Published: A Claim of Negligence Vs. Implied Warranty of Merchantability

I published “A Claim of Negligence Vs. Implied Warranty of Merchantability” on @Medium https://ift.tt/34IIbhU

Published: Advantages of Responding Offensively to a Lawsuit

I published “Advantages of Responding Offensively to a Lawsuit” on @Medium https://ift.tt/3aA4gQE

Published: How Compensable Consequence Can Make Simple Claim More Complex

I published “How Compensable Consequence Can Make Simple Claim More Complex” on @Medium https://ift.tt/3kEfyYW

Supreme Court Case Precautions against Relying on Pretrial Settlements

With nearly 30 years of legal experience, Claire C. Carr is the managing partner and vice president of Kalbaugh, Pfund & Messersmith, P.C. (KPM Law), in Richmond, VA. Over the course of her career, Claire C. Carr has defended a number of corporate clients in workers’ compensation cases. Her firm also offers representation for automobile liability and insurance defense matters. A 2019 Virginia Supreme Court ruling served as a precaution to liability carriers to avoid relying on a plaintiff and their underinsured motorist (UIM) carrier’s pretrial settlement to lower amounts owed to a plaintiff following a jury verdict.

During the case, the Supreme Court of Virginia confirmed that a plaintiff who reaches a pretrial settlement with their underinsured motorist (UIM) carrier will still receive the full amount due from a defendant in any subsequent jury verdict. In this instance, the plaintiff had $1 million in UIM coverage and the defendant had $250,000 in liability coverage. The plaintiff settled with the UIM carrier for $750,000 prior to the trial, and the carrier agreed to waive subrogation in return for a release of all claims, the latter of which bars an individual from pursuing a personal injury claim against the recipient. When the trial against the defendant occurred, the jury awarded the plaintiff $1.5 million in damages.

While the defendant moved to reduce the verdict, the trial court declined. The Supreme Court determined that the UIM carrier’s payment was not compensation for personal injury, but rather protection against an insured motorist’s ability to pay any damages awarded. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to full payments from the defendant and their UIM carrier.

Published: New Workers’ Compensation Bill Highlights Code-Familiarity Importance

I published “New Workers’ Compensation Bill Highlights Code-Familiarity Importance” on @Medium https://ift.tt/30jk6eV

New 30-Day Response Order for Workers' Compensation in Virginia

With a prestigious AV Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell, Claire C. Carr is a Richmond, VA-based lawyer who serves as a partner of the Workers' Compensation department of Kalbaugh, Pfund & Messersmith, P.C. (KPM Law). In this role, Claire C. Carr leverages more than 30 years of legal experience to advise and defend insurance carriers and other clients against workers' compensation claims. A recent amendment to the Code of Virginia Title 65.2. Workers' Compensation added a new section numbered 65.2-601.2.

As of July 1, 2020, employers and insurance carriers in Virginia will have 30 days from a workers’ compensation claim’s filing date to determine whether or not it will be accepted or denied. In the event that a lack of information prevents either party from making a decision, they must inform the employee of this and ask for additional details within 30 days. Should the employers deny a claim, they are required to provide reasons for doing so.

The new law is only initiated once the employee files a claim with the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission. This means that an employee must still inform their employer of their intention to file a claim, but the 30-day order won't be issued until it is. While the language in the statute does not mention third-party administrator, insurance carrier, or self-insurer responsibilities, section 65.2-902 states that these parties can receive fines for failing to submit any Commission-mandated reports pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation title. This infers that they can be subject to fines if a response to a 30 Day Order isn't submitted within 30 days.

AV, AV Preeminent, Distinguished, and Notable are certification marks used under license in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. For more information, visit https://www.martindale.com/ratings-and-reviews/.