Maryland Injury and Disability Law : Washington DC Metro Injury & Disability Lawyer & Attorney : Greenberg & Bederman : Accidents, Falls, Medical Malpractice : Maryland, DC, Virginia

We’re pretty sure that the ATRA and the Chamber of Commerce have plenty of lawyers themselves, and we are willing to bet that they understand the definitions of “plaintiff” and “defendant.” The reassignment of the word “victim” is a clever juxtaposition of roles in a legal case, and if it gets hammered into the heads of the general public long enough, they will probably start to believe it.

We also have a problem with the idea that lawsuits are epidemic. They simply do not occur very often.  According to the Center for Justice and Democracy, only about ten percent of injury victims file a compensation claim, and only two percent of those that file a compensation claim go on to file a lawsuit. The National Center for State Courts states that tort lawsuits have declined 21 percent over a ten year period in 30 states, and they further mention that contract lawsuits (corporations suing corporations) have increased 25 percent in 13 states over that same period of time. Oddly enough, you never hear from tort reformers and the Chamber of Commerce complaining about the explosion in contract lawsuits. It appears those sorts of lawsuits are just fine and dandy.

What about the contention that lawsuits are the bane of the small businessman’s existence? The Chamber of Commerce claims to be the official spokesmen for businesses everywhere, both small and not so small. As far as the Chamber is concerned, every small business out there is terrified of lawsuits. But a recent poll suggests that they maybe they should ask the small businessmen themselves; mainly because it seems that fear of lawsuits is pretty far down on the list.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses surveyed a large group of small business owners in order to get an overall sense of their worries and concerns. The various problems faced by small businesses were ranked in order of concern, and to be sure, fear of lawsuits was on the list. However, it was listed at number 65 out of 75, with 36.7 percent of respondents claiming that it “was not a problem.” Above the “fear of lawsuits” was listed such concerns as “traffic,” “delinquent accounts,” “getting information on government assistance programs” and, “cost of health insurance,” which was solidly in first place.

Small businesses seem to be the watchword of the day over at the Chamber, along with “job-killing,” which is the term they hang in front of anything that they don’t like. As they push forward with more and more legislation on state and national levels, the rationale is that “caps” on damages and restrictions on who can go to court will “help small businesses”, but if the small businesses aren’t particularly worried about lawsuits, who benefits the most from these caps?

We suspect it would be the “non-small businesses.” Large corporations, chemical manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies, who interact with a much wider percentage of the populace, and therefore have more of a tendency to do more damage if they are negligent. If anything, these caps and restrictions could actually help prevent small businesses from receiving fair compensation if they are forced to go to court against a large corporation, to say nothing of the restrictions they already place on individual citizens.

Greenberg and Bederman is a personal injury law firm located in the Washington, D.C. area. We offer experienced and dedicated legal counsel to those who have been hurt due to no fault of their own. If you have suffered from a medical malpractice, been injured in a car accident, suffered an adverse effect from a pharmaceutical drug or medical device, or been hurt due to the negligence of someone else, contact Greenberg & Bederman for a free consultation.

For instance, let’s say you are a public school teacher and get severely injured due to the actions of an enormous corporation. Would you like to run the risk of paying the law firm that this corporation hires to defend itself in the event that you end up losing your case? Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as a “slam dunk” lawsuit, corporations often drag cases out in order to make lowball settlement offers more appealing. Do you have any idea how much that would cost? Probably a lot more than it would cost to make you whole after your injury.

It is already difficult enough for people in Texas to access the courts in the first place. Tort reform laws for medical malpractice have essentially made it impossible for low income individuals to enter the courtroom. With strict damage limits on non-economic damages, malpractice lawyers (most of whom operate on a contingency fee basis) can’t afford to bring these cases to court. After court costs, hiring expert witnesses, and the general labor of bringing a case to trial, most attorneys would end up losing money on the case. And a cap on non-economic damages might not bother you if you happen to play first base for the Washington Nationals, but if you are like the vast majority of the rest of us, non-economic damages are a crucial part of an injury case. Plus, if you happen to get injured due to the actions of emergency room personnel, the only way they can be found guilty in Texas is if they admit that they meant to hurt you. And who in their right minds would do that?

So now that doctors (and their insurance companies) are squared away and protected in ways that don’t extend to their patients, Governor Perry has decided to make sure that the rest of the folks who need the least protection get the most of it. The code word is “small businesses,” which is actually just short hand for “large businesses.” Basically, it doesn’t matter how much damage they do. There are now a series of safety nets in Texas that allows businesses to do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences. I mean, what are you going to do if you get hurt? Sue them? Are you sure you want to do that? What if you lose? And if you win? You might be able to maybe keep your house with the winnings. But it will be back to business as usual for them.

It’s worth mentioning that in the press release, there is plenty of talk of judges and defendants, and how this new legislation will make everything easier for them. But there is not one mention of the rights of plaintiffs, injury victims or victims of medical malpractice. Mentioning injury victims wouldn’t be very popular with this bill.

Greenberg and Bederman is a personal injury law firm located in Silver Spring, Maryland. We are currently offering legal assistance to victims of medical malpractice in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C. If you or a loved one has been a victim of a surgical error, wrong diagnosis, prescription error or any other form of medical malpractice, contact Greenberg & Bederman for a free consultation. 

The report also claims that of the 1600 cases of acute liver failure each year, and acetaminophen is the leading reason. Also mentioned in the report are 56,000 emergency room visits, 26,000 hospitalizations, and 458 deaths over a ten year period. This is quite a number for something that costs about 10 cents a pill.

There are two elements of this problem, one of which is based on the ingredients. When it is taken, a small percentage of acetaminophen is converted into a metabolite, which in this case is toxic. In small doses, this is something the liver can manage. This is actually what the liver is for. Alcohol is a metabolite as well.

The problems start to happen when the metabolites build up faster than the liver can handle them. This is similar to the problems that occur with chronic drinkers. If a person has the occasional beer, it’s not a problem, but if he drinks a significant amount over the years, one of the more common medical ailments is liver failure. Likewise, if a person habitually takes more than the recommended dose of Tylenol or any other acetaminophen based pill, liver failure could easily be the result.

This brings us to the second element of the problem, which has been a lack of information on the part of Johnson and Johnson, which is the company that makes Tylenol. Most of us have a bottle of Tylenol in our medicine cabinets. If you take a look at it, you will most certainly see a warning label. But you have to look hard to find it. The website has more information, which reads as follows:

“Overdose warning: Taking more than the recommended dose (overdose) may cause liver damage. In case of overdose, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away. (1-800-222-1222). Quick medical attention is critical for adults as well as for children even if you do not notice any signs or symptoms.”

This is sound advice, but it seems a bit misleading. When most of us think of the word “overdose,” particularly when it comes to pills, we think of someone taking about twenty or thirty of them on purpose. You don’t necessarily have to have that printed on the warning label. We think what needs to be on there is a warning about chronic overuse.

Everybody knows somebody who always seems to have a headache, or knows someone who has a bad back, or a mild case of arthritis. They always have a jumbo size bottle of Tylenol in their desks, purses or glove compartments. These are the folks who take three or four Tylenols every four hours or so, and we believe they could use some straight shooting from Johnson and Johnson or any other company that makes acetaminophen based pain relievers. We hope to provide it to them now, because we seriously doubt Johnson and Johnson will.

If you are a person who suffers from chronic mild pain, please stick to recommended dosages when you take Tylenol. Don’t take more than what is printed on the label. While there is a definite risk to overdosing, there is also serious danger in taking even a little bit more than you are supposed to over a long period of time. There has been enough evidence over the years that taking acetaminophen in this manner is dangerous. All the FDA did was mention what Johnson and Johnson should have been warning people about all along.

Greenberg and Bederman is a personal injury law firm located in Silver Spring, Maryland. We are currently offering legal assistance to those who have suffered from liver damage due to the use of Tylenol or other acetaminophen-based medications. We believe that Johnson and Johnson deliberately understated the danger that their product can cause, and we believe that they also failed to adequately warn the public about the consequences of taking this medication in the wrong way. If you or a loved one has been injured or hospitalized due to the use of Tylenol or any other medicine based on acetaminophen, contact Greenberg & Bederman today for a free legal consultation. 

But it absolutely is in Texas. If you get treated by an emergency room doctor down there, and he makes a critical mistake, essentially all he has to do is say “I didn’t mean to,” and that keeps the victim of that mistake from collecting any damages, regardless of how bad the damage is.

The fine print in the law that capped non-economic damages at $250,000 had special protections for emergency room doctors, each of whom are now protected from penalties in court unless it can be proven that their negligence was “willful and wanton.” That phrase essentially means that whatever you did, you did so knowing that it would harm other people. And you are more likely to find Bigfoot riding a unicorn than any doctor anywhere who will admit to that.

Here is a real life example as to how this protection has further victimized people who have been injured by doctor’s mistakes. A woman with a history of blood clotting went to the emergency room of a San Antonio hospital because of leg pain. The ER doctor there sent her home with a diagnosis of “bilateral leg pain,” and advised her to follow up with her primary care physician. Three days later, she was in a different hospital, this time with tissue death in her legs and kidney failure. A filter that she had had placed in one of the veins in her heart was clogged up, which led to incredibly bad clotting.  Doctors had to amputate both of her legs.

Ultimately, the doctor who initially saw her and told her to follow up with her primary care physician must bear some responsibility. He didn’t ask the right questions, or he didn’t take the time to look into her case as thoroughly as he should have, and as a result this woman is a double amputee. But since he didn’t do any of these things on purpose, he gets a pass.

When you read about this case and others like it in Texas, you almost want to scream to the heavens. “Of COURSE he didn’t do it on purpose! He’s not a monster! He’s simplynegligent!” Medical malpractice suits aren’t filed because lawyers hate doctors. Medical malpractice suits are filed because sometimes doctors make easily preventable mistakes, and these mistakes have serious consequences. No lawyer would make the argument that a doctor gave the wrong diagnosis just to be mean. The argument is not “Did he mean to do it?” The argument is “Could have this been prevented if reasonable standards and practices had been used?” But the fine print in the laws of Texas essentially shifts all of the arguments into unwinnable territory for anyone who walks into an emergency room and is the victim of a doctor’s mistake.

These laws were not put into place to make things better for doctors or patients. They were put into place so malpractice insurance companies could continue to have profitable years. Call us crazy, but we think the financial health of an insurer should be the last thing on the list of priorities when you walk into a hospital.

Greenberg and Bederman is a medical malpractice law firm located in Silver Spring, Maryland. We are currently offering legal assistance to people in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C. who have been injured due to the negligence or incompetence of doctors or surgeons. If you have been injured due to the actions of a doctor, contact a medical malpractice attorney for a free malpractice legal consultation today.

The way that these corporations are going about it is essentially the same way that malpractice insurance companies went about getting their protections. In 8 easy steps, here is the process:

1.       Drastically raise rates or prices on your products or services with the cooperation of your direct competitiors. “We’re sorry, but we have to charge you twice as much this month.”

2.       Blame the price hike on lawyers. “We get sued so much that the only way we can stay solvent as a business is to increase our rates!”

3.       Find overblown examples of lawsuits and present them as an everyday occurrence. “Remember that Judge who sued the dry cleaner for $50 million? That happens every single day.”

4.       Focus on an aspect of the judicial system that is not advantageous to you and pretend that this aspect affects everyone much more than it actually does. “Innocent, hardworking Americans all live under the threat of runaway, out of control punitive damages.”

5.        Claim that our judicial system is “in crisis,” utilize public relations, media outlets and lobbyists to hammer home the idea that something has to be done. “The National Lawsuit Crisis is making it impossible for hard working Americans to do anything. You can’t go get the newspaper without somebody suing you for punitive damages these days.”

6.       Lobby pro-business politicians for a legislative fix: “America cannot survive unless we enact strict limits on punitive damages.”

7.       Get caps on damages legislation pushed through sympathetic state assemblies. “The Americans for Liberty, Justice and Freedom Act has saved the country from utter ruin.”

8.        Celebrate the protections this legislation has provided your business by reducing your rates by about half of the amount you increased them initially. “See? Our rates have dropped! The system works!”

This is not an exaggeration. Medical malpractice companies pulled this stunt in the early 2000’s almost to perfection, and to this day there are still non-economic damage caps in multiple states. And while the rates have gone down, in many cases they haven’t dropped down to pre-“crisis” levels.

Before you start believing the tales of woe and horror of innocent, hard working businessmen driven to ruin due to punitive damages, here are a few things you should know.

In the first place, punitive damages are a fairly rare occurrence. It is very difficult to prove that a corporation (or even a person) did something grossly negligent on purpose. For instance, in the current Toyota recall cases, Toyota’s defense will be that they had absolutely no idea that so many of their cars were defective, and the burden of proving that will be on the prosecution. Secondly, in tort cases (injury cases,) only 3% of the tens of thousands of cases that happen every year involve punitive damages.

Nor is every punitive damage verdict an automatic seven figures in the bank account of the plaintiff. Most punitive damages are significantly less. In fact, the median punitive damage award is around $55,000. To be sure, that is a great deal of money if the defendant is a small business owner or private citizen, but when the plaintiff is a multi-billion dollar corporation, it is difficult to muster the sort of sympathy that the tort reform organizations seem to require of you.

So if the average monetary amount of punitive damages is so low, and punitive damages happen so rarely, why is it that corporations and insurers and tort reform organizations are trying to put lids on them? Probably because they know all too well that occasionally, there will be an Exxon Valdez. There will be a BP oil well leak. There will be a Dalkon Shield, or a Vioxx, or a Phen Fen. All of these corporations know that there will inevitably be a faulty product or an easily preventable disaster, but they don’t know when it will happen. So rather than face the music eventually, it’s better to fix the system now.

To understand the nature of punitive damages, you simply have to look at the word. “Punitive” means “to punish.” The most effective way to hurt a corporation is by attacking its wallets. A massive chemical conglomerate may come to the realization that there is a right way and a wrong way to do business if their actions cost them millions of dollars. If there is a “cap” on punitive damages, that cap can simply be factored in to whatever they choose to do. Punitive damages should not be written off as simply a cost of doing business. The amount should not be capped, nor should it be predictable. They exist to remind companies and corporations that their actions have consequences.

Greenberg and Bederman is a Maryland injury law firm. We are currently offering legal help to people who have been injured due to no fault of their own. That includes people in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C. who have been injured in car accidents, injured due to medical malpractice, injured due to environmental or groundwater pollution, or injured due to dangerous and defective pharmaceutical drugs. If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident, contact Greenberg & Bederman for a free legal consultation today.

The reasons that were given for the so-called “medical malpractice crisis” were (and still are) completely debatable. For instance, there was never any sudden onslaught of medical malpractice cases. The level of malpractice cases between 1991 and 2005 either dropped or remained relatively constant, while the amount of money paid out to medical malpractice claimants dropped significantly.

If that was the case, then why were so many medical malpractice insurance companies crying poverty and raising their rates? One study claims that it wasn’t a sudden avalanche of medical malpractice lawsuits or enormous verdicts that caused the rates as much as it was the fact that the medical malpractice insurers’ investments took a beating shortly before the medical malpractice “crisis” began. A poorly performing bond market does not make a very good villain from a PR standpoint, but the idea of “greedy trial lawyers” or the fiction of people winning millions of dollars over a stubbed toe works perfectly. And it worked quite well. There is now a limit on the amount of compensation that a medical malpractice victim can receive in many states, even though there is no such limitations on the amount of damage that a careless or incompetent doctor or surgeon can do. So in some states, it truly does not matter how badly a doctor messes up, or how much that mistake alters or even ends the victims’ life. Medical malpractice insurers have had their interests and profits protected.

The market reflects that change in the fortunes of insurance companies. Most medical malpractice insurance companies are seen as a smart investment, particularly if they only do business in states where there are legal limits to the amount of money that they are responsible for paying out. For instance, Warren Buffett’s investment group Berkshire Hathaway purchased malpractice insurer Medical Protective for $825 million. Mr. Buffett has a long history of making smart investments, and it appears that this purchase was a continuation of that trend. And FPIC purchased Advocate MD for $33 million, despite the fact that Advocate MD was only the fourth largest malpractice insurer in Texas. Since the purchase, FPIC’s shares have done nothing but increase in value. Exactly one year ago, FPIC was trading at $22 a share. Today it’s valued at $36.

The bottom line is that malpractice insurance remains extremely profitable, so much so to the point that the average profit for medical malpractice insurance companies is 31.2%, which is a ridiculously high margin for any business.

Despite these consistent profits and despite the legal system being essentially rigged to ensure that they remain vibrant, you would think that from public statements and lobbying efforts, those medical malpractice insurance companies are a beleaguered minority with wolves at the door. In practically every state legislature and in every session of Congress there are several bills where representatives are demanding more and more restrictions on the liability of medical malpractice companies. In every press release malpractice insurers make it seem like they are just barely hanging on as a business, even as their quarterly reports prove otherwise.

Greenberg and Bederman is a personal injury law firm located in Silver Spring, Maryland. We are currently offering legal assistance to people in the Washington, D.C. area who have been injured due to no fault of their own. That includes injury victims in Maryland and Virginia. Our practice areas include car accidents, motorcycle accidents, pedestrian and bicycle accidents, premises liability, defective product injuries, injuries due to pollution and groundwater contamination, and injuries due to surgical errors and other medical malpractice errors, bad diagnoses, delay of treatment and other forms of medical malpractice. If you or a loved one has been injured due to no fault of your own, contact Greenberg and Bederman for a free legal consultation today.

These caps also tie the hands of judges, who might otherwise decide that a victim of medical malpractice has suffered so much that he or she certainly deserves more than the $200,000 or $300,000 that is the limit in states that have these caps.

There are similar policies in place that have also negated the opinions of judges and juries. Many drug cases in this country are decided based on what are called mandatory minimum sentences, which means a uniform standard of punishment for drug related offences. What this means is that a person who is caught with a certain amount of drugs gets a standard prison sentence, regardless of what the circumstances are. If a person who has no criminal record is caught with three ounces of cocaine, he or she would get the exact same prison sentence as a person with multiple prior convictions. Even if the judge or jury thinks that the person convicted deserves a much lighter sentence, the juries’ opinion is meaningless and the judge’s hands are tied. Even if the defendant pleads guilty and co-operates with the police, the sentence would be the same if the defendant clammed up and forced the state to go through a trial that lasted months.  It is justice by rubber stamp, or justice by conversion chart.

These sentencing guidelines and damage caps essentially work under the idea that all of the cases are exactly alike, and therefore any sentences or judgments should be exactly alike. But we can tell you from  experience that no medical malpractice case is identical. There is no set limit of ways for doctors to make mistakes, and there is no set limit of the amount of suffering that a victim of medical malpractice has to go through. It only makes sense that there should be no set amount of compensation for which a medical malpractice victim is eligible.

It is also important to realize that these caps don’t change anything about the practices of doctors. A good and conscientious doctor who  makes an effort not to deviate from the standard of care, or immediately fixes the mistakes that he makes will not alter his habits because his insurance company has less of a financial liability. Doctors do not benefit from damage caps, and patients certainly don’t either. Insurance companies are the only people in this equation with anything to gain here, and why we as a nation have decided to essentially remove the function of juries and judges in order to benefit malpractice insurance companies is beyond us.

Greenberg and Bederman is a medical malpractice injury firm located in Silver Spring, Maryland. We serve the entire Washington, D.C. and Baltimore area, and that includes Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria, Prince William County and all of Northern Virginia. If you or a loved one has been injured due to medical malpractice, contact Greenberg and Bederman for a free legal consultation today.

To learn more about our medical malpractice attorney, John Sellinger, please read hisbio, or watch his Youtube video.

These caps also tie the hands of judges, who might otherwise decide that a victim of medical malpractice has suffered so much that he or she certainly deserves more than the $200,000 or $300,000 that is the limit in states that have these caps.

There are similar policies in place that have also negated the opinions of judges and juries. Many drug cases in this country are decided based on what are called mandatory minimum sentences, which means a uniform standard of punishment for drug related offences. What this means is that a person who is caught with a certain amount of drugs gets a standard prison sentence, regardless of what the circumstances are. If a person who has no criminal record is caught with three ounces of cocaine, he or she would get the exact same prison sentence as a person with multiple prior convictions. Even if the judge or jury thinks that the person convicted deserves a much lighter sentence, the juries’ opinion is meaningless and the judge’s hands are tied. Even if the defendant pleads guilty and co-operates with the police, the sentence would be the same if the defendant clammed up and forced the state to go through a trial that lasted months.  It is justice by rubber stamp, or justice by conversion chart.

These sentencing guidelines and damage caps essentially work under the idea that all of the cases are exactly alike, and therefore any sentences or judgments should be exactly alike. But we can tell you from  experience that no medical malpractice case is identical. There is no set limit of ways for doctors to make mistakes, and there is no set limit of the amount of suffering that a victim of medical malpractice has to go through. It only makes sense that there should be no set amount of compensation for which a medical malpractice victim is eligible.

It is also important to realize that these caps don’t change anything about the practices of doctors. A good and conscientious doctor who  makes an effort not to deviate from the standard of care, or immediately fixes the mistakes that he makes will not alter his habits because his insurance company has less of a financial liability. Doctors do not benefit from damage caps, and patients certainly don’t either. Insurance companies are the only people in this equation with anything to gain here, and why we as a nation have decided to essentially remove the function of juries and judges in order to benefit malpractice insurance companies is beyond us.

Greenberg and Bederman is a medical malpractice injury firm located in Silver Spring, Maryland. We serve the entire Washington, D.C. and Baltimore area, and that includes Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria, Prince William County and all of Northern Virginia. If you or a loved one has been injured due to medical malpractice, contact Greenberg and Bederman for a free legal consultation today.

To learn more about our medical malpractice attorney, John Sellinger, please read hisbio, or watch his Youtube video.

Morally speaking, there are many things wrong with this concept. And there are more than a few examples as to how these caps exist for no other reason than the financial convenience of the insurance companies.

One example in particular is happening in Nevada right now. A doctor named Depak Disal runs an endoscopy clinic there, and it is alleged that his clinic caused a hepatitis outbreak which affected thousands of people all over Nevada. At issue is this question: Does the damage cap cover “people,” or “incidents?”

In other words, if it can be proven that Dr. Disal was responsible for “one” hepatitis outbreak, would this mean that his insurance company would be obliged to pay out the limit of the $350,000 damage cap only once? Would everyone who allegedly got hepatitis from Dr. Disal’s clinic be forced to share one capped judgment? Or would the cap apply to each individual person who contracted hepatitis? Would any of you like to take a guess as to which side of the argument Dr. Disal’s insurance company is on?

As strange as this argument seems, one court in Nevada actually agreed with the premise, but another judge ruled the exact opposite. So we expect the case to be ruled upon by the Nevada Supreme Court fairly soon. And if rulings in other states are any indication, it could be that damage caps in Nevada might be a thing of the past altogether.

Illinois and Georgia are two states where their respective Supreme Courts have ruled that caps on damages are unconstitutional, based on the grounds that they ignore the separation of powers that was written into the Constitution. In other words, damage caps lessen the ability of a judge or jury to rule effectively on a case. With damage caps, a judgment on a supposedly independent court case is essentially pre-determined by members of another branch, and that is absolutely against the premises laid out in Articles I, II and III.

While we most certainly agree with that on legal grounds, we also find it outrageous that state or federal legislators are allowed to assign market value to pain, suffering and emotional loss. We also can’t imagine that a hepatitis victim being eligible only for a “share” of a judgment rather than a separate judgment is in any way fair. Hopefully, the Nevada Supreme Court will do away with damage caps entirely, and the question of whether it was “one” incident or a few thousands separate incidents will be rendered moot.

Greenberg and Bederman is a medical malpractice injury law firm located in Silver Spring, Maryland. We are currently offering legal assistance to people in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C. who have been injured due to medical negligence, misdiagnosis, violation of standard of care, or surgical errors. If you or a loved one has been hurt due to a doctor’s mistake, contact Greenberg and Bederman for a free medical malpractice legal consultation today.

“First, the company evaluates claims with a computer program designed to reduce payouts by as much as 20 percent of what the company once paid for the same injuries.

Second, Allstate pushes policyholders to accept quick settlements without the help of lawyers. Policyholders who try to fight for more money face Allstate attorneys coached to refuse to negotiate and to drag out litigation.

The approach often forces car accident victims to take what Allstate offers right away or spend years in court while their bills go unpaid -- a strategy Allstate spelled out in guidelines for claims adjusters that ‘forces the claimant and attorney to think about the obstacles they must overcome’ ..."

Some insurers aren’t even that clever. In some cases they will simply deny the claim, often referring to fine print in the contract, and sometimes not even offering an explanation at all.

A perfect example of a high profile claim denial would be State Farm’s blanket refusal to help any of their policyholders in the wake of Hurricane Katrina:

“Thousands of families who lost everything to Katrina's fury last August are now facing a second disaster: their insurers won't pay them a dime. The homeowners say they were led to believe they'd be covered when they signed up for their policies. The companies insist they're off the hook because of exclusionary clauses that distinguish between damage caused by wind (covered) and water (not covered). The courts will decide who's right: hundreds of homeowners have sued their insurers, among them U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, who lost a house in Pascagoula, Miss., and Congressman Gene Taylor, whose home in Bay St. Louis was destroyed.

While it's hardly unusual for homeowners and insurers to find themselves at loggerheads after a disaster, the wind vs. water debate has been especially rancorous. Earlier this month, 669 plaintiffs sued State Farm for allegedly denying their claims without properly investigating the cause of the damage to their homes. And last year, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood launched a suit against five big insurers--State Farm, Allstate, Nationwide, United Services Automobile Association and Mississippi Farm Bureau Insurance--for allegedly tricking Katrina victims into signing forms stating that their homes sustained flood damage, which isn't covered. ‘The robber barons of our time,’ Hood calls the insurers.”

These abhorrent and unfair practices fall quite neatly under the heading of what is called “bad faith insurance,” and quite often the best way past them is to acquire the services of an attorney. These insurers are banking on what you do not know about the law, and having a lawyer who knows how insurance companies work as well as what your rights are as an injury victim can put you back on equal ground.

By contacting Greenberg and Bederman, thousands of residents of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area were able to get past these abhorrent insurance company practices, and were also able to receive the compensation that they needed to get their lives back on track.

We have law offices in Silver Spring, Baltimore, Washington, D.C. and Northern Virginia, and as long as insurance companies believe more in their profit margins than their obligations to policy holders, we’ll be here to help.

Contact Greenberg and Bederman for a free legal consultation today.

 To learn more about personal injury law, please read Greenberg & Bederman's personal injury page..