Tennessee Injury Attorney Blog

Recently we discussed the numbers of uninsured (“UM”) and underinsured (“UIM”) motorists on Tennessee roadways. Because of this, it is important to make sure that your insurance policy covers you in case you suffer injuries caused by uninsured or underinsured motorists.

However, your insurance company may try to avoid paying your UM and UIM coverage. Your policy may have limits on the UM and UIM coverage. In Tennessee, there are two common limits to insurance UM and UIM premiums, offsets and subrogation.

If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident, and the at-fault driver has no insurance or inadequate insurance, you should speak with a local attorney who understands Tennessee policies and knows how to protect your rights. The Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C. takes car accident cases seriously and has successfully represented clients involved in accidents with uninsured and underinsured drivers.

Offsets: Poper ex rel. Poper v. Rollins

Tennessee Code Annotated § 56-7-1201(d) (“§ 1201(d)”) allows insurance companies to offset their UM or UIM payments against other claims that a policy holder may receive. For example, if you are injured in an accident because of the negligent driving of an uninsured motorist, and you sue the uninsured motorist, the insurance company can offset their coverage by the amount you receive from the lawsuit. The purpose of offsets is to prevent unjust enrichment where a policy holder may get paid twice.

Continue reading →

If you or a loved one has been injured by the negligent driving of another, you are encouraged to speak with a Knoxville or Maryville car accident attorney. The Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C. takes car accident cases seriously and is committed to providing compassionate and aggressive representation in order get you the compensation you deserve.

Being in an accident can be financially difficult with the potential lost wages, required medical care, property damage, and other losses. If you are in a vehicle accident in Tennessee, the other driver, even if they are at fault, may lack the insurance to cover your injuries or, even worse, they may not be carrying any insurance.

More than 20% of all Tennessee drivers do not carry automobile insurance. Just recently, two high profile accidents were reported in Knoxville where the alleged at-fault driver was cited for not having proof of insurance. Furthermore, the Tennessee Department of Commerce has recently warned about the lack of coverage of ride-share programs.
Continue reading →

Tennessee’s Knoxville Court of Appeals has refused to set aside an order dismissing a personal injury action for failure to prosecute. In Brown v. Juarez, several plaintiffs sued a number of defendants over injuries the plaintiffs allegedly sustained in a 2007 Tennessee traffic collision. About two years after discovery began, attorneys for the plaintiffs apparently ceased all activity related to the case. Three years later, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the civil action due to the plaintiffs’ purported failure to prosecute the lawsuit. The defendants reportedly supplied a hearing notice regarding their motion to dismiss the case at the bottom of the motion and sent it to only one of the two lawyers who represented the plaintiffs. When no counsel for the plaintiffs attended the dismissal hearing, the Circuit Court for Blount County granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the personal injury lawsuit.

After their case was dismissed, the plaintiffs sought to set aside the court’s dismissal order. The attorney who received a hearing notice on behalf of the plaintiffs admitted that he simply overlooked the relevant information. Still, he claimed the hearing notice was ineffective, the notice should have been sent to both of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, and his clients’ failure to attend the hearing was excusable. After the trial court refused to set aside its order dismissing their personal injury lawsuit, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville.

The appeals court found that the notice provided to the plaintiffs was sufficient because it was provided to them in a timely manner and pursuant to local rules. In addition, the court held the plaintiffs were provided with sufficient hearing notice because the attorney who received the notice was the primary contact for any correspondence regarding the case and the plaintiffs’ other lawyer appeared to be no longer engaged since he failed to sign their motion to set aside the dismissal.
Continue reading →

Every case brought in Tennessee has procedural steps to follow, and knowing these procedures and their timelines can be crucial to winning a case. Furthermore, failing to file important actions in a timely manner or missing important deadlines can get your law suit dismissed.

Even failing to file actions properly can get a claim dismissed. Last month, the Tennessee courts dismissed the third case in a handful of months for failing to properly follow the statute of limitations. If you or a loved one has been injured by the negligent acts of another, you are encouraged to speak with a Knoxville or Maryville car accident attorney who will be able to guide you and your case through the complicated legal process.

Gates v. Perry
In March, the Court of Appeals at Knoxville ruled on a statute of limitations dispute involving a car accident case. In Gates v. Perry, the plaintiff suffered injuries in an automobile accident and filed a complaint against the defendant. The case involved three statutory deadlines for the filing of a complaint and the service of process.
Continue reading →

There is a common misperception that a driver who rear-ends another car is the one at fault. This is generally true but not always, as illustrated by a recent case heard by the court of appeals at Knoxville. There are many false and common presumptions about the law. If you have been involved in an accident in Maryville or Knoxville, an experienced car accident attorney will find aspects of your case to get you the compensation you deserve.

In order to hold a defendant accountable for damages caused by an auto accident, the defendant has to be proven negligent. Negligence can be proven when a driver fails to exercise the level of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances. The plaintiff in Hicks v. Prahl failed to prove the driver who rear-ended her negligent.

Facts of the Case

In Hicks v. Prahl, the plaintiff and defendant had been merging onto Pellissippi Parkway from Hardin Valley Road. While in the merge lane, the plaintiff stopped her car, which the defendant, following the plaintiff, recognized and stopped as well. The plaintiff began to accelerate and the defendant followed. Assuming that the plaintiff was going to merge onto Pellissippi Parkway, the defendant turned her head over her shoulder to look for traffic. When she turned back around, she was surprised to find the plaintiff’s vehicle had stopped again, but the defendant failed to stop her vehicle before hitting the plaintiff’s vehicle.

Continue reading →

Personal injury lawsuits are good for Maryville and America just in general. They can disclose hidden hazards, problems with regulations, and they promote positive change.

The recent General Motors (“GM”) recall is an example of this. Certain GM vehicles have been recalled for a faulty ignition switch that has been linked to at least 12 deaths and more than 1.6 million recalled vehicles. The original lawsuit and attorney that pursued the wrongful death case helped bring awareness to the ignition problem and prompted the product recall, possibly saving a number of lives.

The car accident attorney had been approached in 2011 by the parents of Brook Melton. In 2010, Ms. Melton had been driving to her boyfriend’s house when her 2005 Chevy Cobalt veered into on coming traffic, crashing into another vehicle and killing Ms. Melton. The accident had been attributed to Ms. Melton and the police officer on scene had made a determination that the vehicle lost control because Melton was speeding. The parents sought representation to help defend against a law suit by the driver of the other vehicle.
Continue reading →

In personal injury cases involving car or motorcycle accidents, understanding legal rules like the statute of limitations, comparative fault, and relation back can be critical to winning a case. In Tennessee, a plaintiff can add a tortfeasor after the tolling of the statute of limitations if a defendant asserts another party carries some of the fault. Recently, the Supreme Court of Tennessee ruled on whether knowledge of the tortfeasor at the time of the filing of a complaint precludes the plaintiff from adding the tortfeasor.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119 (“§119”) provides for a situation where a plaintiff can add another tortfeasor to a personal injury case even though the statute of limitations has run. If the plaintiff brought the original complaint within the statute of limitations, and a defendant in the original complaint alleges that another tortfeasor carries some or all the fault, the plaintiff is allowed to amend the original complaint to add the tortfeasor within 90 days. If the plaintiff complies with §119, for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations, the date the tortfeasor will be considered added will relate back to the date of the original complaint.

Facts of the Case
In Becker v. Ford Motor Company, a Ford truck veered off a roadway and hit a light pole injuring the passenger in the vehicle. The passenger, Becker, brought a products liability claim against Ford motor company. Becker did not bring a personal injury claim against the driver of the truck, his son. After the tolling of the statute of limitations, Ford answered the claim, stating that Becker and the driver were at fault.
Continue reading →