By Robert I. Feinberg | Published January 13, 2017 | Posted in Personal Injury | Comments Off on Insurance Coverage and the Amount of Insurance are not Admissible
In the last three blogs I have been talking about a softball injury that happened at a U.S. Army National Guard outing and it involved a significant injury to a thirteen-year-old boy. The thirteen-year-old had claims for his physical injuries. Because the judge found the government through its supervising officer was 80% negligent, the boy was able to recover 80% of his injuries.
In the last blog I touched on loss of consortium damages. As you would know from reading the last several blogs, I have been focusing on a case that was tried in the federal court before a judge. It was tried under what is called the Federal Tort Claims Act. The judge in this jury-waived case issued a detailed opinion, something we don’t see in a jury trial.
In the last three blogs I have been talking about a softball injury that happened at a U.S. Army National Guard outing and it involved a significant injury to a thirteen-year-old boy. The thirteen-year-old had claims for his physical injuries. Because the judge found the government through its supervising officer was 80% negligent, the boy was able to recover 80% of his injuries.
In recent blogs we have seen how the U.S. government can be liable in a U.S. Army National Guard family outing. A thirteen-year-old boy was hit while walking along the third base line at a softball game involving older people. As the boy was walking towards home plate, along the foul line, the catcher hit him on a throw to third to nail a runner.
This is the second blog in a series about a federal case under what is called the Federal Tort Claims Act. As you may recall from the last blog, a youngster, a thirteen-year-old boy, suffered a very significant injury while walking close to the field of play during a softball game. The game was a “pick up” game at a U.S. Army National Guard outing.
A case was recently decided in the federal court as a result of an injury occurring to a thirteen-year-old boy during a softball game at a National Guard outing. It was a “bench trial” meaning that it was decided by a judge and not a jury. The judge issued a detailed written opinion in this case of negligence, Woolf v. United States.
Telling the truth in litigation is very, very important. Examples which I have in mind are telling your lawyer about any prior medical condition as well as giving a full and complete description of how an accident occurred.
Who could resist reading an opponent’s emails and files? I certainly can’t. And it’s all legal. This is the third in an installment of blogs about a treasure trove of information from the files of insurance companies.
This is the second in a series of blogs regarding a federal case going on now between an excess insurer and a primary insurer. I have had a very close vantage point in this trial. The reason is because I was successful in trying the underlying case and now the excess insurer is saying to the primary insurer, ” Why didn’t you settle within the policy limits when you could have?”
This will be the first in a 3 part series on how insurance companies evaluate cases. What goes on inside the mind of the company? What gets recorded in their files? The reason that I am able to speak with some degree of confidence on this topic is not simply because I’ve been a personal injury lawyer for 35 years.