Michigan Injury Lawyers Blog

Perhaps it's because I am a Miami native who never even saw snow until my twenties. More likely it's because I once witnessed a Hummer spin out on the ice and slide into the ditch. Either way, I'm not ashamed to say it: When on the road, I fear Michigan's unpredictable winter weather.

Which is why I now by live this maxim: In icy conditions, 'the weather is my speed limit'. And ever since, to the annoyance of countless motorists unlucky enough to be locked in behind me on icy roads, I think nothing of puttering along at 20 miles per hour or less, even on the interstate. Now, not horn blasts, nor flashing high-beams nor even threatening and obscene hand gestures can dissuade me from my simple mission: To get there. Alive. In one piece.

Neither the Detroit Free Press nor the Traverse City Record Eagle newspapers commented on who was at fault in the personal injury accident which killed Jeffrey Zaslow, 53, a West Bloomfield author and Detroit Metro-based Wall Street Journal contributor.

Zaslow was married to Fox 2 Detroit TV news anchor Sherry Margolis. The couple had three daughters. Reports state only that Zaslow's vehicle slid on ice and collided with a truck. The site of the fatal crash was Antrim County, 160 miles northwest of Lansing.

But the blog isn't really concerned with fault in this case. The blog's only point is this: Slow down, Michigan.

Moreover, regardless of fault, even if the victim himself is ultimately deemed responsible for the crash, a little known automobile no-fault insurance statute entitles the victim's dependents to a substantial amount of money.

Sadly, however, the provision is frequently overlooked by the bereaved and distracted survivors. And even more frequently -- it's never even mentioned by the insurance carrier. Accordingly, the victims' dependents rarely receive their due.

That lapse is a result of two common assumptions: First, most people and even most lawyers are unaware that this benefit is available through the victim's own insurance policy, even if the victim is deemed to be at fault. Second: The average Joe is unaware that the insurance companies play by different rules than the rest of us. In fact, the insurance industry has cajoled our lawmakers in Lansing to pass a special law which slashes the amount of time that we have to submit the related and required application for benefits. Miss that deadline and the claim is barred forever.

And that is precisely why, even in a case where the injured party may himself be at fault, the survivors should not hesitate to contact a Southfield personal injury lawyer or a Detroit Metro insurance lawyer to ensure that their rights are fully protected.

Best Selling Metro Detroit Author Jeffrey Zaslow Killed In Car Crash, February 11, 2012, Detroit Free Press

No doubt the last thing on mail carrier Nancy Schafer's mind when she left her residence that morning and headed off to work, was winding up on an autopsy table at the Wayne County Medical Examiner's Office in Detroit.

Nonetheless, the mail carrier's fate was sealed as soon as she ascended the front porch of the Dundee residence where she was delivering the mail.

In a flash, the porch's concrete floor cracked, spilt and collapsed, plunging Ms. Schafer into the ancient root cellar below. Two 500 concrete slabs compressed her chest--causing death by suffocation.

Though a spokesman for the Postal Service called it a tragic, freak accident, we disagree. Rather, from the perspective of the personal injury lawyer, the fuse was clearly lit for all to see, and should have been observed by either the occupant, the residence owner or the landlord, as the case may be. As set forth below, however, in the courtroom, those warning signs may act as a double edged sword.

The accident raises several legal issues: Premises liability; injury victim status; negligence; damages, and; the right to sue the negligent person responsible for the accident.

While the Schafer family grieves, at this very moment, insurance defense lawyers are scrambling to torpedo or at least to minimize Nancy Schafer's wrongful death claim. And thanks to a Michigan Supreme Court viewed as 'accident victim unfriendly', the defense lawyers enter the field of battle well armed, in deed.

Ironically, the outcome of the Schafer family's all important negligence claim may well hinge on seemingly insignificant semantics.

Identifying the proper defendant can be a challenge in the typical defective premises case. Through a somewhat counter-intuitive court decision, the Michigan Supreme Court in Orel v Uni-Raw Sales, held that, generally, the key to responsibility in a defective premises case is possession and control. Accordingly, a claim against a mere, hands-off owner, will not stand up in court.

An exception to that rule is a landlord's statutory duty to maintain premises in reasonable repair and in accordance with Michigan health and safety laws, See: MCL 554.139(1)(a) and (b).

In the case of Swartz v Huffmaster Alarm Systems, the Michigan Court of Appeals confirmed that the building occupant's duty depends on the injured party's legal status. Broadly speaking, those categories include invitee, licensee or trespasser. It is the purpose of the visit that defines the injury victim's status.

Under former Michigan case law, if the purpose of the victim's presence on the premises was to benefit the premises occupant, the injury victim was deemed an invitee. Thus, the occupant would owe that visitor a heightened duty of care. Social visitors, on the other hand, were classified as licensees, and were covered by a lower level of care.

In the case of Stitt v Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, however, the Michigan Supreme Court deviated from the age-old general rule and held that invitee status depended on whether the premises were held open for a commercial purpose. Henceforth, the higher status would turn on whether the visit might confer a pecuniary gain on the premises occupant.

In contrast, a licensee is a person on the premises for a non-business purpose. Another element of licensee status is permissive presence, express or implied. Moreover, permission to enter may arise by acquiescence.

The duty owed to invitees includes: Maintenance of the premises in a reasonably safe condition; Warning invitees of known, latent dangers, and; Reasonable inspection of the premises to discover latent, dangerous building conditions.

The Michigan Supreme Court has held, however, that, even with respect to invitees, the possessor of the structure owes no duty to protect from patent defects. That is known as the Open and Obvious Doctrine. That said, once again, an exception to the open and obvious doctrine is landlord's statutory duty to maintain premises in a safe condition.

Another exception to the open and obvious doctrine vis á vis invitees is special circumstances. An example of special circumstances trumping the open and obvious doctrine would be a situation where the injury victim had no alternative but to traverse the patently dangerous defect.

Finally, the general rule is that the landowner owes no duty to a trespasser. Though the term "trespasser" holds negative connotations, in fact, a trespasser is nothing more than a person on the premises without any permission (non-applicable exceptions exist).

Reportedly, the porch which caused Ms. Schafer's death had patently visible cracking and other clearly visible evidence of possible weakening. Doubtless the insurance defense lawyers will latch on to those facts and argue that they amounted to patent defects with no special circumstances requiring Ms. Schafer to ascend the porch.

An experienced Southfield personal injury lawyer, however, is certain to argue that the ultimate danger was that the porch was perched over a 10 foot hole in the ground, with insufficient interior, underlying support. Hence, the exterior cracks around the porch were not indicative of the real danger.

We predict, therefore, that, even if the insurance defense lawyers succeed in categorizing the injury victim as a mere licensee, the corresponding downgraded standard of care will not win the day, and the Schafer family will obtain at least a measure of justice to compensate them for their loss.

Michigan Letter Carrier Dies After Porch Collapses, The Detroit Free Press, March 9, 2011

Yesterday's sate-wide ice storm turned deadly in the Niles area. Ambrosia Foreman and her son--Camden John Foreman, age 3--were riding in Foreman's van when their vehicle slid on ice and collided nearly head-on into an oncoming truck.

Snowplow driver Stephen Axline, of Edwardsburg, was uninjured.

State Police used West Michigan media reports of the event to emphasize the importance of winter driving tactics. Abundant accumulations of snow, followed by warming temperatures and then by freezing temperatures can turn a road into an ice skating rink. Drive accordingly, warned the police: Slow down; Begin trips earlier, and; Stay farther back from the vehicle ahead.

Other considerations come into play after the fact. Those include the insurance benefits due and owing to the surviving family members. At a time like this, however, survivor's loss benefits and other forms of compensation are the last thing on the Foreman family's agenda.

Another common reason for inaction in cases like this is the assumption that compensation for injuries is unavailable, where the negligent driver was the injured passenger's parent. In fact, that is rarely an impediment to a monetary settlement.

Ready or not, however, the clock is ticking, thanks to laws passed by insurance industry-friendly legislators in Lansing. Accordingly, injury victims' rights expire with the passage of time. And once that bell has rung, it cannot be un-rung.

On top of those hurdles, the Foreman family is facing a behind-the-scenes army of insurance lawyers. Their mission? To legally sink or minimize the Foreman family's claims.

Which is precisely where the skills of an experienced Grand Rapids truck accident lawyer become indispensable.

Woman Dies In Niles Accident, WNDU 16 News, February 22, 2011

We are frequently asked why a driver would flee the scene after striking a pedestrian on a busy city street--where there are sure to be witnesses. Our reflexive response is almost always: "Drunk driving".

And in the case of Vincent Thomas Alvaro (at left), 76, of Oakland Township, the evidence certainly seems to bear that out.

Mr. Alvaro was carrying load of wood flooring on his truck, when a sheet of the material dislodged and flew into the roadway. As Mr. Alvaro was retrieving the flooring, he was struck by an oncoming pick-up truck and killed. The driver fled the scene at a high rate of speed.

A lifelong Michigander, Mr. Alvaro was born in Detroit and raised in Birmingham and Royal Oak.

Because the incident happened in broad daylight and in full view of the motoring public, the standard excuse--"I thought I hit a deer"--will be completely untenable. Other clues pointing to drunk driving include the fact that striking a pedestrian who suddenly and unexpectedly darts out into the path of the driver's car is not necessarily a crime. Drunk driving, however, is always a criminal offense.

In the panicked mind of the fleeing drunk driver, the question isn't whether he will be apprehended, but when he will be apprehended. That is because what he desperately needs is time. Time to sober up before dealing with the police.

It was a tip that led Troy police to a truck matching description of the suspect vehicle.The truck is registered to a Sterling Heights man.The damage appeared to be consistent with the accident. But if police conclusively link the watchband that they found tangled in the windshield wiper to Mr. Alvaro, it is that item of evidence that will seal the negligent driver's fate.

All of which leaves the Alvaro family with little more than an empty chair at the dinner table and a personal injury claim against the truck driver and possibly others.

Casting a wide net and implicating all possible liable parties is the personal injury lawyer's top priority for obvious reasons. If the decedent's wife, Jeannette Alvaro, was financially dependent on her husband, the sudden income loss could mean financial ruin. If the negligent driver lacked insurance or carried only minimal coverage, Mrs. Alvaro may never receive adequate compensation.

Under a legal doctrine called vicarious liability, certain non-drivers may be financially liable for losses resulting from the Auburn Hills area fatal truck accident, as well. The owner liability statute, for example, provides that the title owner of a vehicle is responsible for the negligence of a permissive driver. Moreover, the negligence of a worker in the course of an employment related mission may be attributable to the employer.

Accidents like this (pedestrians in the highway) invariably trigger defense claims that the accident victim was responsible for his own injuries. Under former Michigan law, a legal doctrine called comparative negligence provided that, even if the injury victim was partially responsible for the incident, the victim could still recover compensation from the other negligent party--even if the victim himself was more than 50% responsible (subject to a monetary reduction commensurate with the degree of the victim's own unsafe conduct).

Several years ago, however, the insurance industry heavily lobbied our lawmakers in Lansing, and induced them to modify the doctrine of comparative negligence. Under the newer statute, a victim who is deemed to be more than 50% responsible for the incident, may receive no compensation whatsoever for his non-economic personal injuries.

Moreover, in the context of a personal injury trial, the judge reads an instruction to the jury which informs them that, if the victim is found to have violated a safety statute, the jury may infer negligence against that party. One such law that comes to mind is a statute that forbids walking on the highway.

All of which leads us to a prediction that this conflict will be fought by the Alvaro family's Southfield personal injury lawyers on the battlefield of the doctrine of comparative negligence.

Troy Crash Victim's Watch Found
On Truck, Detroit Free Press, January 20, 2011

Another icy Michigan night - another automobile accident-related death.

Caitlin Baker of Ada, age 19, was killed Wednesday night while driving along M-21, near Lowell. Reportedly, a car traveling the same road - in the other direction - crossed into the opposite lane of traffic and collided with Ms. Baker's vehicle.

Details are sketchy, but an unnamed police source hints that the fatal crash may have been alcohol related.

The bigger story, however, may include one of Michigan's best kept secrets. An anonymous source in the County Road Commission informs us that the real culprit may be Michigan's economic woes. According to our source, roadway de-icing is down or curtailed all over the state, due to budgetary shortfalls.

Which raises the question of whether the Baker family may have an automobile negligence claim against the Road Commission for failure to safely maintain the roadway in question.

Make no mistake about it, a claim like that is a steep mountain to climb, indeed. Those claims are fraught with pitfalls, such as short notice requirements and built in, armor plated legal defenses.

The general rule is that the county road commission is responsible for maintaining "the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel". Yet, in plowing the roads, the road commission is not liable for imperfect or even negligent removal of natural accumulations of ice and snow.

The defense is called the Doctrine of Governmental immunity. The Legislature in Lansing enacted that law to insulate the government from the claims of injury victims.

The Doctrine, however, is not bullet proof. Exceptions exist. For example, our Courts have held that an injury victim may have a claim where the responsible governmental body actually caused an unnatural, exceptionally dangerous accumulation of ice and snow - of a different character from normal or pre-existing conditions.

As always, the outcome will turn on the specific and unique facts of the case. And it is at that investigatory juncture where the skills of an experienced Grand Rapids area personal injury lawyer become indispensable.

Details Show Caitlin Baker, 19, Was Eastbound On M-21, But Fault Still Undetermined In Fatal Crash, The Grand Rapids Press, December 17, 2010

On the hierarchy of despicable acts, sucker-punching a nearly 70 year old man in the face ranks pretty close to the top of the list, especially when the slugger is a 20 year old boy.

But if the punch was so forceful that it broke the old gentleman's dentures - that's Hall of Fame level.

The facts of this case are simple enough. Hapless Paul Cannon walked in to his local Detroit area Burger King restaurant to place an order. Instead of a Whopper, however, he was handed a wallop, complements of a Burger King employee.

Back at Burger King Company headquarters, no doubt, corporate lawyers are scrambling to shift blame, avoid responsibility and cover their assets. And in this case, they won't have far to look for a way out.

Under Michigan law, an employee's negligent or intentionally wrongful conduct is attributable to the employer only under certain narrow circumstances. Thus, the injury victim must prove that the employee acted in the course of his employment, within the scope of his employment, at the direction of his employer and pursuant to the employer's control. Acts which do not arise out of job related functions (such as randomly punching people in the face) are outside of the scope of the employment. Unless you are a professional boxer, that is.

Burger King Company's insurance carrier is also no doubt dancing an Irish jig. That is because most liability insurance policies contain a clause excluding coverage for intentional acts, such as assault and battery.

A game changer, however, may lie in evidence showing that the employer knew or should have known that the the assaultive employee was prone to unpredictable and uncontrollable bouts of irrational, violent rage. Upon an evidentiary foundation like that, transforming a seemingly intentional act by the employee into a negligence claim against the employer, becomes a possibility. Certainly, the applicable insurance policy covers negligence.

And it is at those investigative crossroads where the skills of an experienced Detroit personal injury lawyer become indispensable.

Burger King Wallop Leads to Elderly Man's Death,
Detroit Free Press, December 10, 2010

Today, yet another family is shattered after yet another Michigan road worker was killed at yet another work site by yet another negligent driver. This time, the victim is Gerald Hykras of Laurium. The scene of the accident was Houghton - in Michigan's upper peninsula.

All of which which raises the question: How many have to sacrifice their lives before Michigan gets serious about protecting our road crews?

The fact that Mr. Hykras was doing that type of work at age 61 tells us something about his circumstances. Road work is a young man's job. The work is physically taxing, it's mentally punishing, it's grim and it's dangerous.

If the accident victim's dependents were living at all close to the economic edge, their world just got a whole lot scarier. Especially if they are under the misconception that meager Worker's Compensation benefits are their only financial salvation.

Though they probably won't hear it from the insurance company - the truth of the matter is quite the contrary. If the tragedy was caused by a company, entity or person who was not in league with Mr. Hykras' employer, the Hykras family may be in line millions of dollars in compensation.

Those are questions that can only be answered by a thorough investigation - overseen by an experienced personal injury lawyer. One thing is certain - the potential defendants surely won't welcome our investigators with open arms. They never do. In fact, it is at this very juncture where the evidence begins to disappear.

We can only hope that the Hykras family will recognize that time is of the essence - and will take steps to protect their rights.

1 Man killed, another injured in Houghton crash, The Chicago Tribune, December 1, 2010

Athir Qarana, 44, of Commerce Township. Dead, after a wheel detached from a nearby motoring SUV - and crashed through the windshield of Mr. Qarana's car. The accident victim suffered massive injuries.

Nonetheless, back at insurance company headquarters, an army of insurance lawyers is hard at work, searching for a way out of this mess. Our prediction? They'll call it an "Act of God". And they don't mean the warm and fuzzy good tidings variety, either. They're talking about a dusty old legal doctrine that may deprive the Qarana family of compensation for the loss of their loved one.

Moreover, the insurance company appears to be well on its way to achieving that goal, since even the Michigan State accident reconstructionist has commented that he finds no indication of negligence.

"An act of god". A pretty euphemism for a pernicious legal doctrine called "sudden emergency". The principle holds, in essence, that an injurious action which was the result of an unforeseen 'freak of nature' and not the apparent substandard conduct of the insurance company's customer - is a complete defense to the injured person's claim of negligence.

But legal doctrines are a lot like rabbits, in that one doctrine has a way of begetting lots of little doctrines. And, so, the Sudden Emergency Doctrine gave birth to the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor (a latin phrase which means 'the thing speaks for itself').

The purpose of the Res Ipsa Loquitor principle is to cure an injustice in the law. In a nutshell - it relieves the hapless accident victim from the nearly impossible task of proving something that was knowable only by other parties. The Doctrine is comprised of several necessary elements.

In the context of the Qarana case, those components are as follows: (1) An automobile tire does not typically detach from a moving vehicle, absent negligence; (2) The injury victim could not have contributed to the accident, and; (3) The explanation for the lapse is more readily available to the negligent party than to the victim.

If the evidence supports those elements, then the burden of proof shifts to the Defendant to establish non-negligence.

From the Defendant's standpoint, it can seem unfair. From a common sense perspective, however, it is eminently reasonable. It is indisputable that if a wheel detaches from a vehicle cruising along at 70 miles an hour, the result can be deadly. Accordingly, all American vehicles are designed, manufactured, assembled and maintained with that fact in mind.

Where a wheel is sent hurtling out of control at umpteen miles per hour on a public expressway, it is a safe bet that somewhere along the line between manufacture and maintenance - somebody dropped the ball. The question is - who? Certainly not the injured driver or passenger in the other car.

So in the final analysis this seemingly complex automobile accident case boils down to a simple 'whodunit'. A little back-tracking by an experienced Southfield personal injury lawyer should have the case solved in short order.

Man Killed On I-696 When Another Motorist's Wheel Comes Off, Hits His Windshield, The Oakland County Daily Tribune, November 9, 2010

How many more fatal teen-packed joyrides will it take until Lansing finally passes this desperately needed law: "No teenage automobile driver may transport other teenagers without a parent in the front passenger seat". Just sixteen little words - with the power to save the lives of untold 16 year old motorists. Could such a law have saved the life of 16 year old Jaylin "Kyree" Hatter?

Hatter was a passenger in a car full of other 16 year olds - all from the South Haven area. The driver lost control and crashed. Hatter was ejected - sustaining fatal injuries. The other teens were seriously injured and transported to Grand Rapids area hospitals. The good news was the absence of drugs or alcohol. Ironically, the tragedy was compounded by the absence of something else: Seat belts.

No doubt the accident victims' families are consumed with funeral and medical matters. This is certainly no time for them to be worrying about dense insurance contracts, legal matters, deadlines, forms, insurance claims adjusters and the like. Yet - the fact is - back at insurance company headquarters, insurance lawyers and claims adjusters are already huddling over statutes and legal precedents that might serve to minimize their liability.

Time marches on. Evidence is evaporating. Deadlines are looming. An automobile accident involving multiple, seriously injured victims almost always implicates uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage.

A common misconception even among the average lawyer is that the general statute of limitations for personal injury claims invariably applies to the entire claim - including claims for uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. A seasoned personal injury lawyer, however, will be keenly aware that some older insurance policies may still be subject to a different set of deadlines and notice requirements.

The general statute of limitations for personal injury claims is set by law. The requirement that every motorist be covered by automobile no-fault insurance is also set by law. In contrast, uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage is not a legal requirement. Rather, that type of coverage is strictly a matter of private contract - between the driver and the insurance company. Accordingly, until recently, the parties have been free to agree to notice requirements and claims deadlines as they saw fit. As one can imagine - since the insurance company drafts the contract, if it can insert short deadlines, it will insert short deadlines.

In recent years, the Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation has promulgated administrative regulations requiring longer limitations periods for even uninsured and underinsured claims. Again, however, older policies my contain shorter deadlines which, notwithstanding the new regulations, may still be enforceable.

The uninsured and underinsured portion of the policy will no doubt contain other contractual pitfalls and hurdles, as well. Thus, our best advice to the victim is always this: You fight for your health. We'll fight for your rights.

South Haven Teens Involved in Deadly Roll-Over Accident, Wood 8 TV Grand Rapids

Civilian warriors. Guardian angels. Front line heros. Just some of the names we bestow to express our admiration for our tireless community First Responders. But even in life and death emergencies, where split second decisions rule the day - there is always a place for temperance.

And it was the lack of temperance - coupled perhaps with an excessive dose of well intentioned exuberance- which piled tragedy upon tragedy over the roadways of rural Montcalm County this week.

Medical first responder Richard Wayne Pierce, age 70, of Pierson, was racing to the scene of a reported personal injury car accident. To his credit, Pierce had his emergency lights and flashers activated. It is unknown whether a siren was activated.

The First Responder came to an intersection, disregarded the stop sign and crashed into a vehicle driven by Max Leroy Young , age 74, of Lakeview. Riding as a passenger in Young's vehicle was Shirley Marie Narlock, also of Lakeview. Max Young was seriously injured. Shirley Narlock was killed.

For the injury victims and their families, all that is left is to pick up the pieces. And that process includes the pursuit of justice. A long row to hoe, indeed.

Since the only form of justice that the civil courts can dispense is money, the families will soon find themselves pitted against the insurance companies. On the front lines of that dispute are the insurance defense lawyers - advising the insurance companies every step of the way, on how to minimize or completely thwart the survivors' claims.

Common sense tells the average person that Max Young was completely innocent of wrongdoing, and that the First Responder caused the automobile accident.

"Not so fast" say the insurance defense lawyers. First, there is the little matter of a concept commonly known as 'the rules of the road'. And the primary rule in play under these circumstances is the requirement that a driver must yield to the right of way of an oncoming emergency vehicle displaying emergency lights and flashers.

"Right back at you" says the victim's personal injury lawyer. Yet another rule says that a driver who has the right of way at an intersection LOSES the right of way if he is speeding.

Checkmate? Maybe. Until the results of the Accident Reconstructionist's investigation are in, the speed of the vehicle at the intersection remains unknown. And it is at that juncture where the skills of an experienced personal injury lawyer become indispensable.

A deadly four-hour span sees three crashes, four killed on Montcalm County roads, The Grand Rapids Press, October 4, 2010

Yet another construction worker is killed following the second southwest Michigan trench collapse in a week. Stanley Wilson of Burlington died in the work site accident - despite frantic and heroic efforts to save him. This time the location was the Kalamazoo area.

The previous work site trench collapse occurred in the Benton Harbor area.

If the grieving survivors are thinking about compensation at all at this point, it is doubtful that they are considering that the available, meager workers compensation benefits may not be their only consolation.

That is because the average person is typically unaware that the individual or company which caused the work injury may be required to pay family members hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars - provided that the negligent parties are independent or subcontractors, and not employees or partners of the injury victim's employer.

Pitfalls that confront the injured worker's family include time frames. Act with haste and claims may be overlooked. Sign a release before all responsible parties and sources of insurance have been identified, and valuable claims may be permanently waived. Fail to act before the expiration of legal deadlines and the claims are barred forever.

Burlington Man Dies In Work Related
Accident, WTVB AM 1590 Radio, September 30, 2010

Tragically, yet another employee was killed this week at a Benton Harbor, Michigan construction site. The injury victim was part of a crew assigned to demolish a downtown building. Reportedly, the worker was ascending a ladder when a support beam collapsed and caused serious injuries.

The family members of workers injured or killed on the work site often suffer a second tragedy when they learn of the paltry benefits due through workers compensation insurance. The average person simply assumes that those benefits are the only remedy for work place injuries, and takes his lumps.

That assumption, however, is a myth.

What the insurance companies don't want the public to know is that, if the incident was caused by a company or person independent of the victim's employer - traditional, unlimited "negligence" benefits may be available. Under those facts, a seriously injured worker may be entitled to millions of dollars in compensation.

WSJM AM Radio Benton Harbor, September 24, 2010

Over 30,000 people are killed each year in the US by drunk drivers - and far more than that are seriously injured.

Though no amount of money can completely compensate for the personal injuries suffered in an automobile or truck accident, putting the pieces back together often means digging up hidden sources of insurance coverage.

With so much on their plates in the aftermath of a serious injury, the last thing on an injury victim's mind is the mechanics of insurance coverage. The fact that businesses and people other than the negligent driver may be obligated to pay money to the crash victim is just one more detail that commonly escapes notice.

So when Sandra Chance of Marlette lost control while drunk driving, crashed and killed her four passengers - Brian J. Reindardt of Troy; Jeremy Smith of North Branch; Gean R. Jones of Marlette; and Jason C. Shelton of Kingston - it is hardly a surprise that no investigation was launched seeking collateral sources of insurance coverage.

Such an investigation is a critical component of complete justice. That is because an automobile accident victim who was injured by a drunk driver may be able to sue the business or bar which sold or served liquor to the negligent driver - provided that the driver was visibly intoxicated at the time. That type of lawsuit is called a "Dram Shop Action". Businesses which serve liquor are required to carry negligence insurance.

Another source of additional negligence insurance may be the homeowner's insurance of a private person who served liquor to a visibly drunk person.

Pitfalls to bringing claims like that are the short notice requirements. Miss a deadline and your claim may be lost forever.

Driver in fatal crash was drunk, Huron Daily Tribune, September 24, 2010