Articles Posted in Motor Vehicle Accidents

We trust school buses and other transportation systems to get our children safely from one place to another. When school administrators and drivers fail to use due care, a serious accident can result. There are special rules that apply to when a public entity can be sued in a tort action, making it critical to seek guidance from a seasoned Raleigh bus accident lawyer. In a recent appellate opinion, the court considered whether the plaintiff could bring a lawsuit for the alleged negligence of a school board employee in operating an activity bus that was transporting students to an extracurricular event. The accident happened in 2011 when the plaintiff was hit by the bus while it was on its way to a football game. The plaintiff contended that the driver of the bus was negligent at the time of the accident and that she was entitled to compensation as a result.

The plaintiff filed a claim with the North Carolina Industrial Commission pursuant to the Tort Claims Act. This statute provides a limited waiver for local government immunity by allowing lawsuits against boards of education for the negligent operation of school buses and school transportation service vehicles if the plaintiff is able to show that certain criteria are met. The Commission is the body vested with jurisdiction to hear these claims.

The Commission initially granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff did not show that his claim fell within the bounds of the limited waiver statutory provision. The plaintiff appealed, and the reviewing court reversed. The defendant filed a petition for discretionary review, which the responding court granted. The defendant asserted that the statutory provision did not allow the plaintiff to bring a claim based on the limited waiver provision because the statute does not cover accidents involving school activity buses. The plaintiff argued that a school activity bus falls within the ambit of the types of buses listed in the statute.

One of the most complicated aspects of any personal injury accident is dealing with insurance companies and determining the scope of any coverage involved. At Maurer Law, we have substantial experience as North Carolina car accident lawyers, ensuring that insurance companies treat our clients fairly and provide them with the benefits promised in the policy.

In a recent North Carolina appellate opinion, the court considered the application of an insurance policy in a car accident. The parties were two women injured in a car accident who required medical treatment for their injuries. The first woman was a passenger in the vehicle owned by the other woman. At the time of the accident, the at-fault motorist crossed the center line and collided with the driver’s vehicle. Immediately after the crash, a third vehicle struck the injured parties’ vehicle.

The injured driver asserted that she incurred $58,000 in medical expenses, while the passenger stated that she incurred $104,000. The first defendant had an insurance policy through GMAC with limits of $30,000 per person and $60,000 per accident. The second defendant who was the driver of the third car to strike the injured women’s vehicle had a policy through All state that provided limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. He also had a policy through Mercury with a limit of $250,000 per person. The first defendant’s insurer, GMAC, tendered the policy limits, which were split up among other parties involved in the accident, including the injured women.

When a government entity is involved in an accident, special considerations must be made. There are different rules and procedures that apply to public entities in litigation. As dedicated North Carolina motor vehicle accident lawyers, we are ready to assist you in evaluating your claim and ensuring that you follow the appropriate procedures.

A recent appellate decision highlights the unique aspects of a government entity being involved in the litigation. The appellate court was asked to consider the liability of a local school board employee in a negligence action involving a school bus accident.  The plaintiff’s car was hit by a school bus transporting student-athletes to a football game. The driver of the bus was an employee of the county Board of Education.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury action against the defendant with the North Carolina Industrial Commission, seeking compensation for her injuries and damages. The plaintiff initiated the action in accordance with the Tort Claims Act, which includes a provision that provides a limited waiver of local governmental immunity from lawsuits in situations involving the negligent operation of school buses and school transportation vehicles in situations in which certain criteria are met. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the Commission did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim because the claim did not fall within this waiver of immunity. The Commission granted the summary judgment motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

When an accident involves a public agency or government body, there can be complicated procedural rules regarding how the claim must be filed and which court or agency has authority to hear the dispute. As seasoned North Carolina car accident lawyers, the legal professionals at Maurer Law are prepared to help you ensure that you assert your legal rights through the appropriate channels.

In a recent decision from the North Carolina Industrial Commission, the court considered whether the Commission has jurisdiction over negligence claims that involve allegations about the operation of school buses. The defendant, an educational board for a city, appealed an order that the Commission entered denying their motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging many different claims stemming from the death of a 14-year-old child who was hit by an oncoming vehicle when she was crossing the street to board a school bus.

Originally, the Commission concluded that it had jurisdiction over the matter, pursuant to the North Carolina Tort Claims Act, to oversee the plaintiffs’ negligence action against the driver of the school bus as well as their claims against certain identified members of the school administration board that alleged negligent design for the school bus pick-up system. These claims also included allegations stating that the school board was negligent in making routes for the school buses as well as in certain training, hiring, and staffing actions.

One of the most challenging aspects of a car accident is dealing with insurance companies. Whether you are having trouble getting your own insurance company to provide you with coverage, or you are having issues working with the at-fault party’s insurance company, a seasoned North Carolina car accident lawyer can make all of the difference when it comes to asserting your rights. In a recent appellate decision, the court considered the suitability of an arbitration award entered in a car accident victim’s favor against an insurance company. The plaintiff and the defendant were involved in an accident in 2013. At the time, the plaintiff had underinsured motorist coverage through Farm Bureau. The policy obligated the insurer to pay compensation to the plaintiff if the plaintiff was involved in a crash with a driver whose coverage limits were too low to cover the amount of damages that the plaintiff suffered.

After the accident, the plaintiff entered into a settlement with the defendant’s insurance company. Farm Bureau provided a check to the plaintiff totaling $35,000, which included coverage for different items. The plaintiff rejected this offer, however, since the parties had a dispute regarding the amount that the plaintiff was entitled to recover under the policy. The plaintiff demanded an arbitration before a three-member panel. It unanimously concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to $110,000. The award stated that the arbitrators did not consider costs or interest in reaching this amount. The plaintiff then filed a motion with the court, seeking confirmation of the arbitration award and requesting interest and costs, which the court awarded.

Farm Bureau appealed, stating that the court committed an error when it awarded costs to the plaintiff, including pre-award interest and post-award interest when it confirmed the arbitration award. The insurer did not dispute the $110,000 determination. Ultimately, the court affirmed the lower court’s award of post-award and pre-judgment interest, but it reversed the award of pre-award interest and costs. According to the appellate court, pre-award interest is categorized as included in a compensatory damages item for which the underinsured motorist may be liable unless the policy provides for an exclusion on this topic. As a result, the arbitrators have the authority to decide whether pre-award interest should be included as part of the compensatory damages. It is not appropriate for the trial court to make this decision. If the arbitrators do not include pre-award interest, the trial court must affirm the arbitration award as written unless the arbitrators expressly defer the determination to the trial court.

In a recent North Carolina car accident decision, the plaintiff appealed from an order granting a defendant insurer’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff sued a man and woman in 2009. Summons were issued against them, and service was made soon afterward. Summons was then issued to the insurer through the Commissioner of Insurance. The insurer moved to dismiss years later, and an order of voluntary dismissal without prejudice was entered.

Shortly after the dismissal, the plaintiff refiled the lawsuit, and service was made against the defendants and insurer. Towards the end of the year, notices of voluntary dismissal without prejudice were filed. In 2016, the complaint was refiled.

In the 2016 complaint, the plaintiff claimed he owned a Chevy truck, and the defendant owned a Chevy Silverado truck. The other defendant owned a Ford truck. The defendant who owned a Chevy truck was in default on repaying an auto loan that secured his truck. The plaintiff’s employer had contracted with the bank that had given the defendant the loan to buy the Chevy truck. The plaintiff was told the defendant’s truck was on the other defendant’s property. He went with his wife to repossess the Chevy Silverado. After he took it, his truck was blocked by another car and a cable so that he couldn’t go back to the road.

Continue reading