What The Geico Lizard Or Cavemen Won't Tell You About Their Auto Insurance Policy

Reason no. 257 why your auto insurance is lousy and won't protect you, courtesy of a recent Ohio case. Here's the facts: son is driving and Dad is the passenger. Son's negligence causes an auto accident; unfortunately son is killed and Dad is seriously injured.

Dad had a full coverage auto policy through Geico. Some policies provide liability coverage for injuries when one family member negligently operates a car which causes injuries to a fellow family member. Not Geico's: a fine print EXCLUSION did not allow Dad to make a claim under the liability coverage.

Dad also paid a separate premuim for "Uninsured/Underinsured motorists("UM/UIM") coverage" through Geico. Some policies will allow an injured family member to recover for their injuries caused by another family member's driving negligence even if there is no coverage under the liability portion of the policy. Not Geico's. You guessed it: another EXCLUSION in the policy prohibited any family member from making a claim under the UM/UIM portion of the policy when injured by another family member.

Bottom line: Dad paid for "full coverage" for his family, was seriously injured through no fault of his own, and has no coverage. All courtesy of a 2001 law, passed by The Ohio Legislature, and lobbied for by the insurance industry. This law basically allows insurance companies to write ANY EXCLUSION it wants, and it is perfectly legal. Borderline fraudulent, but legal.

Here's the problem: you're never told when you buy insurance whether these restrictions and exclusions exist, and under what circumstances you'll be covered. You only find out how truly crappy your policy is after a tragedy. So much for your full coverage auto policy. It's one of the many reasons we wrote: "How To Buy Car Insurance In Ohio To Protect Your Family." It will guide you through the maze of how to properly buy car insurance and will protect you BEFORE you ever need to use your insurance. It's FREE to all Ohioans. Just e-mail us at info@n-wlaw.com or call us at 330-452-8831 and it's yours.

True, the lizard and cavemen ads are funny. But there's nothing funny about paying hundreds or thousands for car insurance that turns out to be worthless.

Ohio Lemon Law: What’s Covered and What Isn’t

I was recently contacted by colleague Sergei Lemberg, an outstanding lemon law attorney [link: http://www.lemonjustice.com]to share a post on my blog, and I'm happy to oblige. Below he discusses what you need to know about new car lemons...

With all of the cars, SUVs, trucks, motorcycles, and RVs being manufactured in the U.S. and abroad, it’s reasonable to expect that some will have defects. After all, vehicles are incredibly complex pieces of machinery and a lot of things can go wrong. In the best-case scenario, any defects that weren’t caught by quality assurance are quickly repaired by the dealer. In the worst-case scenario, you have a vehicle with pronounced defects that make it run poorly, that constitute a safety hazard, or that reduces its value – and the dealer or manufacturer refuse to buy back or replace it.

When that happens, Ohio lemon law can come to the rescue. Ohio lemon law covers new passenger vehicles, SUVs, vans, trucks, and motorcycles that are purchased or leased in Ohio. The motorized portions of RVs are also covered, as are used cars that are purchased within one year or 18,000 miles of delivery to the original owner.

Although it doesn’t cover minor defects (like a non-working stereo system), the lemon law does force the manufacturer to stand by its product. In order for the lemon law to apply to new vehicles, the defects have to occur during the first year from the delivery date or the first 12,000 miles on the odometer – whichever comes first. In addition, the vehicle must have been taken in one time for a problem that could cause serious injury or death or eight times for different problems. Alternately, the vehicle can have been out of service for a cumulative total of 30 calendar days. In addition, you have to notify the manufacturer in writing of the defect within one year from the delivery date or the first 18,000 miles (whichever comes first).

If you think you have a lemon, you have to take part in the manufacturer’s dispute resolution process (if one exists) before going to court. Before you begin, though, you should have a lemon law lawyer by your side. After all, you can be sure that the manufacturer’s team of legal eagles will be there to fight your claim every step of the way. The good news is that, if your claim is successful, the manufacturer has to pay your attorney fees. Often, with the help of a lawyer, you can get a refund, replacement vehicle, or cash settlement without having to go through the entire lemon law process – and get your attorney’s fees covered in the process.

Whenever you buy a new or used vehicle, it’s important to know your rights. And, if you think your vehicle is a lemon, it pays to persevere to make the manufacturer stand by its product.

(visit our website at www.n-wlaw.com)

Robbery In Broad Daylight: Insurance Companies Win--- And You Lose (Again)

Do you remember the popular arcade game “Pac-Man,” the darting head with an opening mouth that scurried across the screen gobbling up everything in sight? A 2004 Ohio Supreme Court decision has granted your health insurance company “Pac-Man” status when it comes to your injury settlement. Believe it or not, your health insurer can literally confiscate 100% of your auto settlement in certain situations, even if it leaves you without a penny.

For example: You're hit by a drunk driver. Your shattered leg needed 3 surgeries, you missed 9 months of work, and you had $100,000 in bills paid by your health insurance. Buried in your health benefits booklet is a "subrogation” clause, which means this: “If you’re injured due to the fault of another, and we pay your bills, we get repaid out of any settlement you get.” Translated, “subrogation” means that your health insurance company has its reimbursement fingers in your settlement.

Until 2004, Ohio law used to prohibit health insurance companies from leapfrogging in front of you and getting reimbursed out of your auto settlement if you did not get full compensation for your injuries (after all, you’re the one who broke your leg and needed surgery, and you paid for your health insurance coverage to boot).

The 2004 Ohio Supreme Court case of Northern Buckeye v. Lawson changed all that. In that case, the injured person’s health insurance company had a fine print subrogation clause that basically said “even if you as the injured person/insured are not fully compensated for all of your injuries, we still have first priority for reimbursement over any settlement you obtain.”

The Supreme Court of Ohio (in a 4-3 decision) ruled that the insurance company was entitled to leap over (and step on)the injured person and recover every penny of bills it pays, even if it leaves the injured person with little or no recovery. After this decision, your health insurer can now legally confiscate your entire settlement pie in certain situations. The Court’s reasoning? “Hey, it’s a contract.” As long as the insurance company spells out in the contract that it can stand first in line and take every penny of your auto injury settlement, it can. That’s right – you purchased health insurance, paid your premiums, weeks later got your policy in the mail with all these one-sided clauses that take away your rights– and you “bargained” for this contract, according to four members of the Ohio Supreme Court! It is laughable to suggest that all the fine print and exclusions in an insurance contract are "bargined for" by the consumer.

This is one of the worst decisions in years, because it makes an injured person nothing more than a collection agent from one insurance company to another. And now it is the law of Ohio. As King Louis XVI said in Mel Brooks "History Of The World" movie, "It's good to be the king!" Only that was comedy. There's nothing funny about injured persons getting their settlements confiscated %100 by their insurance companies. I used to think that happened only in Russia. Heck, even the IRS doesn't take all of your income in taxes............

Stay tuned. More to come. Unfortunately.

(visit our website at www.n-wlaw.com)

Ohio School Immunity......And How Your Children Are Not Protected

Ohio schools are 100% immune from any liability if any school employee or volunteer molests your child at school, on the bus, a field trip, or anywhere on a school function. Don't believe it? Read on.

We recently argued a case in the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of two children who were harmed by a volunteer elementary school chess coach. Unfortunately, the Ohio Legislature has given legal immunity (meaning no liability) to schools for nearly every negligent act, even when schools drop the ball and negligently fail to perform background checks on personnel and volunteers who are given custody and control of schoolchildren. The volunteer chess coach in our case was a previously convicted child molester. The school did NO background check, criminal or otherwise. Believe it or not, the case was thrown out of the court because the molestations did not occur on school property, and therefore "legal immunity" applied.

We appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, and they agreed to hear the case. Our main argument was that it is ABSURD to interpret the law to require that the molestations occur on school property to remove the immunity when the school district took no measures to weed out a previously convicted child molester, and essentially allowed him to infiltrate an elementary school. We argued the case on April 23, 2008. You can watch the oral argument by clicking here. Below is the text of the newspaper article regarding the case........and after you read it I'll explain what happened......


Ohio Supreme Court Hears Massillon Arguments Is district liable for abuse on chess-club trip? Thursday, April 24, 2008 BY Paul E. Kostyu COLUMBUS

The chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court wondered if a Massillon case the court heard Wednesday wasn't better left to the Legislature. Justice Thomas J. Moyer interrupted Canton attorney Brian R. Wilson as he was arguing that the Massillon Board of Education should be held liable for the actions of a volunteer who oversaw a student chess club. "It seems this is a policy argument," Moyer said. "Maybe it cries out for a change in the law." At issue is Ohio's sovereign immunity law, which says a school district is not liable for injuries to students caused by the actions of a volunteer when an after-school activity occurs outside school property.

John Smith, an unpaid volunteer, ran a chess club for students at Franklin Elementary School for several years. During a spring break trip, Smith and a school guidance counselor took several students to an out-of-state tournament. Smith sexually assaulted two of the students, ages 9 and 10. After the assaults, officials discovered Smith had a prior felony conviction for sexually molesting young children. Wilson represents the children's parents as they sued the district alleging negligence for failure to investigate Smith's background and lack of supervision at his twice-weekly club meetings. A Stark County trial court ruled the district couldn't be sued. The 5th District Court of Appeals upheld that decision, sending the families' appeal to Ohio's top court.

"This is a shining example that no law is settled until it's settled right," Wilson told the court. "If the trial and appellate courts are upheld, school districts get blanket, 100 percent immunity when school personnel harm children as long as they are off school property. It's immunity by location." Wilson said a strict interpretation of the law about location would "create an absurd result." Nicole M. Donovsky, a Columbus attorney representing the Massillon district, said the issue centers on whether the injuries to the students occurred on school grounds, and it was clear that they did not. She also said the trip to the chess tournament was not sponsored by the school and did not involve school vehicles. And the law does not require school districts to obtain background checks of volunteers. "The language (of the law) is unambiguous," she said. "It has a plain and ordinary meaning."

In an exchange with Justice Paul E. Pfeifer about possible scenarios, Donovsky said location and how it is used becomes important. The law clearly applies to activity on school property, but she said the court has to look at the government function for off-sight activities. She said because the school did not sponsor the trip, it was not a government function. She said the Legislature has the "capability of limiting the reach of a public school district's liability." A decision by the court is expected within several months. (End of article)

******************* Now, the rest of the story...........On May 16, 2008, The Supreme Court dismissed the case without explanation. Case over-- with the stroke of a pen. By dismissing the case, they simply avoided deciding the issue--which means the school district was entitled to blanket immunity. So, the upshot is that the school district and its insurance company won, and these children lost. As if that's bad enough, here's the real kicker: as it stands right now, under CURRENT Ohio law, a school district has ABSOLUTELY NO LIABILITY OR LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY if a student is molested by a teacher, aide, cook, janitor, volunteer, or anybody else, even if the child is molested on school property,off the property, on a bus, or a field trip, for example. It gets worse: even if the school district fails to do a mandatory criminal background check on the offender, or even if it knows in fact that the employee is a pedophile and does nothing about it, or ignores or fails to investigate legitimate complaints, there is NO LIABILITY. Shocking? You bet.


How did this happen? In 2003, the insurance companies and school boards asked the Ohio Legislature for immunity from molestations in response to a 2002 Ohio Supreme Court decision known as Hubbard v. City of Canton. In that case, the Court ruled that the Canton City Schools could be sued for negligently retaining a teacher who molested two middle school students. Not pleased with this ruling, the Ohio School Boards Association, and the insurance industry, asked the Legislature to change the law and limit the schools' liability to "physical defects" on the premises (like a falling ceiling, for example). The Legislature agreed, and by changing the law to limit the schools' liability to "physical defects," it eliminated schools' liability for negligently hiring or not properly investigating school personnel who eventually harm schoolchildren. The conclusion? The insurance industry is a more powerful and persuasive lobby in Columbus than the idea of making schools accountable for failing to protect schoolchildren from sexual predators.

If this disturbs you, there's something you can do. Share this blog or what you've learned with as many people as you can, and then call or write me. I will let you know who voted for this nonsense, and maybe we can begin the process of changing it. I defy anyone to argue with a straight face that schools should not be accountable for failing to do their simple and mandatory due diligence to weed out the worst elements of society.

Finally, I do not wish to imply that I am being overly critical of teachers or schools. It goes without saying that almost all teachers are dedicated, caring, (and largely underpaid)professionals who have positively influenced more children than we can ever count. But the problem of offenders and children is a societal problem that transcends all professions, and we are frequently reminded in the newspapers about similar instances like this(in fact, since 2000, 85 Ohio teachers have had inappropriate sexual relations with students, according to a 2007 Columbus Dispatch article).

Almost all schools have a "zero tolerance" policy for fighting in schools. If your child is punched in school and fights back, he or she is suspended, even if he or she did not instigate the fight. Isn't it time schools instituted a similar policy for protecting children at school from malevolent adults, and shouldn't they be legally accountable when they drop the ball? And should we hold schools to the same stringent standards our children are held to when it comes to schools protecting our children from some of the worst elements of society? Think about it: your kid gets punched, defends himself, and is suspended for it. But if a school district takes no measures to protect your child from a child molester, who infiltrates the school and harms your child, the district gets a free pass, known as "immunity." It's head shaking to say the least.