Greensboro, NC (November 25, 2020) – Police confirmed that one person was charged for a fatal collision that took place on a Greensboro highway. Continue reading
Insurance policies are meant to provide us with support when some kind of injury or crisis happens. In some situations, however, claiming the insurance benefits that we are owed can become the most stressful part of putting our lives back together after an accident. The Raleigh car accident lawyers at Maurer Law understand how important it is for you to be treated fairly and to receive the benefits that you deserve when you deserve them. If you were injured in a car accident and have questions about insurance benefits or are involved in a dispute with an insurance company, contact us to learn more about how we can help you protect your rights.
In a recent case, the North Carolina Court of Appeal heard an appeal arising from an accident where a passenger suffered serious injuries in a car accident totaling $30,000 in medical costs. The driver’s insurance company paid him the per-person liability limit of $30,000. He then submitted a claim to his father’s insurer for underinsured motorist coverage. The insurer filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment from the court stating that the passenger was not entitled to benefits because he was not a resident of the father’s home pursuant to the terms of the policy. The trial court eventually ruled in favor of the insurance company, and the passenger appealed.
On review, the appellate court noted that the insurance policy in dispute was never actually admitted into evidence. The passenger even conceded that the auto policy was not admitted into evidence and offered no explanation for this oversight. Without the ability to review the entire document, the court was unable to make findings of whether it defined the term resident and whether the evidence presented proved that the passenger was a resident of his father’s household. Although there was one piece of the language quoted from the policy in the complaint, this was not enough to provide the court with an understanding of the contract and any key context from other language related to the quoted material.
While any type of motor vehicle accident is a tragedy, scooter accidents can lead to particularly dangerous outcomes because the scooter rider is so exposed to the elements. Scooters can also be harder to see than regular passenger vehicles, making it more likely that a car may hit one. If you were injured while riding your scooter or moped, then you may be eligible for financial recovery from the person who is responsible for causing the accident. The Raleigh car accident lawyers at Maurer Law have handled a wide variety of car accident cases and are prepared to help you pursue your potential claim.
Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal issued an opinion in a case involving a scooter accident. The plaintiff, as executor of the decedent’s estate, filed a claim against the Raleigh Police Department and the City of Raleigh alleging that an officer hit his scooter head-on. The officer was speeding in the westbound lane of a two-lane road while pursuing another driver who was also speeding. The decedent was traveling east-bound on the same road. Without using a turns signal, the decedent turned left into the officer’s driving lane. The vehicles collided head-on and killed the scooter driver and his passenger.
The lower court granted both defendant’s motions for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. This means that the plaintiff would not be able to refile the complaint again. The plaintiff appealed the lower court’s ruling on a variety of grounds. First, the plaintiff alleged that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the officer was grossly negligent in how he was operating his patrol car. Second, the plaintiff alleged that government tort immunity did not bar her claims because the officer acted recklessly. Finally, the plaintiff alleged that her claim for negligent training/supervision against the City should not have been dismissed because the City conceded that it trained patrol officers to engage in vehicle pursuits in the manner that the officer did here.