In Hartley v. Security National, the plaintiffs were injured in a motor vehicle accident while touring on a motorcycle in Minnesota. The accident occurred when the plaintiffs’ motorcycle was struck by a self-insured State of Minnesota-owned truck, operated by a state employee. The plaintiffs retained Minnesota counsel and sued the State of Minnesota for damages.
https://www.insblogs.com/auto/
As our jury system comes under fire for being expensive, long and difficult to control (due to modern technology and outside influences), arguments are continually made to keep it. We are told juries are the great equalizers, the voice of common sense and the community’s guide to what is just. While these historical arguments have merit, there is a real question when one considers appeals as to how much deference our courts really give juries and whether the scales are balanced.
As a general rule, injured people are required to sue within two years of the date of the incident giving rise to their lawsuit. This two year “limitation period” is prescribed by the Limitations Act, 2002. The Act states that a proceeding shall not be commenced in respect of a claim after the second anniversary of the day on which the claim was “discovered.” Generally speaking, a claim is said to be discovered on earlier of (a) the day the person first knew that he or she had a claim, or (b) the day the person ought to have known that he or she had a claim. The Act also states that a person is presumed to have known that he or she had a claim on the day the incident took place unless proven otherwise.
http://www.advocatedaily.com/j
The recent Supreme Court of Canada Ruling Sabean v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co. represented a win for accident victims. The unanimous seven-judge decision from the nations top court held that the CPP is not a policy of insurance, and that the insurer cannot deduct a NS man’s CPP disability payments from his insurance payments according to the provinces SEF 44 endorsement. In Ontario, this is known as the OPCF-44R.
https://www.deutschmannlaw.com
Lawyer/client communication-related claims are the number one source of malpractice claims in all areas of practice. These claims can arise when there is a mis-communication or no communication at all. The lawyer and client can be confused over who is doing what. Were instructions received but ignored? Was the lawyer supposed to do something which wasn’t done? Was a recommendation not taken and subsequently regretted, leading to the client ultimately blaming the lawyer? Good practice habits can help eliminate these problem areas. Let’s take a look at the habits that can help you take instructions and give recommendations effectively.
http://avoidaclaim.com/2017/go
One of the most common questions which personal injury lawyers must answers is “how much is my case really worth“?
This question is never easy to answer. These questions are largely fact specific. Even the most serious analysis of the facts and evidence cannot predict the answer with pin point accuracy. The reason for this is that the majority of personal injury cases are heard by juries. Juries by their very nature are unpredictable. Judges can be unpredictable as well. If the Judge and Jury like the Plaintiff, then the award will likely be larger.
A claimant and their insurer recently sought to have their insurance dispute over payment of income replacement benefits decided by an adjudicator for the Licence Appeal Tribunal. The dispute arose when the insurance company, Co-operators General Insurance Company, stopped paying a claimant’s income replacement benefits because the claimant refused to attend a medical examination requested by the insurer.
The Federation of Ontario Law Associations (FOLA) is urging the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) to exercise caution in its review of contingency fee agreements.
Jaye Hooper, FOLA’s chair, says the federation supports the concept of a mandatory, easily understood contingency fee agreement (CFA), but has a number of concerns about some recommendations a law society working group made to their colleagues in Convocation on the issue.
Expert witnesses are common in personal injury cases, especially car accident cases. Both plaintiffs and insurers call expert doctors, economists or accountants, engineers, occupational therapists and all sorts of other specialists to give expert opinions. Ten of thousands of dollars are spent. Sometimes even more.
Mr. Sidhu submits that the Arbitrator erred in finding that the Full and Final Release he signed on December 2, 2003, precludes him from proceeding to arbitration.
For the reasons that follow, Adjudicator Rogers agrees with the Arbitrator’s conclusion.
https://www.deutschmannlaw.com