Poppe Law Blog

view all


Law News

more

Law We Know

Kentucky Accident Attorney

Ketucky Legal Malpractice Attorney

Kentucky Medical Malpractice Attorney

Accounting Malpractice Attorney

Unfair Insurance Practices Attorney

Kentucky Nursing Home Neglect Attorney

Video

General

more

Testimonials

  • I would like to take this opportunity to write to your law firm and thank you for coming through for me when I lost hope in my previous attorney. 
  • We will gladly be a reference for you, and we certainly will recommend you as the attorney to have in Louisville.  You have a gift in the way you are able to communicate with your clients and within the legal system.

  • My father would have been so proud to know that his case was driven home with such passion and genius.  Thank you for giving that jury every tool they needed to hold those people accountable for the torture they inflicted on my Dad.


     

  • Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you...
  • You have now made it possible for me to rest assured that I have everything I need now and in the future to cover the expenses of my disability

more


print page

Blog Category:

Kentucky Accident Attorney

4/24/2010
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Study About Kentucky Court System is Bogus

Too many bogus studies put out by business and insurance interests falsely portray the civil justice system as being unfair to business when nothing could be further from the truth. A recent op/ed reveals the truth about the people behind these studies.

7/3/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

"Admit nothing. Deny as much as possible. Stall. Protect, protect, protect. Blame somebody who isn't here to protect himself."

Nothing New Here  "Admit nothing. Deny as much as possible. Stall. Protect, protect, protect. Blame somebody who isn't here to protect himself."  Rick Bozich, Louisville Courier Journal, Max Gilpin, The Real Loser in JCPS Report, July 1, 2009

Bozich's article was a scathing indictment of the "investigation" into the death of a 15 year old boy during football practice at a Jefferson County, Kentucky public high school.  The death, and the tragic circumstances surrounding it, have made national news. 

However, this post isn't about that.  Instead, this post is about why no one should be surprised that a defendant would refuse to accept responsibility for its actions. 

As a lawyer that represents people that have been injured as a result of someone else's negligence or misconduct, I see defendants utilize this above strategy everyday in litigation. 

Blaming the victim has long been the strongest weapon in a defense attorney's arsenal.  And it matters not what kind of case it is.  Failure to diagnose breast cancer?  The patient should have sought out a second opinion when her first doctor told her she was cancer free.  Rear-end car wreck?  Injured driver had a pre-existing condition that is unrelated to the accident.  No matter what the kind of case, the defendant always seeks to shift responsibility to the injured party.  Without fail.

And it works.  If you don't believe me, all you have to do is read any of the comments to any online newspaper article and you will see post after post blaming the victim instead of the wrongdoer (most recently in the Louisville Zoo lawsuit they blame the victims and their lawyer, too).

I find this behavior inconsistent with the oft spoken mantra of tort reformers that we need more "personal responsibility."  It seems that what people really want is for innocent injured people to take responsibility for someone else's snegligence.  How else can you justify blaming injured patients when their doctor makes a mistake?  You can't.  At least you can't do so and remain intellectually honest.  Tort Reform = Tort Deform

The simple fact of the matter is that deny, delay, defend and blame is business as usual for defendants in litigation, especially corporate defendants and insurance companies. 

Sorry, Bozich.  Sadly, that's just the way it is.  And not just for poor Max Gilpin's family, but for any person that gets injured and seeks justice. 

Hans


5/8/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Guess What Forbes Magazine Says We Need More Of? The Answer Will Shock You....

It's no secret that Forbes Magazine hates lawyers.  Especially trial lawyers.  After all, aren't the trial lawyers the ones running the economy into the ground, forcing those nice insurance companies to raise premiums and making it impossible for doctors to deliver babies? (don't forget trial lawyers are also probably responsible for acide rain, global warming, famine, locusts, termites, etc.)

So, why is Forbes now saying we need more trial laywers, not less?!  Well it seems that Forbes is concerned with all of the foodborne illness that come from contaminated foods that are not properly prepared or packaged.  William Baldwin writes "One possible solution is more government and more laws. Those familiar with the proclivities of this magazine will not be surprised that I take a dim view of this solution (and, in particular, of the proposed Food Safety Modernization Act, which would bury food preparers in paperwork). No, I would prefer to have the same government and the same laws, but--here's the surprise--more tort lawyers."

Baldwin concludes by saying "Add technology to tort law and you get a powerful force for safety."

Something us trial lawyers have known and preached for a long time.  However, it isn't limited to food, you can thank lawyers for seatbelts, airbags, kids pajamas that don't burst into flame, and a million other things that keep people safe.  It's about time someone over at Forbes recognized the vitally important role lawyers play in society.

hans



2/10/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Stripper Sues Employer Because She Got Too Drunk From Customer's Buying Her Drinks

An update from the News of the Weird.  A woman contends that her job as a stripper caused her to have a one-car wreck on her way home from work last year, according to a lawsuit filed in Jefferson County Circuit Court in Birmingham, Alabama.

Patsy Hamaker's suit says part of her job as a dancer at The Furnace club in Birmingham involved encouraging customers to buy her alcoholic drinks.

The suit alleges that managers at the strip club allowed her to leave work drunk one night last fall. She wrecked her car, resulting in serious injury, according to the suit.

Dancers receive a percentage of drink sales and make pretty good money doing so, according to the suit. On Oct. 17, Hamaker's sales were successful enough that she left work "in a highly intoxicated state," according to her suit.

"Defendants ... allowed a dangerous condition to exist by allowing said plaintiff to leave its establishment in such an intoxicated state while under said defendants' supervision and control," the suit says.

Management's negligence by allowing her to drive home drunk "was a proximate cause" of Hamaker's injuries, the suit says.

Hamaker seeks compensation for her injuries and additional money to punish the club. The case has been assigned to Judge Caryl Privett.

Hamaker's lawyer, Alan Smith, declined comment on where his client lives or whether she still works for the club.

"We won't talk about our client," Smith said. "We're not willing to talk about the case at this point."

As they say on one of my favorite Saturday Night Live Weekend Update segments...REALLY?!!!

 

Hans

 



12/17/2008
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

You've Been SuperPoked and Served...Facebook Used To Serve Court Papers

Sometimes lawyers have to serve important documents on people that don't want to be served.  It could be a divorce suit, a doctor in a medical malpractice case, or any other number of unpleasant legal proceedings.  One lawyer in Australia has found a new way to get reluctant defendants served with papers....Facebook!  Here is the article.

Australia OKs Facebook for serving lien notice

CANBERRA, Australia – You've been "superpoked" — and served. A court in Australia has approved the use of Facebook, a popular social networking Web site, to notify a couple that they lost their home after defaulting on a loan.

The Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court last Friday approved lawyer Mark McCormack's application to use Facebook to serve the legally binding documents after several failed attempts to contact the couple at the house and by e-mail.

Australian courts have given permission in the past for people to be served via e-mail and text messages when it was not possible to serve them in person.

McCormack, a lawyer for the lender, MKM Capital, said that by the time he got the documents approved by the court late Tuesday for transmission, Facebook profiles for the couple had disappeared from public view.

The page was apparently either closed or secured for privacy, following publicity about the court order.

"It's somewhat novel, however we do see it as a valid method of bringing the matter to the attention of the defendant," McCormack said.

Despite the setback, McCormack said the Facebook attempt would help his client's case that all reasonable steps had been taken to serve the couple. A court is expected to settle the matter as early as next week.

Facebook has become a wildly popular online hangout, attracting more than 140 million users worldwide since it launched in 2004. Facebook friends can "poke" or "superpoke" each other — terms for giving someone a playful nudge.

In a statement, Facebook praised the ruling. "We're pleased to see the Australian court validate Facebook as a reliable, secure and private medium for communication. The ruling is also an interesting indication of the increasing role that Facebook is playing in people's lives," it said. The company said it believed this was the first time it has been used to serve a foreclosure notice.

The documents were sent last Friday after weeks of failed attempts to contact borrowers Gordon Poyser and Carmel Corbo at their Canberra home and by e-mail.

The Associated Press found Poyser, a retired 62-year-old, on Tuesday at home at the contested address.

He declined to comment on the record, citing the couple's stress at the prospect of losing their home of seven years only a week before Christmas. But he said he had privacy restrictions imposed on his Facebook page Tuesday only because of the media attention it had attracted.

"Because (otherwise) I'd get every man and his dog having a look," Poyser told The AP at his front door.

Lawyer and computer forensic expert Seamus Byrne said he was aware of only one similar case in Australia. A Queensland state District Court judge ruled in April against documents being served by Facebook because the option of contacting a person via a post office box had not yet been exhausted.

In the latest ruling, Master David Harper insisted that the documents be attached to a private e-mail sent via Facebook that could not be seen by others visiting the pages.

McCormack said he and a colleague found the woman's Facebook page using personal details that she had given the lender including her birth date and e-mail address. The man was listed on her page as a friend. Prior to Tuesday, neither had imposed security options that deny strangers access to their pages.

McCormack said he did not bother searching for the couple through any other social networking sites.

"It's one of those occasions where you feel most at home with what you know and I myself have a Facebook account," McCormack said.

 

I don't see a Kentucky court, or any United States court, anytime soon recognizing the use of Facebook to serve a defendant.  But in the future, who knows.  Behold the power of the internet....

Hans



Business Litigation Attorney

8/14/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Judge Orders Microsoft to Stop All US Sales of Word

I handle business litigation and disputes in and around Louisville, Kentucky for small businesses--I represent the little guy and I always root for the little guy taking on the big guy.  And here is a case where you can really root for the little guy. 

In a David v Goliath showdown, it appears round one goes to David.  In what has become a very interesting intellectual property dispute, tiny software manufacturer Toronto-based i4i, which has 30 employees, claims that Microsoft violated an obscure patent related to Extensible Markup Language or XML. It's a key software component of many websites and
computeMicrosoft Loses $290 million verdictr programs, including Word. 
Tuesday, Texas Federal District Court Judge Leonard Davis agreed with i4i and entered an order fining the software giant Microsoft $290 million and ordering them to stop selling Word in the United States.
Judge Davis' ruling came following a jury verdict that found that Microsoft had infringed on i4i's 1998 patent.  The jury awarded $200 million and Judge Leonard Judge Davis ruled that Microsoft should pay i4i an additional $40 million for its willful infringement of the i4i patent. Microsoft also was ordered to pay slightly more than $37 million in prejudgment interest, including an additional $21,102 per day until a final judgment is reached in the case. The court also ordered Microsoft to pay $144,060 per day until the date of final judgment for post-verdict damages.

i4i was represented by the national business litigation firm McKool Smith


hans


1/27/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Was Your Credit Card Information Stolen...

If you live in or around Louisville, Kentucky, you may have noticed a small blurb in the Courier-Journal about a local Jeffersonville, Indiana company called Heartland Payment Systems.  It appeared on inaguration day, so I don't blame you if you missed it; however, it is a BIG STORY.... regardless of how little media attention it received.
Heartland Payment Systems, based in New Jersey, processes 100 million credit card transactions per month in its processing center in Jeffersonville, Indiana.  And therein lies the problem.  Heartland President Robert H.B. Baldwin Jr said the company found evidence last week that their had been an electronic "intrusion" occuring for the last several months.  Baldwin indicated that both credit-card names and numbers were exposed.
ComputerWorld has a detailed article outlining how this data breach, which may be the largest in history by surpassing the TJX case, has sparked concerns in the industry over how to keep information safe and secure.
The Poppe Law Firm is local counsel in the Countrywide data breach litigation currently pending before an MDL in the Western District of Kentucky.  The Poppe Law Firm is also attempting to assist individuals that have received notification that their credit or debit card information was accessed by virtue of the Heartland Payment Systems security breach.  Please feel free to contact our office. 502-895-3400
hans


1/25/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Louisville Based Yum! Ordered to Pay $42 Million Dollar Verdict over Taco Bell Chihuahua Dog.

"A federal appeals court Friday ruled that Taco Bell is solely liable for $42 million in breach-of-contract awards to two Michigan men who created the diminutive mascot that starred in the Irvine fast-food giant's hit $500-million advertising campaign in the 1990s."  LA Times article here.

The business litigation dispute began in 1998 when Joseph Shields and Thomas Rinks of Grand Rapids, Mich., filed suit against Taco Bell, which is owned by Louisville based Yum! brands, alleging breach of contract.

Shields and Rink were in talks with Taco Bell advertising agents to adapt a Chihuahua for TV spots when, the men claimed in their lawsuit, Taco Bell took the idea to another ad agency, TBWA\Chiat\Day.

In 2003 a Michigan federal jury ordered Taco bell to pay $30 million for breach of contract and the federal judge tacked on nearly $12 million in interest.  This prompted Taco Bell to turn around and sue TBWA claiming the ad company was responsible for using the disputed content.

On Friday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of TBWA by ruling that Taco Bell, and not TBWA, was responsible for the wrongful use of the Chihuahua.

It is unclear at this point whether Taco Bell/Yum! brands will appeal.  Warner Norcross & Judd, LLP, a large Michigan law firm, represented Rinks and Shields. 
Hans
ps. Gidget was the name of the Taco Bell Chihuahua.  The popular ads stopped running in 2000 freeing Gidget for further big- and small-screen fame, with roles in "Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde" and Geico insurance ads. She also appeared on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," during which she was given a choice between a Taco Bell chalupa and Kentucky Fried Chicken.

1/23/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Countrywide Data Breach Litigation

Last year one of the largest data breaches in history was discovered when a former Countrywide employee was arrested Aug. 1 and charged with illegally accessing the firm’s computers for more than two years.  The information was being sold to mortgage brokers to be used as sales leads, federal authorities said in August. In an attempt to appease its customers, Countrywide offered security monitoring services; however they sent the notifications in what appeared to be junk mail envelopes and many customers probably threw them awasy.  Countrywide also failed to notify its customers that it actually has an ownership interest in the security monitoring company.
The data breach led to multiple lawsuits against Countrywide and related entities in several different states and federal jurisdcitions. 
Eventually, all of the lawsuits were consolidated into an MDL  which was assigned by the head of the MDL litigation panel, Judge John Heyburn,  to the Western District of Kentucky, Judge Thomas Russell.

We are local counsel for several of the out of state law firms.  For more information, please contact us.

Hans



Ketucky Legal Malpractice Attorney

4/27/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Can Kentucky Plaintiffs Recovery Lost Punitive Damages in a Legal Malpractice Case?

Recently, the Kentucky Justice Association asked us to write an article for the Advocate on legal malpractice.  We choose to write on the issue of whether a Kentucky legal malpractice plaintiff can recover lost punitive damages in the legal malpractice lawsuit against the attorney.
The debate centers around whether these damages are recoverable since the purpose of punitive damages is to punish the wrongdoer.  Defendants take the posistion that because the punitive damages in the underlying case (the one the lawyer malpractice) were meant to punish the original wrongdoer, forcing the lawyer to pay them does not punish the orignial wrongoer.  This article explorers that concept and concludes that the fundamental purpose of KRS 411.165 as well as Kentucky punitive damage law will only be served if lost punitive damages are recoverable against a negligent attorney.
Hans

12/15/2008
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Multiple Conflicts of Interest Before State Supreme Court...Will There Be Enough Judges Left?

As reported in the Chicago Sun Times:

Four Illinois Supreme Court justices have been asked to withdraw from hearing an appeal of a legal-malpractice case against Corboy & Demetrio, one of the nation's top personal-injury firms, because the justices have gotten political contributions from the Chicago firm's attorneys.

The case involves a hotly contested case alleging that Corboy lawyers mishandled a lawsuit brought on behalf of the family of a Georgia woman who was killed and her two daughters who were injured in a car crash in 1995.

The motion seeking the recusal of Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Fitzgerald and Justices Anne Burke, Charles Freeman and Robert Thomas comes just after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in a West Virginia case testing whether elected judges can take part in cases involving campaign contributors.

Because there are seven justices on the Illinois court, the motion sets up the possibility that, should the justices step aside, there would be only three justices left to hear the case -- rendering an appeal meaningless. The Illinois Constitution requires four votes for any Supreme Court ruling to be official, and the constitution has no provision for appointing interim justices should a justice withdraw.

Such a dilemma would be "absurd," attorney Charles Boyle noted in his motion.

The original lawsuit alleged that Corboy lawyer G. Grant Dixon III, who is no longer with the firm, and Robert Bingle, the firm's managing partner, failed to preserve the damaged vehicle and failed to investigate whether the wreck was the result of a manufacturing defect.

The Corboy firm admitted that the car-crash suit was dismissed because the firm failed to follow a court order but denied all other allegations against the firm. A judgment of $100,000 was entered against the law firm, and all other counts of the lawsuit were denied.

In a motion filed Nov. 24, Boyle asked the Illinois Supreme Court for permission to review the lower court's rulings and asked the four justices to step aside from hearing his petition.

The motion states that some members of the Corboy firm and two of the firm's experts in the car crash case have donated $52,000 to Fitzgerald, $33,000 to Thomas and $30,000 to Freeman. It says that while Burke has received $1,500 in contributions, the firm has donated $24,000 to her husband, Ald. Edward Burke (14th).

While federal judges must disqualify themselves from any case in which they have any personal or financial interest, states generally have no specific criteria for campaign contributions.

In the West Virginia case, Justice Brent Benjamin won election after the chief executive of the Massey coal company contributed $3 million to his campaign and raised half a million more -- amounting to 60 percent of the justice's campaign funds. After the election, Benjamin twice cast the deciding vote to set aside a $50 million judgment against the coal company. (Massey Coal has its own problems and its own legal malpractice case against a kentucky law firm, see our previous blog entry)

Attorney Michael Reagan, representing the Corboy firm in the case, said the amounts in the Illinois case are "ordinary campaign contributions" that are a "fact of life in a democracy."

Maurice Possley is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who recently left the Chicago Tribune. He worked for the Chicago Sun-Times from 1978 to 1984.




Kentucky Medical Malpractice Attorney

3/1/2010
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Ohio Doctors Get Immunity From Malpractice Suits

Kentucky malpractice attorneys are fortunate not to have to deal with laws similar to those in Ohio that now give doctors immunity from malpractice if they have a medical student in the room with them.

12/12/2008
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

State Legislator Tries to Make It More Difficult to Sue ER Doctors

Fortunately this isn't a story about a Kentucky lawmaker (but it very well could be considering who our senate leader is and the fact he has made tort reform one of his primary objectives).
An senior Arizona state senator is introducing a bill to make a emergency room patient prove medical negligence by a "clear and convincing" standard.
While this may not seem significant, it is.  In Arizona, like Kentucky, requires a patient prove a doctor committed malpractice.  The standard is "more likely than not."  Even with this standard, physicians win negligence suits 80-90% of the time.  The "clear and convincing" standard is significantly higher.  The standard is usually reserved for situations that go beyond mere negligence, were the plaintiff must prove the at fault party did something more than simply "make a mistake." 
If a jury were to have to find negligence by a "clear and convincing" standard, I hate to see how many victims of medical malpractice would go without justice.  I dare say a lot.
hans
p.s. want to know the difference between malpractice and negligence, check out our FAQ section

Unfair Insurance Practices Attorney

5/21/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (2)

$2.5 Million Dollar Kentucky Bad Faith Verdict

My friend, and fellow Kentucky bad faith trial attorney, Austin Mehr obtained a $2.5 million dollar verdict last night in a third-party bad faith claim against the Medical Protective Insurance Company.  In short, Austin's client  sued her doctor for causing significant injury to her inner ear.  The doctor admitted he made a mistake, but his insurance company refused to settle the claim.  The case was litigated and ultimately resulted in an arbitration award of $1.6 million.  Austin's client then sued then doctor's insurance company, MedPro, for violating Kentucky's Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (aka the Bad Faith Statute) alleging, among other things, that MedPro failed to promptly settle the claim when liability became reasonably clear.  After a two-week trial, a Kenton County Kentucky jury agreed and awarded Austin's client $350,000 for the mental stress caused by the delay in settlement and awarded $2.2 million in punitive damages to punish the medical malpractice insurance company for its behavior.

I have a very similar bad faith case going to trial on Tuesday in Jefferson County Kentucky against American Physicians Assurance.

Below is the "Fact Section" from one of Austin's briefs and here is the jury's verdict.

Medical Protective insured Dr. Del Burchell and his physicians' group Internal Medicine Associates of Northern Kentucky, P.S.C for medical malpractice.  On July 3, 2000, Dr. Burchell attempted to clear earwax out of Aurelia Wiles' ear using an ear lavage procedure by which a syringe injects water into the ear.  The syringe was not properly attached, and when Dr. Burchell pressed on the plunger, the syringe exploded into Mrs. Wiles' inner ear. Liability on the part of Dr. Burchell and his clinic was unquestionably clear. Mrs. Wiles had emergency surgery on July 6, 2000, to attempt repair of the injured ear.  On August 17, 2000, Mrs. Wiles' attorney Terry Moore wrote Dr. Burchell and asked that he have his insurance carrier contact him.   Moore wrote Medical Protective's adjuster Gary Duechle on September 15, 2000, to advise of the severity of Mrs. Wiles' injuries, including nausea, ringing in the ears, imbalance, sleep difficulties, and that it was taking her about two hours just to wash her hair because of the nausea and dizziness. Moore wrote again on November 28, 2000, advising Duechle that Mrs. Wiles had a second surgery and based on the poor prognosis was likely totally disabled. On January 12, 2001, after Mrs. Wiles' condition continued to worsen, Moore specifically demanded the two million dollar policy limits from Medical Protective, which had on December 11, 2000, revealed those limits to Moore. As the one-year statute of limitations approached, Moore had written to Medical Protective to discuss his willingness to extend the statute of limitations so that suit did not have to be initiated against Dr. Burchell, but on March 9, 2001, before suit was filed, Duechle wrote to Moore and instructed him to direct all future correspondence through MedPro's defense attorney Mark Arnzen.         Instead of reviewing and giving credence to the opinions of Mrs. Wiles treating physicians, who were documenting the severity and worsening of her medical condition, Medical Protective consulted a neurologist, Dr. Greg Smith, on February 2, 2001.  Dr. Smith developed the opinion that Mrs. Wiles' traumatic injuries were not the result of the syringe projectile but that they were caused by a coincidental onset of Meniere's Disease around the same time in July 2000.

           Soon after, Arnzen wrote to Duechle on April 4, 2001, and stated, "With respect to the injury itself, Dr. Burchell admitted that there was no product failure and no excuse for the injury which occurred.  He stated that he failed to insure that the top of the syringe was properly secured to the body of the syringe."Even though it knew its insureds were at fault, Medical Protective still made absolutely no attempt to settle the Wiles' claim. Medical Protective, likewise, never responded to Moore's offer to extend the Statute of limitation and suit was filed on May 14, 2001, against Dr. Burchell and his physicians' group, as well as against Medical Protective for violations of the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act. ("UCSPA")  

In addition to creating a defense with Dr. Smith, surveillance was conducted on Mrs. Wiles.   In December 2001, video footage showed that because of Mrs. Wiles' condition, she had to be dropped off at her door by her next-door neighbors, who subsequently backed out of her driveway and pulled into their own (about 40 feet away). This verification of the severity of her condition garnered no offer of settlement or negotiation from Medical Protective.  

In January 2002, Mrs. Wiles endured a third surgery, this time a brain surgery that lasted seven hours.  Still Medical Protective made no offer of settlement.  On April 8, 2002, Moore wrote to Storm reiterating his willingness to accept the policy limits on behalf of the Wiles even though there had not been any offer made or even a discussion of an offer from Medical Protective. A letter from Arnzen to Duechle on June 25, 2002, urged Duechle to contact him about the settlement demand.  Soon after, more surveillance was conducted on July 27, 2002. This time the video showed approximately twenty minutes of Mrs. Wiles struggling to slowly work in her garden.  She had to sit on her buttocks because of her imbalance and when she attempted to walk just a short distance, she had to hold a bag and bucket in each arm to balance herself as she battled to stay on her feet. Again, these facts still did not conjure settlement discussions from Medical Protective.

On October 7, 2002, Arnzen wrote to Duechle suggesting that Medical Protective stipulate to liability. Internal correspondence from Duechle to Robert Ignasiak of Medical Protective shows that it "always viewed the case as one of liability…" but that no offer had been extended to settle the case.  Finally, after never discussing an offer of settlement with the Wiles for twenty-seven months, Medical Protective offered $500,000.00 on October 7, 2002.  During this time, Medical Protective had Mrs. Wiles submit to a medical examination with Dr. Smith, who maintained that there was a simultaneous chance occurrence of Meniere's Disease and that Mrs. Wiles was magnifying her symptoms, even though Medical Protective knew that surveillance footage indicated otherwise.

In the meantime, Dr. Burchell and his physicians' group grew nervous about MedPro's claims adjusting, had hired their own counsel to urge Medical Protective to settle for the policy limits.  Attorney Andre Busald wrote to Duechle on November 22, 2002, informing him that Dr. Burchell and his physicians' group were "extremely concerned about the chances of a verdict being rendered against them in excess of the $2,000,000 policy limits – especially where liability is not an issue."Busald followed up again on December 2, 2002, and chided Medical Protective for refusing to attempt to settle the case before trial for the policy limits.  Throughout the years of correspondence, there was never a question as to liability.

Finally, after agreeing to a high-low arbitration agreement, the parties put the claim before an arbitration panel in April 2003, and the panel awarded $1,650,000 on May 15, 2003.  This settlement process was not without detriment to the Wiles, who had incurred substantial medical bills, legal bills, and litigation expenses while suffering from a sizeable loss of income and emotional suffering during the period of time the claim was active.  


Hans


12/10/2008
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Duke University Sues Its Own Insurance Company for Refusing to Pay Claim

Anyone that follows sports, and many who don't, will probably remember the Duke University mens' Lacrosse team scandal.  According to a North Carolina newspaper, Duke has now been forced to sue it's own insurance company, National Union Fire Insurance Co., (an AIG affiliate) for refusing to provide insurance coverage and pay the damages that Duke paid to those players to settle the players' lawsuits against the University.  The lawsuit is likely a combination of breach of contract and insurance bad faith.
"Because National Union has not paid, Duke has been forced to bear the full financial impact of its own defense,' Duke attorneys wrote in the lawsuit.
According to The Herald Sun, the insurer has refused to reimburse Duke for legal bills of $11-million because it believes the university’s policy is capped at $5-million. D uke's demands are considerable: it wants National Union to "advance and/or pay all of Duke?s Defense Costs (as defined in the insurance policies) for the Underlying Claims and the full amount of Duke?s settlement with certain claimants," and "a declaratory judgment (i) that National Union is liable to advance the costs for any future defense of Duke in connection with the Underlying Claims, and (ii) that National Union is liable for any reasonable settlement entered into by Duke in the Underlying Claims and/or any judgment entered against Duke in the Underlying Claims."

hans


Kentucky Nursing Home Neglect Attorney

8/31/2010
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Associated Press Article Attributes Poor Care in Nursing Homes to Understaffing and Discusses 677 Million Dollar Verdict

This week, an associated press article attributes poor care in nursing homes to understaffing and, discusses the 677 million dollar verdict against a nursing home that failed to meet minimum staffing requirements.

Bookmark and Share


Firm Free Report

We Can Help You!

Name:

Phone:

Email:

Tell us more:


The Poppe Law Firm
6004 Brownsboro Park Blvd.
Ste. E
Louisville, Kentucky 40207
Phone: (502) 895-3400
Fax: (502) 895-3420

Get Directions

Videos

Kentucky Accident Attorney:

Ketucky Legal Malpractice Attorney:

Unfair Insurance Practices Attorney:

General:

more

Frequent Questions

Kentucky Accident Attorney

Ketucky Legal Malpractice Attorney

Kentucky Medical Malpractice Attorney

Accounting Malpractice Attorney

Unfair Insurance Practices Attorney

Kentucky Nursing Home Neglect Attorney

General

more

Personal Injury and Accident Attorney for Louisville, Jeffersontown, Elizabethtown, Radcliff, Lexington, Frankfort, Bardstown, Ft. Knox, Richmond, Covington, Bowling Green, Newport, Owensboro, Paducah, Pikeville, Ashland, Morehead, Murray, Jefferson, Bullitt, Shelby, Hardin, Meade, Spencer, Henry, Larue, and Fayette Kentucky as well as New Albany, Jeffersonville, Indianapolis, Clark, Floyd, Harrison, Jefferson, Scott, Washington, Crawford, Perry, Marion and Spencer in Indiana.

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.