Did I settle too soon? Investigating all applicable insurance coverage.

A person who recently went through the personal injury claims process asked me whether she settled too soon.   She was involved in a traffic collision and her medical expenses and lost wages were in the area of $22,000.  She had a friend who was an attorney specializing in patent law, and she asked her friend to take care of the case for her.

Because the driver who hit her only had $25,000 in liability insurance, the patent attorney settled it for $25,000.  However, this result still left the woman wondering.

In this situation, I would've recommended that the woman consult a personal injury attorney. More likely than not, the woman would've been entitled to significantly more than $25,000 considering factors like future medical expenses, loss of future wages, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.  I didn't know enough about the facts of the woman's particular case, but it seemed to me that none of these factors were taken into account in calculating the $22,000.

It is possible that $25,000 was the maximum amount that could've been recovered.  However, it is always necessary to determine the availability of all possible insurance coverage.  For example, when determining the policy limits of an opposing party, one should inquire about excess/umbrella insurance, which insurance companies often hesitate to disclose.  Also, if,  a would be defendant is underinsured, the plaintiff's own insurance policy should have been notified of an underinsured motorist claim.  Even if it isn't certain whether underinsured coverage will apply, notice should still be given to the plaintiff's insurance company.

This is but a sample of the avenues the woman could have looked for recovery.  It is essential to hire an attorney who knows personal injury law in order to increase  recovery.

You’re injured, and you’re partially at fault–Do you still have apersonal injury claim?

The short answer to this question is: it depends.

Illinois law concerning fault and recovery has gone through several serious transformations.  Up until the 1981 Illinois Supreme Court decision, Alvis v. Ribar, Illinois used a "contributory negligence" system to determine whether a plaintiff could recover in a personal injury claim.  Alvis v. Ribar, 85 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill.1981).  Under this system, any degree of fault attributable to a plaintiff was an absolute bar to recovery.

The Alvis decision ushered in a new set of laws pertaining to fault and recovery in Illinois. Under the new "comparative negligence" legal system, plaintiff recoveries were limited by the percentage of their own negligence or fault.  So theoretically, if a plaintiff were 25% at fault or even 75% at fault, that plaintiff could recover with a reduction reflecting the percentage of their fault.

In 1986, the Illinois State Legislature enacted law that has supplanted Alvis's comparative negligence system. The new law is a hybrid between contributory negligence and comparative negligence.  Since 1986, Illinois has been a "modified contributory negligence" state.  735 ILCS 5/1116.  Under the current modified contributory negligence system, recoveries for damages are diminished in proportion to the percentage of fault attributable to the plaintiff. (Similar to comparative comparative negligence laws).  However, plaintiffs who are more than 50% at fault are completely barred from recovery. (Similar to contributory negligence laws).