Big brother is watching in Siouxland - Traffic Cameras, Cha-ching!

There is so much to report on that I can already sense that it’s going to be a very busy week. The first news item is happening in Sioux City, Iowa. City officials spent $2 million installing 26 traffic cameras at the busiest intersections around the city. This should make the lawyers and judges happy because when it comes to car accidents a picture is worth a thousand words. Sweet!

Louisa County, Iowa Crash Demonstrate Why Crappy Insurance Coverage Isn't In Your Best Interest

Four people died in this crash Saturday night in Louisa County on Highway 70. The Iowa State Patrol investigative report points towards a 1995 Honda Civic (driven by one Francisco Chariz-Ortiz, as having crossed the center line and causing a head-on crash with Ezra’s 1993 Toyota Camry. The State Patrol officer, Andreason drew no firmer conclusions about what might have caused that vehicle to cross the center line. The preliminary report doesn’t give much information about what cars the four were in. The driver of each car died. A 21-year-old male was life-flighted to the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. A 20-year-old, a 42-year-old female and two other males, ages 25 and 29 were all taken by ground ambulance to the Stacy Lewis Funeral Home.

Ohio's low end coverage, so easy even a caveman consumer can buy into it.

The insurance industry doesn’t want you to read this. They don’t want you figuring out you’ve bought insurance that is virtually useless to you. They will stop their gavels and yell that to adopt a broader view, one that actually provides more people with coverage, that it will drive up insurance rates; but I don’t see how. If they are honest with themselves they will admit their argument is total bull.

Ohio Underinsured Coverage – They took it away and still charge you a premium.

USAA is selling UM coverage in Ohio that fades away when you most need it. They take it away from the insured with a credit provision. Read this article and then read your policy and then switch policies or company that writes it.

Is your cheerleader better off with tort reform immunity statutes?

In the past few months the issue of Cheerleading dangers has been put to the forefront here and at InjuryBoard. In a Fox News video report the lawsuit between cheerleaders and the Wisconsin School District is explored.  

In this post let us examine the assumption that all tort reform is good, saves money for everyone and encourages participation in school activities.

I've sat in the stands at football games and basketball games watching the cheerleaders perform. Okay well maybe I don't always watching the moves but sometimes I do. What may seem like an exciting cheer move can, if the acrobatic move goes bad, lead to ruin for all involved. At a Drake Basketball game a season or two ago one aerobatic move resulted in the cheerleader hitting the floor extremely hard when the base missed catching her. It stunned the crowd waiting to see if she could get up or would be taken out on a stretcher. In that case she got up and was lead to a chair to get her wits together. The moves these cheerleaders are doing should be a concern to every parent whose child participates in sports, but especially in Wisconsin.

Here is what I mean by this. Let's say five Iowa State, University of Iowa or Drake University Cheerleaders, both male and female, are involved in a move where one small young lady is tossed into the air. If the move fails and the young lady lands on her knee, shoulder, spine, neck or head and injuring herself catastrophically, who pays for the costs of medical care and rehabilitation? What parents have to ask themselves is if the young lady is their child or if the students at the base are their children, who can get sued and how will the hundreds of thousands of dollars to care for the injured young woman be covered?

What parents have to ask themselves is if the young lady is their child or if the students at the base are their children, who can get sued and how will the hundreds of thousands of dollars to care for the injured young woman be covered?

In this Wisconsin case Brittany Noffke, and Kevin Bakke, both cheerleaders were told by the instructor to practice a move in the hallway. While executing the move Noffke's head came into contact with the tile floor resulting in a cracked skull.

Wisconsin law prohibits participants in contact sports from suing each other for unintentional injuries.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is considering the question of whether cheering is (under the Wisconsin statute) considered to be a contact sport. Seem like an odd question to you? If you can't believe that anyone would consider cheering a "contact sport", think about the contact between the cheerleaders head and the floor. Wasn’t that contact? In essence the Court will decide what type of contact was contemplated by the legislature.  Contact with the floor or contact between cheerleaders may not be contact at all under this Wisconsin law.  The statute doesn't list those sports the legislature wanted to be included as contact sports. So what is a contact sport in Wisconsin? And in this instance it may not be the right kind of contact. You may be lead to ask the question: So contact may not be contact?

Is volleyball, wrestling, track and field, soccer, chess, badminton or golf contact sports?

Well one has to consider what the legislature intended to mean when it wrote the contact sport statute. What is sport and what is intended contact? Contact with anything, including the floor or contact with just opponents? In this case the Plaintiff doesn't want cheering to be a contact sport, because then she can't sue to recover for costs of mending a cracked skull. The Defendant does want cheering to be a "contact sport", because then he gets immunity. The Court of Appeals Of Wisconsin ruled in favor of the  Plaintiff when it ruled that cheering isn't a contact sport.  The Court also ruled that the school district is immune from suit. According to that ruling the kid who did what he was told by the cheer coach can get sued but the adult coach can't be sued.

Not all tort reform is fair, equitable and for some it doesn’t save money.

Is this fair? Let's see, kid does what instructor tells him to do, the way the instructor told him and in the location where he was told to do it - he gets sued for doing it wrong and in a location where there was no mat and his parents get to sit through depositions while the teacher gets to go to practice. Certainly Kevin’s family won't be encouraged to allow participation in this "non-contact sport" in the future. He'll be playing chess for the next three years. Certainly not golf because it includes steel shafted clubs and hard-as-a-rock balls. Not tennis because of the titanium metal rackets and 100+ mph serves that can take out an eye. And forget doubles because two players on the same side of the net could easily strike each other with a racket or collide and tear an ACL. Volleyball probably isn't probably a contact sport either, although it's out due to spiking the ball into a players face. Do they have competitive typing in Wisconsin?

Most tort deform, I mean reform (sorry) goes like this: Okay if we take away the right to sue it's gotta be good for everyone involved. Right? Wrong!

The Appeal Court sided with the Plaintiff saying because cheerleading doesn't involve contact between opponents it's not a contact sport as intended by the statute. Which means Brittany and her parents can sue Kevin. The Supreme Court is considering whether it interprets the statute the same and the Court of Appeal's decision that Brittany can't sue the school. The Court of Appeals found the Spirit Rules are not laws or regulations that apply to the School District and it's staff.  The Spirit Rules were never adopted by the school district and therefore can not be used to establish negligence; with regard to proper training or spotting. So while coaches may abide by the rules, or not abide by them, in the end in Wisconsin they get to walk away from responsibility for their lack of oversight. Meanwhile Kevin and his parents, along with their homeowner's insurance company, assuming they had insurance, get to defend this pimply faced kid who was doing what he was told to do by the adult supervisor.

Later today I'll publish the entire decision here at InjuryBoard along with the Wisconsin Supreme Court oral argument announcement of October 8, 2008.

And we wonder why this next generation is confused?

I bet the Wisconsin legislature intended to encourage participation through immunity to participants of contact sports. Or the legislature intended to at least take away any disincentives. But in reality the way tort reformed immunity works is at odds with the idea of what tort reform does. Tort reform is intended to save everyone money and to encourage participation in doing things society wishes to encourage.

Does immunity encourage participation? Not from Kevin’s standpoint.

Does immunity save everyone money? No, because all the Kevin’s who participate in any sport whether it’s considered contact or non-contact need to be insured with both an umbrella liability policy that covers catastrophic injury to anther and health, life and disability insurance policies that cover their own child’s risk of injury while participating in school sports. Instead of the school district carrying one policy and covering all participants, every parent in the district that can afford one and cares about their child’s economic future need to purchase insurance coverage.

Does this type of tort reform make sense? No, not if you’re the one who might get sued. Yes from the standpoint of selling insurance it works very well; because you get to sell a lot more policies.

The real assumption made in all tort deform is this: I or my family will never be injured and need the civil justice system to help me.

Assumption number two: If I get sued I don’t care if I was right or wrong, I just don’t want to be responsible.

What does make sense? We have kids who are just trying to get good grades and go on to college while staying active and learning to be well rounded adults. Their parents want them to participate and to know kids are safe; or, when they are injured that the school district will take responsibility or at least have some insurance to assist with taking care of medical costs. In this instance the cost of participating in this non-contact sport that participation lead to a cracked skull is shoved all onto another kid and his family. Kevin and his family get to shoulder the burden. If the school district had one policy covering everyone and said if each acts reasonably and not negligent they aren’t legally responsible then everyone saves money and participation is encouraged.

Tort reformers assume that without immunity everyone sues everyone for anything. And that’s just one more unfounded assumption created by the insurance industry that has resulted in selling more insurance. Adopting that kind of tort reform simply shifts the burden from those responsible for the injury to those who are injured. And in this instance, the Wisconsin contact sports immunity statute has muddied the water even more allowing the teacher a get-out-jail-free card while forcing parents to buy more liability insurance covering catastrophic injury.

Clear as mud right? I know we lawyers are terrible with talking in ways that lay people are too lazy to learn. So allow me to try in simple terms to help you understand how to protect yourselves.

Until people can get that thought through their heads let's consider what you can do to protect yourself.

1. Buy an umbrella policy that covers your child’s liability when participating in school activities.

2. Buy a disability policy that does the same.

3. Buy a health insurance policy with unlimited lifetime coverage.

If I'm involved in a collision with a stolen vehicle, what insurance policy will cover my damages?

A car collision in Villisca, Iowa demonstrates a point about your car insurance coverage and whether or not you have adequate coverage. Here is the story as reported in the news.

A two car collision occurs when one of the cars fails to stop at a stop sign.  The police later determine the vehicle that failed to stop at the stop sign was stolen. Now let’s assume for the sake of this discussion that the vehicle that the at-fault vehicle is in fact stolen. What happens to the claims of the not-at-fault injured participants?

The participants who are not at fault will want to pursue their claims against the owner of the stolen vehicle; but that will go no where. For insurance coverage to apply to the at-fault acts of a non-owner, the driver must have permission to be driving the vehicle. Permission requires driving with the knowledge and consent of the owner. In this case the vehicle if stolen is not being driven with the consent of the owner. Isn’t that pretty much the definition of a stolen vehicle? It is so trust me on that definition. The owner’s insurance company will deny coverage because insurance coverage doesn’t apply to those who steal an insured’s car.

Now don’t go whining about how it’s not your fault and why should your insurance company have to pay. Trust me when it comes to whether you have coverage, fault has nothing to do with it. It’s a matter of contract language. The policy will govern coverage. After you have coverage then it’s a matter of fault and who which insurance company or individual gets to pay. And if that’s not enough to make you appreciate what I’m talking about then put the shoe on the other foot. By that I mean think of your car being stolen and whether your insurance company should cover a non-fault driver colliding with a stolen car that later is determined to be your own.  Right, now you understand.

Okay, so you’re scratching your head and asking me where you go from here. Well, our first target for insurance coverage will be the at-fault driver’s insurance coverage; but you can bet either of two things applies to him. First, it’s unlikely he has auto insurance. Second, if he does it’s not going to cover him while stealing cars.

You’re still scratching your head aren’t you? Well you should have collision coverage on your auto policy that will cover damage to your car. You should have medical pay coverage that covers your medical bills, to the extent you purchased it. If you purchased rental car insurance coverage that will be covered under your policy; it should be shown on the declarations page of your auto policy. And, your personal injury type damages along with lost wages and loss of earning capacity along with pain and suffering will be covered under the uninsured motorist provisions of your policy.

So how do you know if you are covered? Pull out your policy and read the Declarations Page of the policy. It will list the insurance coverage along with the dollar limits per type of claim made. So go do it and then ask yourself, if you have enough coverage for your own claims. If not call your agent and increase what you have.