Lewis & Tompkins Blog

Allstate Earns Dubious Distinction

tom@fosterwebmarketing.com — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:00:00 EST

The American Association of Justice just released a list of the ten worst insurance companies, and Allstate made the top of the list.

In order to be rated, you have to wholeheartedly embrace a philosophy called "Deny, Delay and Defend," which basically involves doing anything necessary to avoid paying claims.

Here is the list:

Allstate

Unum

State Farm

Conseco

WellPoint

Farmers

United Health

Torchmark

Liberty Mutual

If your insurer is on the list, you might want to rethink your policy.

FDA List Sort of Helps, But Not Really

tom@fosterwebmarketing.com — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:00:00 EST

Recently the FDA publicized a list of drugs that might find dangerous. They plan on updating this list every three months.
While thats all well and good, we could not help but notice that some of the drugs on the list have been known to be dangerous for quite some time now.

For instance, the mention of OxyContin as being "potentially addictive" IS in fact breaking news, if you happen to be living in the year 2005.

We also find that some of the descriptions on the list are maddeningly vague. If a pill taken in good faith could cause a stroke or heart attack, could you tell us how? Or how often it happens?

While we think the list is a good first step, we think a little more information would be helpful.

DC Remains Static on DUI Fatalities

tom@fosterwebmarketing.com — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:00:00 EST

The NHTSA has recently released its 2007 statistics for DUI fatalities.

To read the report, follow the link below.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811016.PDF

2007 Crash Statistics are Out

tom@fosterwebmarketing.com — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:00:00 EST

The 2007 statistics are a little more promising than 2006. The overall crash rate is going down nationwide, but here in DC the number of people who were killed in car accidents actually went up 19%.

To view the report, follow the link below.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811017.PDF

2007 Crash Statistics are Out

tom@fosterwebmarketing.com — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:00:00 EST

A great explanation of "tort reform."

tom@fosterwebmarketing.com — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 08:00:00 EST

Anyone who is interested in a good and thorough explanation of what "tort reform" is should follow the link below.

http://www.corpreform.com/corpreform/2003/10/what_is_tort_re.html

Have you ever noticed that those who say the legal system is "broken" or moan about "activist judges" are always the ones who are losing court cases?

D.C. Has an Embarrasingly High Car Accident Rate

tom@fosterwebmarketing.com — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

According to a recent study by Allstate, D.C.s drivers rank among the worst in the nation. And by "among," we mean "the worst."

Our drivers average one accident every 5.4 years. This is not something to be proud of.

To see an article about this, follow the link below.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/369342_caronline06.html

Bike Safety is More Important Than Ever

dtompkins@lewisandtompkins.com — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

With gas in the neighborhood of $4 a gallon, more people are choosing to walk or bike to work. With more bikes and pedestrians on the street, the public probably needs a refresher course on bicycle safety.

The Post recently put out an article that gives a pretty good rundown on how to share the roads responsibly. Follow the link below to see the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/07/23/DI2008072302245.html

Allstate Now Uses the Oldest Excuse in the Book

dtompkins@lewisandtompkins.com — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

Allstate Insurance Company has now resorted to the oldest excuse in the book: Blame the Lawyer.

The back story:

Allstate initiated a program in the mid-1990's designed to limit claim payments. The program was designed by a consulting company named McKinsey. Here's a brief summary of the program:

1. Allstate stopped paying claims. By delaying claims as long as possible, Allstate made more mony on its reserves. This was all pure profit.

2. Allstate started evaluating claims based upon a computer program. The program (designed and maintained by Allstate) was called Colussus. Sounds ominous. Colussus is (was) programmed to make lower payments. Allstate then could claim "our computer says your claim is worth $100.00."

3. Allstate stopped negotiating with anyone. Allstate would only offer the computer program offer. If you did not like it, tough. Sue us.

4. Allstate hired "in-house" attorneys. Rather than pay counsel at defense firms their hourly rates, Allstate hired an army of lawyers and paid them a salary. This fixed defense costs, and made them more money. In a later post, I'll discuss the ethical issues this poses for attorneys.

5. Allstate began a practice of deceptively manipulating people to prevent them from getting legal counsel, and discriminating against those that did retain counsel.

Each of these tactics (and more) were a dramatic shift in the insurance industry. Allstate was in the lead. Many other insurers followed suit (State Farm, USAA, and Farmers to name a few) and now follow these practices.

Now, in Florida, as part of a claim involving Allstate, counsel for a negligence victim requested from Allstate the documents (many of which have been produced in the past, including to my firm) outlining this program. This was a run-of-the-mill rear end automobile accident, but Allstate treated the victim to the new program. When asked for documents about the program, Allstate refused.

A judge in Florida, after hearing the case, ordered Allstate to produce the documents. Allstate again refused. The Judge ordered Allstate to comply or face a $25,000.00 per day fine. Did Allstate comply? No.

See, Allstate thinks it is above the law. Allstate believes that the public resourse of the Courts are its private (taxpayer funded) claims evaluation device. If a judge did not do what Allstate wanted, it ignored the judge.

This article, while reporting what I assume is good news, leaves some gaps. Allstate claims that it did not produce the documents because of its lawyer. "We thought our lawyer would handle it." Nonsense. Allstate's typical abusive litigation tactics finally caught up with them. After one year, Allstate had still not done as ordered, and did not produce the doucments. The matter settled on confidential terms, meaning that the plaintiff was so economically beaten down at that point, his grievance could not be heard in public.

Medical Errors Cause the Equivalent of 98,000 Deaths a Year

dtompkins@lewisandtompkins.com — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:00:00 EST

Follow this link to a fairly heartbreaking article about a parent who lost his child due to medical errors.

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080619/LIFE/806190301

Keep in mind, 98,000 people a year is the equivalent of a major plane crash happening every single day.

How Does Your Medical Insurance Company Rate?

tom@fosterwebmarketing.com — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:00:00 EST

In case you were wondering, insurance companies also deny claims for doctors as well.

The AMA has just put out a report card for every major health insurance company, grading them on how long it takes for them to pay what they owe to doctors.

Follow this link to see how your insurance company rates.

Careful with those 15 passenger vans

tom@fosterwebmarketing.com — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 08:00:00 EST

With gas being as expensive as it is, you would think that less people would be driving this summer. But regardless of price, summer is the time for vacations and driving and sponsored trips.

The NHTSA has released a study showing that those 15 passenger vans used by churches and boyscout troops can roll over pretty easily.

Follow the link below for more information.

New Study Shows Seatbelt Use In Decline Among Teens

tom@fosterwebmarketing.com — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 08:00:00 EST

The Department of Transportation recently released a study showing that teens arent wearing their safety belts when they arent supervised.

Predictably, the number of teens involved in fatal accidents who arent wearing their seatbelts is alarmingly high.

Follow the link for more information, and take the time to make it clear to your teenage driver that wearing a seatbelt is not optional.

Don't skimp on you car insurance

dtompkins@lewisandtompkins.com — Tue, 27 May 2008 08:00:00 EST

Most people when purchasing automobile insurance, are concerned only with saving money on their premiums. Most people are buying insurance merely because they have to get insurance to get their tag turn on their vehicle. Unfortunately, most people do not appreciate the important role that insurance has been protecting them and their an automobile accident.

Car accidents are exactly that, accidents. No one wants to be involved in a car accident.

Here are some coverages that most people cut in order to save money on their premiums. The most frequently cut coverages are:

Personal injury protection.
Underinsured motorist coverage.
Collision

Once someone is involved in an accident, they discover the need for having these coverages. What many people do not realize is that fully 40% of all the vehicles on the road and the District of Columbia have no insurance. This is surprising to those people, particularly those people who are responsible and carry the required insurance coverages. When involved in an accident with no insurance, if you don't carry those coverages themselves, people are left with no realistic way to recover for medical expenses.

Here is an example:

A client came to our office, upset, because their car had been damaged. The prior client's vehicle had been hit on the street by a vehicle that fled and did not leave any information behind. The client asked us to help. Here's the problem: the client waived their collision coverage! The adjuster told the client that , "You don't have collision, so we do not have to fix your car." If only the client had bought collision coverage!

Fret not for our client, however! We did get their car fixed - but through the client's uninsured motorist coverage (required to be provided in DC). However, the adjuster did not tell the client (misled - really) that the car could be fixed through uninsured motorist coverages. Once the client called us, the car was fixed in a week with only a $200.00 deductible.

Good thing they knew Lewis & Tompkins!

Automatic Safety Recall Notifications From NHTSA

dtompkins@lewisandtompkins.com — Thu, 01 May 2008 08:00:00 EST

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is providing automatic updates via e-mail or text messaging.

Whenever there is a safety recall involving tires or child safety seats, subscribers will recieve information in their e-mail accounts or PDA's.

We think signing up for this service would be a good idea, particularly if you have small children.

Is it OK to fine a whistleblower?

tom@fosterwebmarketing.com — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

State Farm seems to think so.

They want a judge to sanction the Rigsby sisters, who are two ex-State Farm employees who made very incriminating documents public.

New Law Requires Insurance Companies in Maryland to Act in Good Faith

stompkins@lewisandtompkins.com — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 08:00:00 EST

Under a newly enacted statute, insurance companies must act in "good faith" in dealing with property and casualty (car accident) claims. "Good faith" is "an informed judgment based on honesty and diligence supported by evidence the insured know or should have known at the time the insurer made a decision on a claim."

Insurance Companies have a duty:

*To promptly investigate your claim

*Communicate regularly with you regarding the status of your claim

*Promplty pay you any undisputed portion of claim

*Provide a prompt and reasonable explanation of any claim denial or offer compromise settlement.

Maryland has now joined more than thirty States in extending first-party bad faith recovery to those injured in car accidents as well as those that have sustained damage to their property (automobile and home).

Over time, Insurance companies will be less likely to require plaintiffs to go through a trial to recover the money they deserve in the first place.

So what do you do when an insurance company does not act in good faith?

Before this new law, insureds had no real recourse against their Insurance Company when their property damage claims were not handled in "good faith". When your recovery was limited to the damage to your vehicle, most people couldn't affort to hire an attorney to represent them. Under the new law, attorneys can recover their attorney fees (up to one-third of the actual damages) as well as the expense of hiring experts and other costs if an insurance company is not acting in good faith.

For the past several years, Insurance Companies such as Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund (MAIF), State Farm Insurance Company, GEICO (Government Employee Insurance Company) Traveler?s Insurance Company, Allstate Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and others, have hired companies such as CORVEL to "audit" their insured?s medical bills for "reasonable and necessary" charges. Medical bills that are owed by an injured person were not being paid fairly by their insurance company under the Personal Injury Protection (PIP).

Here's an example from our firm: My client received a bill for $194.00 from the emergency room physician. His insurance company, GEICO refused to pay more than $70.20 of that bill leaving my client to pay $123.80. He has insurance, but they are simply refusing to pay, and leaving my client with the bill. But that's only one bill, other bills for this client include a bill for chiropractic treatment and doctors visits for which $804.90 was denied payment by GEICO. These unreasonable and unnecessary cuts in payment of medical bills harm the injured person -- the person who paid the premiums every six months!

This also hurts the medical providers, because they are not getting paid. My client is out of work and can't pay this bill. GEICO is responsible for this bill, but is shirking its responsibility. If the rest of the medical bill goes unpaid, the medical providers will send the bill to collections which affects the me client's credit and may result in a judgment against my client. With this law, attorneys can hold insurance companies responsible when they do not act in good faith.

Allstate Insurance Practices

stompkins@lewisandtompkins.com — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:00:00 EST

How important is profit making to Allstate? Important enough for Allstate to hire a consulting firm, McKinsey & Co, to re-design their policies, methods and claims procedures that set up a claims payment system that shortchanges injured victims in automobile claims while earning big profits. The McKinsey documents, about 12,500 pages, is the Allstate Bible on how to amass large profits at the expense of its own policyholders.

How important is it to Allstate to hide their bad faith claims practices? Important enough to pay $25,000 a day in contempt charges for refusing to provide these records under Court subpoena in Missouri. That fine is now over $ 3 million and growing.

That is why the Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty has suspended the authority of Allstate to sell new auto insurance policies in the State of Florida. The sanction is due to the fact that Allstate is refusing to provide records to the Insurance Commissioner. McCarty stated, "If Allstate is willing to pay $25,000 per day in fines to a Missouri Court for its ongoing failure to provide similar documents, it?s obvious to me that it will take more than a monetary sanction to get them to comply with our subpoena."

If Allstate simply paid their policyholders in Uninsured Motorist Bodily Injury and Uninsured Motorist Property Damage cases, as they promise, there would be no need for the strategies and procedures that are outlined in the McKinsey documents.

The reposts show Allstate would sve $700 million (and boost shareholder value) by delaying and denying policy-holder claims -- for any reason or no reason. Allstate should be like and alligator, the McKinsey reports state. Allstate should "sit and wait" in the hope of frustrating claimants so they would accept less or simply give up their claims and go away. If they don't, attack and drag them under. How's that for "good hands?"

If you or the driver of the vehicle involved in your car accident have Allstate, you are NOT in good hands. Hire an attorney immediately to protect your rights and get you the compensation you deserve.

Attention Taxi Drivers Who Live in Maryland

stompkins@lewisandtompkins.com — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:00:00 EST

The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled in Nasseri v. Geico that Taxi-Cab drivers are eligible for Maryland PIP on their own vehicles when involved in an automobile accident. In Nasseri, the plaintiff taxicab driver collided with another vehicle in Montgomery County. In Maryland taxicabs are not required to maintain the minimum PIP coverage on cabs. In the District Of Columbia, PIP coverages are not offered to taxicab drivers. The Court ruled that GEICO?s policy exclusion was not permitted by Section 19-505 of the Insurance article of the Maryland Code and thus was invalid and unenforceable.

What you need to know:
1) If you are a taxicab driver and you live in Maryland, and
2) you are involved in an automobile collision in Maryland, the District of Columbia or Virginia, and
3) you own a vehicle that has insurance, or
4) you do not own a vehicle but live with a relative that owns a vehicle that has an insurance, then
You are eligible for PIP coverages for injuries sustained in the accident. PIP will pay 85% of your lost wages and all of your medical bills up to the policy limit. The minimal policy limit for Maryland PIP is $2,500.00.

Serious car accident on I-270

stompkins@lewisandtompkins.com — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 08:00:00 EST

A trash hauling truck struck a passenger vehicle on I-270. The two occupants of the vehicle, a man and a woman, were pinned under the back two wheels of the tractor trailor.

While they survived, both passengers of the vehicle sustained serious personal injuries, including neck and back injuries. There were taken by amublance to the hospital. In Montgomery County, Maryland, these victims will probably need the assistance of an experienced personal injury attorney, like us, to assist them when the trucking company says they were not hurt when the truck landed on top of them!

Not even the lizard can help this kid.

tom@fosterwebmarketing.com — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:00:00 EST

A Canadian teenager with a horrible driving record just got his insurance bill.

Now he has to ask his parents for a six figure increase in his allowance.

For more information, follow the link below.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=9d92d4fe-1c61-4364-ac54-b61e31a34e50&k=47030

Two Washington D.C. Area Students Shot In Delaware State School Shooting

tom@fosterwebmarketing.com — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 08:00:00 EST

Coming on the all to familiar heels of the Virginia Tech shooting, the Delaware State incident brings college campus security problems back in the public light. The two students shot in this incident, one male and one female, both have ties to the Washington D.C. area.

Perhaps these two students should have chosen to go to Georgetown, George Washington, or George Mason. In any event, the tragic event has sent shock waves throughout the Delaware community and brought national attention to the question of what is happening on our college campuses.

Many of us have been to college or at least visited college campus. How can a place of higher learning, usually so quaint and innocent, become the ground zero for some maniac? It looks like admission committees will be looking for red flags more closely when admitting students.

Any thoughts?

Larry

Taxi Meters Still on Mayor Fenty's Agenda

dtompkins@lewisandtompkins.com — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:00:00 EST

A new study has shown that taxi meters are basically a wash for cab drivers in DC, with shorter downtown runs having lower fares, and longer, cross town runs having higher fares.

Mayor Fenty and the D.C. Taxi Commission have to make a decision now, whether to stand up to Congress and defy the "meter mandate" or to stick up for the many small businessmen who drive us around the city all the time.

It seems that poor people, taxi drivers and the elderly all seem to favor the set fare zone system -- with no increased fares for traffic or detours. It also seems that rich, downtown Hill/Lawyer/Lobbyist/Corporate wonks want to save fifty cents on each fare.

Our office has represented cab drivers for nearly fifty years now, and we have seen the meter issue come and go repeatedly. Now it seems it may actually happen.

Insurance Company Tactics That Cost Us All

dtompkins@lewisandtompkins.com — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 08:00:00 EST

Yesterday, I got a visit from a former client of Harry Lewis. By former, I mean thirty years ago! This gentleman was a nice guy, not very intelligent, worked hard, but struggled to keep things together.

This gentleman had been hit riding his bicyle to work by a Nationwide insured driver. The client went over the handlebars and smashed his face into the pavement. He was wearing a helmet, but it did not help him.

The client went to the emergency room, was x-rayed and released with advice to follow up with an orthopaedist. He was pretty banged up, and probably had a fractured scapula.

The next day, he got a call from a "helpful" Nationwide adjuster, who told him he would take care of him, get him a new bike ($150.00), and pay him $3,000.00 for his trouble. The client was taken in by the "nice" and "helpful" adjuster and, long story short, accepted $3,000.00 and signed a general release. He was told that would take care of everything.

Here's the problem: The client has no health insurance (not that it matters, health insurance and Medicaid/Medicare will subrogate) and has, from the hospital, over $3,000.00 in medical bills. When our client got the bill a few days later, he panicked and sent the entire $3,000.00 to the hospital.

Now what? This guy has no insurance, needs more treatment, and still has bills to pay. He's missing lots of work. His rent is behind now.

He comes to see me.

I tell him, "you've got 14 days to rescind the release, but you have to pay the $3,000.00 back." "I don't have it, the hospital does," he tells me. This man does not have $3,000.00 laying around in a bank account. He can't reach his "home equity line of credit" for the money, the guy is what politicians would call the "working poor." Now the hospital balance won't get paid either, probably.

Nationwide, in this case, did a good job for its admittedly negligent driver. It got a release for $3,000.00. It pays no more. But that does not mean reality has changed. My client will need more medical treatment, and who will pay? My client? It is not his fault some idiot didn't stop at a stop sign. Medicare? Why should taxpayers subsidize Nationwide?

The behavior of Nationwide fits the insurance company/Republican rationalization. They want everyone to believe there is a level playing field. They want everyone to beleive that everyone is a rational actor, and everyone has the same educational level, experience, and training. That is not reality. What happened to this client: a sophisticated/trained insurance adjuster convinced an uneducated, unsophisticated victim, who is hurt and needing substantial medical care, to accept $3,000.00 to pay for medical expenses, lost wages and other damages. Oh, and $150.00 for a new bike. This adjuster made my client think he was being taken care of, when in reality he was being taken advantage of by the insurance industry.

Now, my client, because he signed away his rights, will have to struggle to get back to normal. He'll probably miss some rent payments, miss paying some doctors, and get some unemployment. Look who else is losing out -- a landlord, a doctor, and some taxpayers. All because Nationwide wants a quick, cheap out for its insured, rather than stepping up and paying for the damage done.

The Republican/insurance industry apologists will blame my client. "It's his fault for not looking out for himself," they will say. Well, Katrina taught us how quickly we can all be at the mercy of the insurance industry, including the Republican/insurance industrym apologists themselves.

D.C. Solicitation Bill Gets Enforcement

dtompkins@lewisandtompkins.com — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:00:00 EST

In 2006, the D.C. Council passed legislation making it a crime for anyone to solicit business for lawyers or medical providers. This bill was aimed at so-called "runners" who would call or visit car accident victims, medical malpractice victims, or other other negligence victims and market for attorneys. These runners were paid to refer cases to lawyers.

The entire system was a little seedy. The City Council heard testimony that some runners were very aggressive and engage in really questionable conduct.

The DC Dept of Insurance is now actively investigating lawyers who are contacting by phone or in person, people who have recently been in accidents. Several specific complaints are currently under active investigation. And they are looking for more cases to bring, which will be referred to the U.S. Attorney?s Office for prosecution.

If you have been called by a runner, you can report the behavior to the D.C. Government here:http://www.disb.dc.gov/disr/cwp/view,a,1299,q,632362.asp.

I have my issues with this legislation. First, the D.C. Bar is a branch of the D.C. Judiciary, and is governed by the D.C. Court of Appeals. Last year, the D.C. Court of Appeals amended the Rules of Professional Conduct to punish the lawyers that use runners. As a self regulating profession, I believe this is the way to handle things. The D.C. Home Rule Act does not allow the D.C. Council to manipulate or regulate how the Courts or Attorneys govern themselves professionally.

Second, I don't like runners. They are scum. They use really nasty tactics to get clients, like bad-mouthing other lawyers (slander, really), making false promises regarding the merits of cases, and just about anything to get the prospective client to sign with the "runner's lawyer." Most of these runners would like to think of themselves as attorneys, but they give incorrect legal advice frequently. These runners are not regulated in any way. The way to handle this is to cut off the ability for lawyers to pay for referrals, which is exactly what the D.C. Court of Appeals did.

Lastly, the proponents of this bill are two -- the insurance industry, who cried to the D.C. Council that they have to pay claims; and the big money, big advertising firms, who spend a fortune to have ads on cable TV during the day and placards on the tops of taxicabs in D.C. This is simply an anti-competitive issue for these groups, and the D.C. Council took their money and did their bidding.

So, for now, report all runners that call, and let's see if we can put an end to this practice.

Most Medical Malpractice Claims Close With NO Payment to Victims

dtompkins@lewisandtompkins.com — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:00:00 EST

A study by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics found that the majority of medical malpractice claims were closed without payment to those claiming injuries. The study assessed claims from seven states identified as having comprehensive medical malpractice insurance claims databases. In the states of ME, MO and NV, only one-third of the malpractice claims closed resulted in a payout.

You can read the article in the Insurance Journal here: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2007/03/26/78097.htm

As always, doctors want to cry that paying malpractice claims are driving them "out of state" or out of business. Yet, the Insurance Industry, and George W. Bush's Justice Department (now featuring only crony Attorney Generals) have found the facts don't back up their insurance industry propoganda.

Remember these facts when politicians want to take away your rights, even if you don't think you will need them. The so-called crisis is false. Doctors and insurance companies are making more money than EVER. Don't give up your rights just to make them more rich and you less free.

Taxi Cab Meters Coming?

dtompkins@lewisandtompkins.com — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:00:00 EST

It appears that Congress, in its paternalistic view, now has an opinion as to how the District of Columbia should handle its taxi cabs. According to NBC 4, Congress has passed a law that will require metered taxi cabs, and abolition of the zone system, within one year.

Lewis & Tompkins, PC has long represented taxi drivers both in personal injury matters and before the D.C. City Council on matters relating to taxi cab business and insurance.

While we do not have a strong opinion on whether taxis should have meters or use the zone system. What concerns us is the very vibrant, dynamic and entrepreneural spirit that makes D.C. taxi drivers unique in America. Most taxi drivers are independent owner/operators. Most taxi drivers are self employed. Many taxi drivers work other jobs and supplement their income by hacking.

We worry that making meters required will drive many of these part-time or self-employed drivers out of work. Meters are expensive, and expensive to maintain. Most part time drivers can not afford a large capital expense to install a meter.

We also worry that meters may lead to the consolidation of all taxi cabs into large, undemocratic corporations to the detriment of the taxi drivers. It would be a shame to make a unique and exciting part of the city just another part of corporate America, making self-employed entrepreneurs just another wage-slave.

We also resent the attitude of Congress when it imposes these very imposing their federal priorities on what is a very local issue. The D.C. Council has been looking at issues relating to taxi cabs more often, and have heard from their consitiuents, something Congress refuses to do on this issue. There were no committee hearings on how this "attachment" to an appropriations bill would affect our independent operator cab drivers in the District. Frankly, Congress does not care. Congressional representatives are all commuters, not residents who must live with the consequences of this type of legislation.

Courts Should Use Technology More

dtompkins@lewisandtompkins.com — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 08:00:00 EST

In a recent web-news article, criticism has been leveled against D.C. Superior Court's new electronic case management system. Our firm uses technology to manage its cases, and we believe that everyone, including the Courts, should as well.

Our site has links to the electronic case mananagement systems we frequently are required to use. My experience as a litigator is that these electronic case management systems are excellent. While learning anything new can be a little frustrating, the ability to electronically file documents with the court, as well as check the date and time of the filing, is very helpful.

Electronic filing simply requires an attorney, rather than photocopy and mail or deliver a document to the court, to scan a document and upload that document to the court. This saves a tremendous amount of time and money. No more paper copies, no more postage, no more courier fees, and no more waiting in line at the clerk's office.

Electronic filing also allows for easier searching of a court docket entry for missing filings. Don't believe that lawyer filed that motion? Go to the docket and find out. You don't have to make a special trip to the clerk's office, wait for the clerk to look around for the file, and then flip pages to find the entry.

I commend D.C. Superior Court for looking to the future and pushing electronic filing.

Myth of Excessive Jury Awards

dtompkins@lewisandtompkins.com — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 08:00:00 EST

WRONGLY BLAMES JURIES FOR EXCESSIVE AWARDS Here we go again, another misled op-ed columnist needs to fill column inches and goes for the easy out -- criticizing the legal system.

The editorial staff at the D.C. Examiner takes the odd event - a large jury award - to say "the system is broken" and then go on to advocate the "corporate interest line" that the best way to fix things are to limit your rights.

The editors seem to think it is wrong that a person can collect for damages caused by corporate malfeasance when they were not wearing their seatbelts, whether or not a seatbelt would have saved a person's life. The law in many places states that not wearing your seat-belt is not negligence. Perhaps not a good idea, but not negligence. So, instead of advocating for a change in the law to inform jurors of when a person is wearing a seatbelt (or not), they want to limit your ability to pay for your damages. Do you see the difference? Instead of saying, "the solution to the problem is to give jurys more information" the corporate world says, "limit the jury's ability to do its job of finding damages." This is a BIG difference, and states their priorities.

For the cases they cite, the decedents were all young heads of household. Who is going to pay for the losses to those families. If the corporate wrong-doer does not pay, who does? The victim pays, but so do taxpayers in the form of welfare, healthcare costs, and so on. Why do corporate wrong-doers deserve such a tax subsidy? Because they pay lobbyists to bribe your congressmen or bully editors at local newspapers to write these obnoxious, ill-informed essays.

The same people who fight tooth-and-nail to execute criminals as fast as possible, and trust juries to set that punishment, complain that juries are not capable of making a rational decision after hearing evidence of the impact a death or seriously disabling injury can have on a family. Those same people don't trust a jury to decide how much a person's life is worth, and how much it will cost to replace that life. Those same people also forget that the law provides for a mechanism to reduce damage awards that are excessive. I guess the judge on the case is also incapable of making an informed decision? Who is? The editors at the Examiner?

Fraternity and Sorority Deaths Continue to Plague Colleges in America

dtompkins@lewisandtompkins.com — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 08:00:00 EST

As a college student, I was a member of the Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity at Northeast Missouri State University. Our chapter, at the time I joined was new, small and struggling. We did had an idea: What if we did the fraternity-thing differently?

We changed how a fraternity worked. We never hazed our new members, we focused on academics, and pushed our members to be active on campus, campus government, campus media, athletics, etc. We got rid of fraternity provided alcohol.

What happened to our chapter? It grew three-fold. We had the highest organization GPA for three years. Our members were the president of the student activities bureau, the editor of the school newspaper, the dj's on the school radio -- and the football team place-kicker.

Why did I choose this topic to write about this week? Because I read another tragic story about a life lost at a fraternity house attributed to alcohol abuse and hazing. This under-21 student, at his social fraternity house, drank entirely too much alcohol and died. I wish there was a more heroic element to this story, but there isn't. This wasn't an accident. The "game" is to get the pledges as drunk as possible as fast as possible.

Hazing deaths, to me, are very tragic. Pledges want to fit in, upperclassmen want to entertain themselves, alcohol and drugs are being experimented with, and someone dies. The "someone" is always someone's child, someone's best friend, someone's brother or sister. The "someone" is always a bright, ambitious college student -- one of America's future leaders.

In college, I tried to change the hazing/fraternity system from the inside. Working with the administration of my college, I worked to get "keg parties" banned so that fraternities were not providing alcohol to underage kids. I worked to abolish fraternity "little sister" organizations, which history and experience has shown leads to more alcohol problems and sexual abuse.

Now, I am a trial lawyer. Now I try to change the system another way. Those responsible for these tragic deaths will be held to account for their wrong doing. What hazing deaths are now treated as manslaughter. Good. It should. Forcing a kid to drink until he passes out and then "sleeps it off" in the trunk of a car causing his death is murder. The corporate organizations that employ hundreds of people have an interest in keeping the "alumni" donating money. These organization profess to limit alcohol in their chapters, but are shocked to learn that drinking occurrs at fraternity parties.

I will continue to pursue those responsible for hazing deaths and serious injuries to account for their actions. It is possible to live up to fraternal ideals. These organizations simply need to be encouraged to do so.

Uninsured Motorist Coverages for Taxicabs in the District of Columbia

stompkins@lewisandtompkins.com — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 08:00:00 EST

Did you know that the taxi you get into every day in the District of Columbia has less insurance than any other car on the road? Its true. Our firm represents many taxicab drivers who have been injured on the road by the negligence of other motorists. Unfortunately, taxicabs cannot carry the basic insurance coverages necessary to protect their occupants from financial harm.

Somehow, years ago, the D.C. Government allowed a loophole to let taxicabs carry substantially less insurance than any other car on the road.

Every private car in that drives in the District of Columbia must carry a minimum of $25,000 in liability insurance for each person, $50,000 in coverage per accident. That liability insurance must also cover accidents caused by uninsured motorists. In D.C., forty percent of the vehicles on the road do not have insurance! Because of that, the D.C. Law requires each vehicle to carry uninsured motorist coverages. (see our Frequently Asked Question about Uninsured Motorist Coverages.)

Taxicabs cannot carry uninsured motorist coverages. Why? Good question. There is absolutely no defensible reason why taxicabs should carry less insurance than any other car on the road. The only insurance companies that sell taxicab insurance do not provide uninsured motorist coverages, which means that it is not even available in D.C. Taxicabs also cannot carry medical expense coverages or Personal Injury Protection.

I have been working with the D.C. Government to fix this situation. I intend to make taxicab coverages mirror at least what other cars must carry. With some help from the D.C. Council, the District Insurance Commissioner and the Taxicab Commission, I hope to help protect taxicab drivers and the general public from this loophole in the law that makes taxicabs carry less insurance than other cars.