My question involves an injury that occurred in the state of: WA
A driver who has a history of distracted driving gets in a MVA that they may or may not have been able to avoid depending on their driving style.
They are taken to ER and no notable or significant injuries are found but six months later they sue insured other driver for claimed lower back injury that may or may not have been pre-existing, plus loss of consortium (55 yr old woman claims used to have intercourse seven days per week), etc, etc.
Defendant's auto insurance assigns contracted counsel who barely pays attention to case and it drags on to within one week of SOL running out (defendant was never legally served).
Plaintiff counsel then moves at the brink of SOL for dismissal of defendant without prejudice and at the same time files another P.I. suit introducing a co-defendant. Apparently a year and a half after the first accident Plaintiff had gotten into another MVA. Her same counsel combines both defendants into one lawsuit. That defendant was more likely the at-fault driver in that accident and the suit is for aggravation of alleged injuries from first accident plus alleged carpal-tunnel syndrome acquired from the second. Case is set for arbitration ($50K damage limit in WA) until Plaintiff counsel realizes that added defendant's policy has $100K limit and suddenly plaintiff's injuries from second accident get worse (big surprise). Case is switched to request for jury trial. It then drags on and on with multiple verbal promises of moving along by Plaintiff counsel that never materialize. Contracted counsel for first defendant is so lackadaisical he doesn't take the time to copy his client multiple case filings. Four years after the lawsuit was filed against his client he has never even met with him. Defendant's insurance policy premiums were paid on time for 30 years and had no significant accident hx or claims filed ("US**, "We Know What It's Like to Serve". Now I know what it is they serve).
That is the four year background of the case; now the Question:
Given that initial Defendant counsel does not seem to care or is incompetent and subsequent co-defendant has a reputable legal firm representing them, can initial defendant discuss the case (off the record) with that counsel? Issues would be: Plaintiff stated upon deposition that she had never been arrested, yet she was arrested for DUI in past and has case #/conviction; Plaintiff has been ticketed for distracted driving: speeding while on cell phone; WSP once issued a speeding ticket to her for 13 mph-over after pacing her for over a mile right along side of her while she was absentmindedly occupying the left lane. It seems like a better driver might also not be so accident-prone. There are also multiple misstatements of fact in the record pertaining to the first accident, plus the primary Plaintiff witness is an incarcerated felon of questionable reliability and truthfulness established in his past Court records. The accident report has damage drawn on the wrong end of the car and the officer/badge is converted to the wrong Police Department somewhere along the course of the record. There is more (like indications that Plaintiff has opioid-seeking tendencies in pharmacy records) but I doubt any of this has been conveyed to co-defendant's counsel. It seems to me that there is a common interest for both co-defendants that, if made evident to the Court, a high dollar award is on shaky ground given all of the loose ends. It should never been moved up from Arbitration. Can initial defendant share this info with co-defendant's counsel?
I can't help but wonder: is there a conflict of interest somehow since US** is initial defendant's policy for liability and plaintiff also has US** for under-insured motorists if defendant's limits are exceeded; why wouldn't they assign more effective counsel?? Are they sand-bagging to drive defendant to seek competent counsel on their own? They have repeatedly stated verbally that initial defendant will be settled for their limits and no more, but representation on both sides has not been trustworthy.
I apologize for the long-winded post, but date of the first MVA was in 2011. Now within past two weeks Plaintiff counsel is Judge-shopping. No details re his justification for Affidavit of Prejudice; but why did he wait to prolong Settlement Conference scheduling until just now? I have heard that dragging a P.I. case out for a long time tends to add some perceived or virtual credibility to the claim. What are we waiting for, plaintiff's next MVA to tag on another defendant?
We are on fixed income, so our US** coverage is our only hope. No, I am not going to waste my time with a Bar complaint and in reality there is no such thing as legal malpractice. It is a "don't bite the hand that feeds" situation.
A driver who has a history of distracted driving gets in a MVA that they may or may not have been able to avoid depending on their driving style.
They are taken to ER and no notable or significant injuries are found but six months later they sue insured other driver for claimed lower back injury that may or may not have been pre-existing, plus loss of consortium (55 yr old woman claims used to have intercourse seven days per week), etc, etc.
Defendant's auto insurance assigns contracted counsel who barely pays attention to case and it drags on to within one week of SOL running out (defendant was never legally served).
Plaintiff counsel then moves at the brink of SOL for dismissal of defendant without prejudice and at the same time files another P.I. suit introducing a co-defendant. Apparently a year and a half after the first accident Plaintiff had gotten into another MVA. Her same counsel combines both defendants into one lawsuit. That defendant was more likely the at-fault driver in that accident and the suit is for aggravation of alleged injuries from first accident plus alleged carpal-tunnel syndrome acquired from the second. Case is set for arbitration ($50K damage limit in WA) until Plaintiff counsel realizes that added defendant's policy has $100K limit and suddenly plaintiff's injuries from second accident get worse (big surprise). Case is switched to request for jury trial. It then drags on and on with multiple verbal promises of moving along by Plaintiff counsel that never materialize. Contracted counsel for first defendant is so lackadaisical he doesn't take the time to copy his client multiple case filings. Four years after the lawsuit was filed against his client he has never even met with him. Defendant's insurance policy premiums were paid on time for 30 years and had no significant accident hx or claims filed ("US**, "We Know What It's Like to Serve". Now I know what it is they serve).
That is the four year background of the case; now the Question:
Given that initial Defendant counsel does not seem to care or is incompetent and subsequent co-defendant has a reputable legal firm representing them, can initial defendant discuss the case (off the record) with that counsel? Issues would be: Plaintiff stated upon deposition that she had never been arrested, yet she was arrested for DUI in past and has case #/conviction; Plaintiff has been ticketed for distracted driving: speeding while on cell phone; WSP once issued a speeding ticket to her for 13 mph-over after pacing her for over a mile right along side of her while she was absentmindedly occupying the left lane. It seems like a better driver might also not be so accident-prone. There are also multiple misstatements of fact in the record pertaining to the first accident, plus the primary Plaintiff witness is an incarcerated felon of questionable reliability and truthfulness established in his past Court records. The accident report has damage drawn on the wrong end of the car and the officer/badge is converted to the wrong Police Department somewhere along the course of the record. There is more (like indications that Plaintiff has opioid-seeking tendencies in pharmacy records) but I doubt any of this has been conveyed to co-defendant's counsel. It seems to me that there is a common interest for both co-defendants that, if made evident to the Court, a high dollar award is on shaky ground given all of the loose ends. It should never been moved up from Arbitration. Can initial defendant share this info with co-defendant's counsel?
I can't help but wonder: is there a conflict of interest somehow since US** is initial defendant's policy for liability and plaintiff also has US** for under-insured motorists if defendant's limits are exceeded; why wouldn't they assign more effective counsel?? Are they sand-bagging to drive defendant to seek competent counsel on their own? They have repeatedly stated verbally that initial defendant will be settled for their limits and no more, but representation on both sides has not been trustworthy.
I apologize for the long-winded post, but date of the first MVA was in 2011. Now within past two weeks Plaintiff counsel is Judge-shopping. No details re his justification for Affidavit of Prejudice; but why did he wait to prolong Settlement Conference scheduling until just now? I have heard that dragging a P.I. case out for a long time tends to add some perceived or virtual credibility to the claim. What are we waiting for, plaintiff's next MVA to tag on another defendant?
We are on fixed income, so our US** coverage is our only hope. No, I am not going to waste my time with a Bar complaint and in reality there is no such thing as legal malpractice. It is a "don't bite the hand that feeds" situation.
Traffic Accidents: Can an Injured Driver File One Lawsuit for Two Separate Accidents
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire