Personal Injury

Does My Automobile Insurance Cover My Child Away at College?

Published on: March 12, 2024 | by Hollis Wright

by HWC Partner Michael Eldridge

Every fall, parents across Alabama celebrate the significant milestone of sending their children off to college. While our attention naturally gravitates toward matters like lodging, tuition, and class schedules, we may also ponder whether our insurance policies continue to provide coverage for our children now that they are adults and out of the house. Consider this scenario: Your child is away at college and is involved in a car accident. Perhaps they are at fault and injure someone else, or worse, they themselves are injured by another driver. In such situations, what are the implications for the parents’ insurance coverage as is it relates to covering a child away at school?

For decades, Alabama courts have ruled on insurance disputes related to scenarios precisely like this one. The central point of contention between insurance companies and their insureds revolves around the term “residence.” Specifically, what qualifies as an individual’s place of residence while away at school? The crux of this question is significantly important because insurance contracts typically extend coverage to both the named insureds (i.e. the parents) and “relatives of the named insured if they are residents of the same household.”

Post-COVID Jury Verdicts … What’s Going On?

Published on: June 15, 2022 | by Hollis Wright

by HWC Managing Partner Josh Wright

Post-COVID verdict averages in personal injury claims are up close to 50% from that of pre-COVID verdicts, according to recent statistics.¹ Verdicts in 2022 alone for Alabama injury victims have topped $97,000,000 in cases involving a wide array of wrongful conduct, including contract disputes, auto, medical malpractice, co-employee, fraud, discrimination, and uninsured motorists. See some of those recent verdicts below (based on lawyer-disclosed data):

Juries appear to listen carefully, consider all the evidence and thoroughly asses fundamental fairness in cases post-COVID. Insurance companies are also getting the message that juries are ready and willing to put aside politics and division in a courtroom, and award fair results in legitimate and real injury cases. Our firm alone has resolved (both at trial and pre-trial), a substantial number of lawsuits for unprecedented money in the last 12 months, which in no small part is because insurance companies have heard the message and listened to recent jury verdicts across the Country.

Are Landowners of Outdoor Recreational Property Protected if Someone Gets Injured on Their Land?

Published on: September 28, 2021 | by Hollis Wright

by HWC Partner John Spade

The weather is more pleasant, and lately, any chance to get outside and enjoy some fresh air has been a big relief to Alabamians. Whether you are going out to hunt, fish, camp, hike, bike, swim, or climb, it is good to be in the great outdoors. As a part of an effort to encourage Alabamians to go out and enjoy nature, Alabama Legislators passed Ala. Code §§35-15-1 and 35-15-20, also known as the Recreational Use Statutes, in 1981.

The purpose of these statutes is to protect landowners, both private individuals and public entities, from liability if someone gets injured on their land while it is being used for noncommercial, recreational use. By doing this, landowners are more likely to open their properties for recreational use, municipalities are more likely to invest in their parks, and the public has easier access to healthy and enriching activities.

The Battle for Data: How Courts are Tackling the Discoverability of Cell Phones in Litigation

Published on: March 31, 2021 | by Hollis Wright

by HWC Partner Michael Eldridge

Over the past two decades, the cell phone has evolved into a vital extension of our daily lives. The smartphone is now how we respond to emails, listen to music, surf the Internet, take photographs, buy groceries, make dinner reservations, and much, much more. All this use creates an enormous amount of data about us. What most of us might not realize, however, is that all of this forensic evidence is stored right inside our device.

In recent years, parties in litigation regarding motor vehicle collisions have battled over the discoverability of this forensic evidence. The battle centers on two competing interests. The need to uncover relevant evidence versus a person’s right to privacy. As it relates to the former, it is unquestionable that cell phone evidence could lead to the discovery of important evidence. According to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, as of early 2018, 95% of adults in the United States owned a cell phone,¹ 77% of which owned a smartphone.² What has grown alongside these astonishing ownership rates is device capabilities. Smartphones today have what seems like infinite capabilities, which creates an infinite number of distractions. According to the National Safety Council, 25% of highway crashes in the United States are caused by distractions from the use of cellular phones and/or smart devices.³

Injured by a Defective Product? Can I Sue the Retailer in Alabama?

Published on: October 12, 2020 | by Hollis Wright

by HWCV Partner Carter Clay

Although online purchasing is becoming more and more common, products are still routinely purchased from a store or retail shop. If a defective product is purchased from the retailer and injures or kills someone, is the retailer liable? Can the retailer be sued in Alabama? If my client is an Alabama resident, and I sue the retailer, which is an Alabama business, will the case be removed to federal court?

The above questions are often asked by attorneys retained by clients injured by defective products. As explained hereinbelow, the answers depend on what is being claimed against the retail store. Alabama product liability claims are governed by the Alabama Extended Manufacturers Liability Doctrine (AEMLD). See Ala Code § 6-5-501.

Are Consulting Experts Always Privileged and Confidential? Arguments For and Against Production

Published on: August 12, 2019 | by Hollis Wright

by HWC Partner Carter Clay

Any attorney who represents clients in cases that require experts will more than likely come across discovery issues involving those experts. Who is considered an expert and whether or not his or her identity must be disclosed? Specifically, what about consulting experts that will not be a witness at trial, must his or her identity be disclosed to the other parties? In cases involving product liability, this is especially common because of the oftentimes-complex nature of the device at issue. So, what about the discovery of the identification of non-witness consulting experts “attending” the examination of the subject defective product? This article seeks to address circumstances whereby the confidential nature of consulting experts might be removed.

For instance, in a product liability claim where expert inspections of the product will take place, do the inspections have to be jointly conducted? Can one party insist upon taking possession of the product and conduct an inspection outside the presence of other parties? If one party and the experts take possession of the product, does that party have to disclose the identity of the expert(s) who will be involved in the inspection and handling of the product, and what will they do at the inspection?

Defective 3M Earplug Cases Centralized in Florida

Published on: April 22, 2019 | by Hollis Wright

Lawsuits brought by veterans of the United States military against the Minnesota-based company 3M have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Various venues across the country were considered. Ultimately, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPLM) chose the Northern District of Florida as the home for the 3M Combat Arms Earplug litigation. The case has been assigned to the Honorable M. Casey Rodgers, a veteran of the United States Army.

The cases that will be transferred to the Florida MDL involve 3M’s Combat Arms Earplugs. These dual-ended earplugs were designed and manufactured for use by the military. The earplugs were issued to service members from 2003-2015. Because the earplugs would loosen in the user’s ears while being worn, they were not effective at reducing the level of sound, and ultimately caused permanent hearing loss and/or tinnitus.

The attorneys at Hollis, Wright & Clay, P.C. have extensive experience handling claims involving MDLs across the country. If you were a member of the military between 2003 and 2015, were issued dual-ended earplugs, and suffered from hearing loss and tinnitus, you may qualify for compensation. This lawsuit is not against the government or armed forces and does not affect disability benefits.

Wait, I Have to Pay My Health Insurance Carrier Back?

Published on: February 14, 2018 | by Hollis Wright

by HWCV Associate Attorney John Spade

If you have ever had a personal injury claim that has resolved either through a settlement or a verdict, the attorney handling your case likely told you that a portion of your settlement would have to be used to pay back your health insurance company for the medical bills they paid relating to your injuries. This process is call subrogation and can have a major impact on your personal injury case.

For the purpose of this post, we will be discussing how subrogation works in the context of medical bills that have been paid by private health insurance companies, such as BlueCross BlueShield or Humana. However, it is important to note that the subrogation process applies, not only to private health insurance companies, but also to government entities such as Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare or any other entity that pays to satisfy your medical bills, which then make the basis of your personal injury claim, including hospitals. Furthermore, in regards to governmental entities, a failure to protect their subrogation interests can result in significant penalties to all individual attorneys and/or parties that impaired the governmental entity’s right to get reimbursed. Therefore, the attorney handling your personal injury claim should be aware of which entities are paying your medical bills, so they can make sure to properly protect their subrogation interest.

Uninsured Alabama Motorists to Face Penalties

Published on: November 29, 2017 | by Hollis Wright

Beginning November 2017, Alabama motorists should be prepared to incur stiff penalties if they are caught without liability insurance on the state’s roadways. Although Alabama motorists have been required to carry liability insurance on their vehicles since the Alabama Mandatory Insurance Act was initially passed in 2013, the Alabama Legislature recently enacted a bill which gave the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency a procedure to levy civil penalties against drivers found to be in violation of the previously enacted Alabama Mandatory Insurance Act. The bill, which was passed by the Alabama Legislature in 2016, gave drivers a grace period in an effort to allow motorists time to obtain proper coverage.

With the grace period expiring on November 1, 2017, all motorists are now effectively responsible to be properly insured when taking to Alabama roadways. Applicable fines include the following:

$200 for the first offense,

Proton Pump Inhibitor (PPI) Claims Granted Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)

Published on: August 10, 2017 | by Hollis Wright

The U.S. Judicial Panel (JPML), a separate body within the Federal Court System, has granted the plaintiff’s second motion for consolidating Proton Pump Inhibitor (PPI) drug claims to Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). This allows the plaintiffs to consolidate the cases that allege PPI drugs caused kidney disease in those who used them. The benefit for plaintiffs is that the consolidated action will expedite the overall process, prevent duplicate discovery, and reduce a backlog in the court system.

The PPI drugs at issue include four prescription drugs: Prilosec, Nexium, Protonix, and Dexilant; and three over-the-counter drugs: Prilosec OTC, Prevacid 24-hour, and Nexium 24-hour. Plaintiff’s allege these PPIs cause kidney injuries, which include acute interstitial nephritis, chronic kidney disease, and end-stage renal disease. This type of drug first received FDA approval in 1989.

The suits, citing a host of studies, claim the manufacturers of the PPI drugs (the defendants) should be held liable and accountable for the damage caused to patients while taking said drugs. Furthermore, the defendants should take financial responsibility for failing to warn consumers of the potential health issues related to PPIs.