper.
Well settled is the rule that an insurance company has an obligation to properly defend its insured from claims that are covered within the policy of insurance and that it must exercise good faith in satisfying that obligation. When defending its insured against a claim, the insurer has a duty to use the same degree of care and diligence as a person of ordinary care and prudence should exercise in the management of his own business. The insurer must investigate the facts, give fair consideration to a settlement offer that is not unreasonable, and settle the claim, if possible, where a reasonably prudent person, faced with the prospect of paying the total recovery, would do so. The question of whether an insurer has acted in bad faith in handling claims against the insured is determined under the totality of the circumstances standard where each case is determined on its own facts, and, ordinarily, the question of failure to act in good faith with due regard for the interests of the insured is for the jury.

Here, it must be noted that the insurance company knew, within days of the accident, that the insured was entirely at fault; that, because the accident involved a motorcycle, the insured would be responsible for all of the personal injury damages that exceeded her $10,000 policy, without regard to the issue of whether the victim suffered a permanent injury; and, that the victim suffered catastrophic injuries to which he was hospitalized for thirteen days and later transferred to a nursing home, and sustained a spinal cord injury, including several broken bone injuries, particularly, vertebrae fractures, rib fractures, a punctured lung, and a scalp laceration. Thus, the court finds that it cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that the insurance company satisfied its duty of good faith.

Moreover, an insurance company has the fiduciary duty to timely, and to properly, investigate claims against its insured. This duty is not relieved simply because the company is waiting for some information from the victim’s attorney. It is evident on the record that the insurance company knew that the victim’s injuries would exceed the policy limits of $10,000. Thus, the company’s failure to tender the policy limits created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether it breached its duty of good faith.

Lastly, on the argument that summary judgment was appropriate because there was never a formal offer to settle the case, a lack of a formal offer to settle is a factor to be considered in determining whether the insurance company acted in bad faith.

In all, the question of whether it was reasonable for the insurance company to insist on additional medical information beyond what it already knew and insist on further verification of the attorney’s lien issue, and whether the insurance company reasonably handled the purported “tender” are indeed factual disputes that must be determined by the finder of fact. It is without a doubt that the record contains genuine issues of material fact to be resolved by the fact-finder as to whether the insurance company acted fairly and with due regard for the insured’s interest; whether the insurance company’s actions were reasonably diligent and exercised with reasonable care. Accordingly, the court finds that the summary judgment appealed from must be reversed.
Continue reading

Published on:

A young man from Lumberton was killed on Saturday morning. The accident involved a single car on Route 206 and happened during the early hours of Saturday morning.

The 23 year old driver was declared dead at the scene. He died of his injuries before the emergency services could arrive, explains a Lawyer. The man was pronounced dead at 1:52 AM according to the contents of a police report.

The man was driving on the southbound carriageway of Route 206. Other drivers said that he wasn’t able to negotiate his car around a corner. This caused his Ford Fusion to come off the road and flip over. The car slammed into a utility pole which caused extensive damage to the car.

The death of this young driver is the 18th fatal road accident in Burlington County, according to new statistics acquired by the police. Four of these fatalities occurred in a single accident. Many people are starting to question the safety of the roads in the area.

The police are currently still investigating the exact cause of the accident. It is not currently known what caused the man to come off the road and flip his car. The police will interview more eyewitnesses. Although, it’s thought that excessive speed had a part to play in the car accident, indicated the source.

A 70 year old man was killed in April when his car was involved in an accident with a SUV. This accident caused his car to be pushed into an ice cream parlor along Route 70 when he was trying to turn around. He also died in the crash, before the emergency services could respond to the accident. Similar accidents have been reported in Manhattan and Long Island.

In March, two more people died on Route 206. These were a 64 year old man and a 53 year old woman. The pair was riding a motorcycle. A police cruiser was traveling at high speed to respond to another incident. The two people were thrown from their motorcycle and killed instantly at the scene.
Continue reading

Published on:

A man who was seriously injured in a serious car crash in Lancashire is grateful that he is still alive. He is about to visit the Lancashire Constabulary’s Air Support Unit to personally thank the crew which were responsible for saving his life.

The 19 year old driver was involved in a traffic incident. He crashed into a tree while he was riding a motorcycle in October 2010.

Normally in these circumstances the Air Ambulance would be called to transport the patient to hospital, explained a Lawyer. However, the air ambulance was not available at the time. Instead, the fast thinking police decided to use the police helicopter. They used their police helicopter to pick up the patient and send him to the Royal Blackburn Hospital.

The injuries sustained in the accident were very serious. He required treatment for a broken leg, head trauma, and liver injuries. He actually needed five months of treatment before he could be released.

Following the accident the motorcycle rider was unconscious for around eight weeks. His family was relieved when he finally opened his eyes the first time after the accident.

The source has seen a copy of the police report. The rider explained that he remembered everything before the crash. However, he didn’t remember the actual car accident happening or anything immediately before it.

The motorcycle rider has thanked the Air Support unit for saving his life. He said that he believes he would have died if they had to wait for the air ambulance to respond.

He has arranged to meet the police constable and captain who were involved in saving his life. These people were on duty in a helicopter when the accident happened and were able to transfer him to hospital. He will also get to see a tour of the whole unit and have a look inside the helicopter. These accidents are not common in The Bronx and Brooklyn.

The helicopter has taken people to hospital before in certain circumstances. In this case the air ambulance was not available which meant that they needed to use the police helicopter.
Continue reading

Published on:

A car accident which happened in Cumberland County has killed two people and left one other with serious injuries. The accident involved several vehicles including a car, pickup truck and three motorcycles. This was a serious accident, but the policeman explains that the accident could have actually been much worse under other circumstances.

The crash happened at about 2:00 PM along Route 347. The state police which attended the scene explained that the Dodge Ram was traveling on the southbound carriageway and was unable to negotiate a corner. This caused the vehicle to cross over into the other lane on the other side of the road. At this point the driver hit two motorcycles before stopping close to the guardrail.

The first motorcycle rider was a 53 year old man. He was transported to a large hospital by helicopter. He was said to have life threatening serious injuries which required treatment. The passenger of this motorcycle was pronounced dead at the scene before any medical care could be provided. The driver remains in a critical condition at the hospital and is still receiving treatment.

The second motorcycle rider was struck by another oncoming vehicle. The 48 year old driver of this bike was also pronounced dead at the scene as a result of injuries sustained in the crash. The surviving victims were the primary concern of the rescue crews who ensured they were all safe and transferred to the nearest hospitals capable of treating its injuries.

The car carried on moving after striking the motorcycle. It was then hit in the back by another Honda motorcycle. The 57 year old rider of this motorcycle only experienced minor injuries. He was transported to hospital by ambulance and received treatment for his injuries. He was then released as he was said to be in a stable condition. New York and Staten island authorities have experienced similar situations.

This was a serious car accident which needed help from all the emergency services for the rescue. The source explains that this accident could have actually been much worse if more vehicles were involved in it.
Continue reading

Published on:

A motorcyclist was seriously injured after being involved in a road traffic car accident. The motorcyclist was going for a short ride along route 110.

The motorcyclist was so badly injured that she suffered from short term memory loss. She cannot remember anything that happened on the lead up to the accident. Her memory for the whole month has actually been affected.

According to a report read by a reporter, a witnesses saw the car accident as it happened. Another driver in a car was trying to make a U turn in the road, where it is not permitted. The motorcyclist was traveling at 40 miles per hour, which was well within the speed limit of the area. This means that she had no chance of stopping in time because by the time the car was seen, it was already too late.

The motorcyclist attempted to stop as quickly as possible. This caused her bike to skid and the rider was thrown over the top of the bike. She landed on her head on the road.

The motorcyclist was not wearing a helmet and the observer states that if a helmet was worn, that the injuries would have been much less serious. Because no helmet was worn the rider suffered from extensive brain trauma which caused her to go into a coma for over a week. The head injuries also resulted in memory loss.

The New York Accident Attorney has a copy of a report demonstrating the severity of the injuries sustained. She suffered from facial injuries which required many hours of reconstructive surgery to put right. Her left wrist was shattered and jaw fractured.

The injuries were so serious that it was thought unlikely that the rider would make a full recovery. She was taken straight to Bridgeport hospital. A similar accident a few weeks after this accident resulted in fatality with the motorcyclist and passenger being killed in similar circumstances.

The police investigation into the crash which calmed the lives of two men is still ongoing. Route 110 is a notoriously dangerous place to ride a motorbike with there being many accidents. While some of these accidents are caused by excessive speed or driving under the influence, some of these accidents happen through no fault of the drivers themselves. The high volume of traffic is thought to be one of the main reasons why there are so many accidents involving motorcyclists.

The motorcyclist has since made a full recovery but vows never to get on a bike again. Accidents like this can happen anywhere. Even in urban areas like Manhattan and Queens.
Continue reading

Published on:

A man was injured when his motorcycle was hit from the side by a car. The impact of the accident caused the rider to be thrown from the motorcycle.

The emergency services were quick to arrive on the scene. They cared for the rider and put him onto a backboard and in a neck brace explains the authority. This is common procedure whenever anyone is involved in a car accident which could result in back or neck injuries. Police were also called to the scene as it was thought to be a serious accident; however they left when they discovered that it was not as serious as it was first thought.

The injuries of the motorcyclist were thought to be very serious as he was placed in a neck brace, and back board. He was then transported to hospital very quickly in an Ambulance. However, when he arrived at hospital his injuries were fully assessed. It was discovered that his injuries were not as serious as first thought.

A witness explains that the car accident occurred because a car waiting to turn left hit a motorcyclist. A few cars stopped to allow the car turning left to pass, but the motorcyclist continued and was struck by the car turning left.

The report which says the motorcyclist was thrown to the ground in the accident. The family of the victim is very grateful that this isn’t any more serious than it really had to be.

Police said that as the accident was not a result of driver error, it would be unlikely that the driver would get a ticket. This is an accident which occurred due to nobody’s fault. Even so it’s great news that this didn’t kill anyone.

Police in The Bronx and Brooklyn are on alert for this type of accident.
Continue reading

Published on:

A fire chief was killed on Saturday Afternoon when his motorcycle was crashed into by a car. This left him with live threatening injuries and he died soon after the car accident.

According to a report read by a policeman, the accident happened at about 4:25 PM on Saturday afternoon. The Portland police department was quick to respond to the scene of the accident.

The Fire Chief was immediately air lifted to hospital. He arrived at Parkview Hospital but as pronounced dead on arrival.

It was very emotional for the police officers who attended the scene, because many of them knew the fire chief personally. One of the police men even went to the same training course as the fire chief who was killed. The fire chief was lovingly described by his colleagues as the best of the best, and he will be missed by everyone in Portland.

The Fire Chief is said to of loved his job and really enjoyed helping people in their hour of need. He was a caring and compassionate person who really enjoyed helping people.

The report states that the fire chief was traveling westbound on his motorcycle when he was hit from behind by a car. The car driver said that she could not see the bike as it was behind a large white van. When the car hit the bike, the motorcyclist was immediately thrown from his bike which caused internal and head injuries which were lethal.

The driver was not hurt, and did not require any medical treatment. She was tested for alcohol and drugs, but the findings were not included in the report which was obtained by a reporter. Anyone involved in a fatal traffic accident in Nassau and Suffolk must undergo a drug and alcohol test according to state law.

The fire chief will be dearly missed. He first became a firefighter in 1997 and rose through the ranks to become the fire chief of Portland in 2007. Everyone who knows him says that he really loved his job. Many people are thought to attend his funeral service, although the exact details are not yet known.
Continue reading

Published on:

Two police officers riding motorcycles were injured in separate accidents in Atlanta, Georgia on a Tuesday evening around 9pm. Both accidents happened within minutes of each other, reports a New York Injury Lawyer. One officer suffered minor injuries while other will have to undergo surgery after fracturing one of his legs. The drivers of the vehicles involved in the accidents were charged with failing to yield when turning left and failing to yield for an emergency vehicle.
The first accident occurred as the officer was on his way to help with crowd dispersal after a basketball game. The driver failed to yield before making a left turn and crashed into the motorcycle. The second accident occurred as the other officer was responding to the first accident. The driver in this accident failed to stop to let the motorcycle cross the street first. The car crashed into the motorcycle, says a New York Car Accident Lawyer. Both police officers were transported to the same local hospital for treatment.
A group of officers visited the hospital afterward to their condolences. Fortunately, no other vehicles or people were injured in these accidents. Both officers are expected to make full recoveries. The drivers of the cars involved in these accidents did not suffer any injuries. It is unclear at this time if drugs or alcohol played a part in either of these accidents, according to a New York Injury Lawyer. Failure to obey the rules of the road can have major consequences as the drivers of these vehicles discovered. Motorcycle accidents are common in Long Island and Westchester County where highways are plentiful.
It is unknown how long the police officers had been riding motorcycles or when they will be able to do so again. The officers may have to ride in a squad car or be placed on desk duty until they are fit to ride a motorcycle. The damage to the vehicles involved in the accidents is also unknown. Depending on how fast the vehicles were traveling, significant damage could have been done, claims a New York City Car Accident Lawyer. The penalty for hitting the officers may include a fine, loss of license or the completion of a traffic safety course.
Continue reading

Contact Information