Automobile Liability

Emergency Kits: What to Keep in Your Car

From flat tires to snowstorms, unanticipated emergencies leave drivers stranded all the time. Ensure your safety and the safety of your loved ones by preparing an emergency kit for your vehicle. Here is a list of must-haves from CT Auto Injury Lawyer Timothy O’Keefe:

  • Water. Your body will shut down without water, so store small drink boxes in the trunk. You can also use water if your car overheats, or to clean out a wound.
  • Food. Keeping food in your car will ensure you maintain your energy if you get stranded; but most food will spoil when kept in the extreme temperatures of your car. Calorie bars won’t spoil, and they’ll keep you feeling full.
  • Blanket. Warmth is a must if you’re stranded in an emergency. Even summer nights can get chilly, so keep a blanket in your car at all times.
  • Poncho. If you get a flat tire and it’s raining out, a poncho will make a world of difference.
  • Light. A flashlight comes in handy in every situation.
  • First Aid Kit. Keep a fully-stocked first aid kit in your car, complete with pain relievers, sterile pads, alcohol wipes, bandages, and tape. You can also throw in travel-sized toilet paper and tissue packets.
  • Tools. A multipurpose knife can go a long way in an emergency. Duct tape couldn’t hurt either.
  • Miscellaneous Accessories. Road flares, heat packs, a shovel, and safety pins may also be useful in an emergency.

Separated father of boy killed by motorist cannot get UIM benefits because son did not live with him

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania ruled a separated father who had joint custody of his son cannot recover UIM benefits under his own automobile policy after the son was killed in an accident because the boy lived full time with his mother, did not physically reside with his father, and did not attend school near his father’s residence.

The court noted that it is not yet a settled matter in state law if minors living under a joint custody order can be considered residents of both parents’ homes.

Date of Statute Of Limitation on UIM claim not until four years after settlement obtained

On April 20, in State Farm v. Rosenthal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the statute of limitations on a UIM claim is not the date of the accident as State Farm had advocated but four years from the date in which a settlement or award of a lesser amount than the incurred damages is obtained from the adverse driver.

In State Farm v. Rosenthal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the statute of limitations on a UIM claim is not the date of the accident as State Farm had advocated but four years from the date in which a settlement or award of a lesser amount than the incurred damages is obtained from the adverse driver.

PA Supreme Court Rules on Injured Pedestrian’s Right of Recovery

Young girl injured by motorist is not restricted to ‘limited tort’.
An 11-year-old girl who was struck by a motorist after coming off a school bus may seek recovery for noneconomic damages she sustained, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court today ruled in L.S. v. Eschbach.
In an important case of first impression involving the rights of pedestrians under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, the Supreme Court reversed a Superior Court majority decision precluding the victim, whose family is insured by a limited tort automobile policy, from recovering noneconomic damages absent serious injury.
In the 12-page opinion authored by Madame Justice Newman, the Supreme Court concluded that “neither the plain language of the statute nor the express legislative intent support a statutory interpretation that restricts the right of recovery of a pedestrian based on his or her limited tort election.” The Court reversed that portion of the Superior Court’s decision that deemed Section 1705 applicable to pedestrians and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

Young girl injured by motorist is not restricted to ‘limited tort’.

An 11-year-old girl who was struck by a motorist after coming off a school bus may seek recovery for noneconomic damages she sustained, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court today ruled in L.S. v. Eschbach.

In an important case of first impression involving the rights of pedestrians under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, the Supreme Court reversed a Superior Court majority decision precluding the victim, whose family is insured by a limited tort automobile policy, from recovering noneconomic damages absent serious injury.

In the 12-page opinion authored by Madame Justice Newman, the Supreme Court concluded that “neither the plain language of the statute nor the express legislative intent support a statutory interpretation that restricts the right of recovery of a pedestrian based on his or her limited tort election.” The Court reversed that portion of the Superior Court’s decision that deemed Section 1705 applicable to pedestrians and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

UIM news: Court issues sign down form requirement decision

On November 20, in Blood v. Old Guard Insurance Co., the Supreme Court reversed a Superior Court decision and found that Section 1734 of the MVFRL does not contain a requirement for the insurance company to obtain a new sign down form when the insured changes his/her liability limits.
The Court does still note that there are requirements at the issuance of the policy.  Also, even if the statute was read to require a new sign down, the court indicates that the statute does not have a remedy for failing to obtain one like it does when the policy is issued.

On November 20, in Blood v. Old Guard Insurance Co., the Supreme Court reversed a Superior Court decision and found that Section 1734 of the MVFRL does not contain a requirement for the insurance company to obtain a new sign down form when the insured changes his/her liability limits.

The Court does still note that there are requirements at the issuance of the policy.  Also, even if the statute was read to require a new sign down, the court indicates that the statute does not have a remedy for failing to obtain one like it does when the policy is issued.