Warning: Watch Out for Allstate’s Hands
| [ad#Google Adsense] |
Allstate Insurance has many fine qualities. They are well funded. They defend their insured’s against lawsuits. (Although, because their settlement offers are quite conservative [some might say stingy] you are more likely to get sued after an accident than insureds of some other insurance companies. )
One drawback of being insured with Allstate is their handling of uninsured and underinsured motorist claims. If you are hit and injured by an uninsured motorist Allstate’s conservative settlement policy will be applied to you and you will have to fight to get a fair and generous settlement.
Moral: When those “good hands” people have you in their hands you will have to fight to protect your own interests.
Here is an example of an uninsured motorist award on an Allstate case along with the email from my co-counsel.
Here’s the Arbitration award: (By the way, in arbitration the two sides agree on a person who will hear the arguments of both sides and make a decision. It’s a lot like going to court without all the rules and formalities.)
PAUL H. MATTHEWS
Utah Arbitration & Mediation
pmatthews@utaharbitrationandmediation.com
10 West Broadway, Suite 350
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2060
Telephone: (801) 355-7007
Facsimile: (801) 355-6006
February 3, 2009
William Morrison via email
Richard Gray via email
Re: ___ v. Allstate Insurance Company
Dear Counsel:
This case was arbitrated on January 30, 2009 with Paul H. Matthews acting as arbitrator,
Plaintiff was represented by William Morrison and Defendant was represented by Richard Gray.
After reviewing the position papers, depositions, and exhibits submitted by both sides,
after hearing the testimony of the plaintiff the arbitrator makes the following findings and
decisions by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. The plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident on September 26, 2006. The
accident occurred when an uninsured motorist abruptly and without warning swerved across the
median and hit the plaintiff head on with the primary impact on the left front of the plaintiff’s
vehicle. The parties have stipulated to the liability of the uninsured motorist, which is assumed by
the defendant in this case and that the plaintiff is fault free. The accident occurred in Salt Lake
County.
2. The plaintiff did not seek medical treatment on the night of the accident but rather
went home and went to bed as it was so late. However, the next morning he awoke with
symptoms of headache, neck pain, mid and low back pain and right shoulder pain. Accordingly,
at the urging of his mother he made an appointment with chiropractor Teresa Le (no relation)
who saw him one week after the accident on October 3, 2007. Dr. Le diagnosed him with soft
tissue strains and sprains and treated him throughout the month of October. She then referred
him to Rothfeder. Dr. Rothfeder performed an examination and had an MRI scan done on the
plaintiff. Dr. Rothfeder referred the plaintiff back to Dr. Le for continued therapy which was
continued through February of 2007, at which time he was released from treatment. Dr.
Rothfeder monitored and directed the chiropractic treatment. The plaintiff made almost no
progress in October and November of 2006, but in December the records reflect a breakthrough
and improvement thereafter until by February he was 80% better.
February 3, 2009
Page 2
See Section 78B-5-824 1 UCA; See also Gleave v. Denver Rio Grande Western Railroad Co., 749
P.2d 660 (Utah 1988) and Corbett v. Seamons, 904 P.2d 229 (Ut.Ct.App. 1995).
3. In spite of what the records state, the plaintiff testified he was 60 to 70% better
from his injuries when he stopped his chiropractic treatment. The plaintiff had prior injuries to
these same areas from a prior car accident in May of 2006. He also treated with Dr. Le for this
prior car accident. However, the plaintiff testified that he was completely better from his prior
injuries when this accident happened in September. However, the records of Dr. Le do not reflect
that he was 100% better after the May 31st accident.
He treated with Dr. Le from May 31, 2006
to July 5, 2006. When he stopped treating he still had pain in his shoulders, neck, uper back and
low back, all with a 2 of 10 on a 1-10 pain scale and also according to his pain diagram. On that
day his complaints were neck shoulder, upper and lower back pain. Dr. Le found him to have
sub-luxations in his entire cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine. He was found to be improving,
stable and recovering as anticipated.
On July 5th the plaintiff himself rated his condition as only
30% improved since the beginning of treatment. The plaintiff explained this at the arbitration
hearing by testifying that he must have improved after this time, because by the second accident
he was completely better. The plaintiff’s memory of treatment details, events, conditions and
what one of the treaters looked like was not very good. The records are deemed by the arbitrator
to be the best evidence as to how the plaintiff was responding to treatment on any particular day.
4. The plaintiff testified that currently his headaches have resolved, his shoulder pain
has resolved and his upper back has resolved. He testified that his lower back pain still hurts
somewhat when he is doing things like working on his car engine while on rollers or when
changing the oil. However he indicated that it was not too bad, but not as good as it was before
the accident. It particularly bothers him in the cold as it feels like it is stiff. He avoids heavy
lifting due to fear of injuring his back. This testimony is all consistent with the records. He was
given a home exercise program to participate in, but there was no evidence offered as to whether
he is engaged in a home exercise program.
5. The evidence preponderates that the Plaintiff suffered the following damages as a
direct result of the accident and due to the negligence of the defendant:
ECONOMIC DAMAGES
a. Medical Economic Damages $10,346.56
b Less medical PIP -($5000.00)
c. Lost Wage Economic Damages
$682.50
c. Net economic damage $6,029.06
d. Interest on net economic damage from the date of the
accident1 $1,417.25
TOTAL NET ECONOMIC DAMAGE AND INTEREST $8,863.56
FUTURE ECONOMIC DAMAGE $0.00
February 3, 2009
Page 3
NON ECONOMIC DAMAGES $5,000.00
TOTAL ARBITRATION AWARD $13,863.56*
*If this award is in excess it is automatically reduced to the policy limits of the insurance
contract pursuant to Utah law.
Each side to bear its own costs and attorneys fees.
/S/ 31January2009
Paul H. Matthews
Arbitrator
Thanks for this post. Very witty title, by the way.
Alicia, thanks for stopping by. I appreciate the valuable feedback you have given me since I started my blog. Good luck to you!
Insurance has become a legal and a basic need for drivers. We can compensate our damages through personal injury lawsuit.
Thanks for visiting.