Underinsured Driver Car Accidents

Posted January 7, 2018


WHAT HAPPENS when the person at fault for a car accident does not have enough insurance to cover the all of the injuries and damage caused by the car accident?  Although California requires drivers to carry a minimum amount of liability insurance coverage so there is some money there to pay damages to the injured victim, the California car liability insurance minimum frequently falls far short of the needs of the car accident victim.

The state of California requires that all cars operating or parked on their roadways carry a certain level of liability insurance.  Evidence of your minimum liability insurance coverage must be on you at all times when you are driving so that you can show law enforcement when asked and share with parties to a car accident.  Here are the minimum liability insurance coverages set forth in California Insurance Code Section 11580.1 (b):

  • $15,000 for injury or death to one person
  • $30,000 for injury or death to more than one person
  • $5,000 for property damage

Often referred to as “15/30/5 coverage”, one can easily see how these coverage limits usually fall well below what is needed to pay for the injuries and damages of the victim(s) of a car accident. For example, the victim of a car accident may have no major physical injuries following an accident, but their car has some major damage. When you are hit by someone with the coverage minimums listed above, the most you can get from their policy is $5,000 for the damage to your car.

Underinsured Car Accident Lawsuits

WHO makes up the difference? Similar to those instances in which you are hit by a driver who illegally has no car insurance at all, when you max out the policy limits for the other driver you can then go after the coverage in your own policy. Many of our clients do not realize that they have coverage for this very scenario, but if you do, we will work with (or in many instances, fight against) your own insurance company to get you the money you deserve following a car accident with an underinsured driver. Unless you declined this specific coverage in writing, you very likely have some level of uninsured and underinsured coverage (listed on your policy as “UIM Coverage”).  So going back to the example above– say the damage to your car was around $20,000. We would first exhaust the $5,000 policy limit of the “at fault” driver and then seek the remaining $15,000 from your own policy, if that amount is available.

YOU can’t control who you get into a car accident with.   For that reason, it is always important to take a look at your own insurance policy and make sure that your comprehensive coverage is high enough. If you are reading this, and have not been in an accident, but want to make sense of your insurance policy, you are welcome to give us a call and we will take a look for you. Underinsured car accidents are complicated.  Insurance companies will almost always try to offer you a lowball amount to save money on their end.  At the law firm of Shenfield & Associates, we have handled hundreds of these types of cases.  We know how to maximize your recovery. If you have recently been injured in a California car accident, please give us a call today at (650) 373-2054 to discuss your case further. We take all our cases on a contingency fee basis, meaning that you don’t pay us anything until you get paid.  We look forward to the opportunity to be of service to you.


Statute of Limitations – California

Posted May 11, 2017

WHAT IS “THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS”?

(P.S. It’s “Statute”, not “Statue”  )

Statute of Limitations - California

Deadline to File Your Lawsuit

Generally speaking, the statute of limitations is a specific law (or “statute”) that states when a lawsuit must be filed. It is a specific measurement of time (i.e., 1 year) that “limits” the length of time one has to file a lawsuit. Lawsuits filed after the passing of this specific amount of time can be challenged and dismissed merely because the time has passed. The amount of time allowed depends on the type of claim. For example, in California, you must file a lawsuit for any losses due to an automobile negligence claim within 2 years of the date you were injured. If you claim someone breached a written contract, you must bring your lawsuit within 4 years. If it was an oral contract, the time is 2 years.  Whatever the type of claim you may have, contact an experienced litigation and trial attorney at once to discuss your claim and the time limits that apply.

Many people are under the mistaken belief that they cannot be sued after the specific time period has expired. This is not entirely correct. You can be sued. And if you do nothing, you will lose and you will also lose the opportunity to assert the defense of an expired statute of limitations. That is, it is an absolute defense- But it Must be Asserted! The obligation to tell the court is your responsibility. The court will assume what is said in the lawsuit is valid if no one shows up to tell them otherwise.

WHEN DOES THE TIME START?

Sometimes this is very easy to spot (such as the date of an accident) and other times it can be difficult to determine exactly. As it pertains to debts, specifically say credit card debt, the creditor has 4 years from the date the written contract was “breached”. Typically the breach occurs when no payment is made. This why it is important to know when you made your last payment. Generally the creditor has a record of your payments, but they are not always reliable. Also remember that the date of your last payment is not your breach date. It is the next date that at payment is due and no payment is made. This is why many advise to not make a payment on an account when the statute of limitations is about to expire, as this may reset the clock and thereby allow the creditor more time to file a lawsuit.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

  • Multiple Defendants: When a plaintiff has cause to sue based on knowledge or suspicion of negligence, the statute starts to run as to all potential defendants, even if unidentified.
  • Government Defendants: Must first submit administrative claim within 6 months (tort claims) or 1 year (real property & contract claims) of “accrual” before filing suit.

PARTIAL CHART OF THE “STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS” IN CALIFORNIA

Description Statute
Contract (in writing), 4 years Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337
Contract (oral), 2 years Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 339
False Imprisonment, 1 year Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340
Fraud, 3 years Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338
Enforcing Court Judgments, 10 years Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337.5
Legal Malpractice, 1 year Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.6
Libel, 1 year Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340
Medical Malpractice, 1 or 3 years (Depending on when the victim “discovers” the injury) Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.5
Personal Injury, 2 years Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1
Product Liability, 2 years Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1
Property Damage, 3 years Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338
Slander, 1 year Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340
Trespass, 3 years Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338
Wrongful Death, 2 years Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1

Partial List of Exceptions to Statute of Limitations

Tolling statutes, e.g. latent construction defects – 10 years

Defendant absent from state (exception does not apply to non-resident motorists, corporations, limited partnerships and certain others)

Minors – Statute does not start until minor turns age 18 or emanicapted (although exception does not apply in uninsured motorist cases, medical malpractice, certain sexual abuse cases, and government claims generally)

Bankruptcy – puts statute of limitations on “hold”

Voluntary Agreement – The statute of limitations may be extended by voluntary agreement of the parties.

Military service – puts statute of limitations on “hold” in certain circumstances

Delayed Discovery Rule – suspends (delays, lengthens) by not starting the time period until plaintiff should reasonably have discovered the harm and wrongdoing

Interference – Defendant’s conduct contributed to plaintiff’s delay in filing suit.

Insurance Company Non-Disclosure – Insurance company fails to notify plaintiff who is not represented by an attorney.

Christopher Shenfield, Attorney at Law, Burlingame, May 11, 2017.  Questions?  Email or call me to discuss your case!!  Email: chris@shenfieldlaw.com  Tel: (650) 373-2054

 


WHO is your favorite movie lawyer?

Posted June 1, 2016
Alejandro "Sandy" Stern (Raul Julia) in "Presumed Innocent" (1990)

“Sandy” Stern (Raul Julia) in “Presumed Innocent” (1990)

ACTORS love playing lawyers.  Movies about the law are as essential to Hollywood history as cowboy westerns, action flicks or romantic comedies. From Sophocles to Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky to Dickens, John Grisham to Scott Turow, novelists and film directors have been enamored of the legal system for its plotlines and morality tales.

Why is the law such an attraction for artists? Most practicing attorneys know that the work itself is often tedious and repetitive—more mechanical than original, more emotionally detached than fully human.  The vast majority of cases never make it to trial. The combative spirit of the profession is often expressed in angry phone calls and sniping letters.  Decorum leaves little chance of addressing grievances that are emotional in nature but get mistranslated into legal complaints. The bloodless captions of plaintiffs v. defendants mask a lot of the hurt that ends up as garbled legalese.

Movies about the law are not tutorials for budding lawyers but cautionary tales for enlightened citizens—an expression of our collective longing for justice and fair treatment. Most people realize that the legal profession looks more exciting, or functions more diabolically, in a movie; but they aren’t looking to pass the bar exam. They just want to be entertained and elevated.

Here is my list of top 10 movie lawyers, in alphabetical order:

Roger Sherman Baldwin (Matthew McConaughey, Amistad, 1997)

Rudy Baylor (Matt Damon, The Rainmaker, 1997)

Atticus Finch (Gregory Peck, To Kill A Mockingbird, 1962)

Frank Galvin (Paul Newman, The Verdict, 1982)

Vincent Gambini (Joe Pesci, My Cousin Vinnie, 1992)

Col. Tad Lawson (Richard Widmark, Judgment at Nuremburg, 1961)

Mitch McDeere (Tom Cruise, The Firm, 1993)

Jan Schlictman (John Travolta, A Civil Action, 1998)

Alejandro “Sandy” Stern (Raul Julia, Presumed Innocent, 1990)

Major J.F. Thomas (Jack Thompson, Breaker Morant, 1980)

Christopher Shenfield, Attorney at Law, Burlingame, California, June 1, 2016

P.S. To watch the cross-examination of Raymond Horgan (Brian Dennehy) by Alejandro “Sandy” Stern (Raul Julia) in Presumed Innocent, click here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rva_JBOkpOs