Jan 7, 2014 | Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation
The Plaintiff Rodriguez was employed to perform labor for Defendant Romero, who was a subcontractor. During the installation of a new roof (June 27, 2000), Rodriguez fell through a skylight opening, suffering serious 
injuries. What is undisputed is the fact that Mr. Rodriguez is entitled to workers compensation.
However, the question still exists as to what insurance carrier is responsible. The subcontractor, in this case, had purchased insurance, but it was cancelled for non-payment. Another policy, with INSCORP, was issued on June 22, 2000 with an effective date to May 19, 2000. However, in the meantime, the company obtained an assigned risk insurer (ARI) policy under S.C. Code Ann. 38-73-540 from appellee, Capital City Ins Co., effective June 24, 2000.
Capital City was not apprised of the information that INSCORP had provided voluntary coverage, but nevertheless ruled that Capital City was responsible due to a most recent effective date of June 24, 2000. The circuit court reversed and found INSCORP was the responsible carrier.
On appeal, the court held that since Capital City’s policy was never effective, the dual coverage provisions of 25A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 67-409 were not applicable. That left INSCORP as the solely responsible carrier on the claim.
If you have been injured in a work accident, it is important to ensure who the carrier, who will pay your claim, who is responsible. This is something that could potentially cause some dispute (in this case, the dispute), and can cost unnecessary money if not taken care of properly. If you or a loved one has been involved in a workers compensation claim, contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower at 803-548-4444, for a confidential consultation.
Jan 7, 2014 | Car Accidents, Personal Injury, Uncategorized
State Farm Automobile Insurance provided for three of the vehicles belonging to Plaintiff Jones. However, on November 5, 1999, State Farm sent a cancellation notice informing Mr. Jones that “effective November 24th, 1999,
coverage of the 1986 Mazda would be cancelled due to nonpayment of premiums.” Forward to December 19, 1999: Jones is seriously injured in a car wreck while driving the Mazda. Thereafter, a State Farm agent signed a FR-10 form stating that “I hereby affirm that to the best of my knowledge the vehicle described above was insured by State Farm insurance company on the date and time of the accident.”
After settling with the carrier of the other driver, Mr. Jones attempted to seek a declaration that the Mazda was covered at the time of the collision, and that he was “entitled to the underinsured coverage and entitled to stack his other two policies. However, the trial judge ruled in favor of State Farm and was entitled to summary judgment because the cancellation notice complied with S.C. Code Ann. 38-77-120, and the Form FR-10 did not affect the cancellation.
The case finally reached the South Carolina Appellate court where, the court affirmed, finding that the cancellation notice complied with the SC Code section. The court agreed with State Farm that an insurer is not required to inform the insured he/she has not been ceded to the South Carolina Reinsurance Facility. Therefore, summary judgment was granted in favor of State Farm without regard to the FR-10, because the form did not raise an issue as to the validity of the cancellation notice.
Moral of the Story: If you receive a cancellation notice in the mail, do not expect to garner any benefits from your insurance company as a result of a collision caused thereafter. This is regardless of fault. If State Farm had failed to send out the cancellation notice, the Plaintiff would have likely succeeded in this scenario; however, the notice was the document that proved to be the straw that broke the camels back in this case.
If you or a loved one has been involved in a similar situation, it is important for a professional to take a look at the case. If the cancellation notice was sent after the accident, the person is still covered and he/she may be entitled to monetary compensation from the insurance company. Contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP if you have a question regarding a pending insurance issue and we will determine the likelihood of success in your situation. For a consultation, contact our York County, South Carolina office at 803-548-4444.
Jan 6, 2014 | General, Uncategorized
According to South Carolina’s precedential law, the only way for an insurance company to void or to avoid an unfair or unjust life insurance policy is to have something called ” misrepresentation” at play.
In order for there to be misrepresentation, there mist be six elements first met:
” (1) the statements complained of were untrue, (2) the statements falsity was known to the applicant, (3) they were material statements, ( meaning in modern terms, not common law, that if the risk was increased and actually contributed tot eh loss, it was material enough to fit the third prong), (4) the carrier relied on the statements, and (6) the insurer must challenge the truthfulness of the application within the first two years of the application being submitted.” S.C. Code Ann. 38-63-220(d)(2002.)
If all the elements are met, and the two year statute of limitations has not yet run, then the insurance company is well within it bounds to make a claim that the insure lied about a material fact that increased the risk of the problem in the first place.
So, for example, a insure lies about being a smoker, and then one day keels over from lung cancer. The misrepresentation to the insurance company that the insured did not smoke was so material that it actually increased or caused the risk.
This would be a perfect example of why it is never right to lie tot he insurance companies on what you do. With the new health bill being threatened, most people are afraid as it is to even talk about life insurance. However, that does not mean that the life insurance company would necessarily pay out, as seen in the example given above.
Our attorneys at Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower, LLP have worked on both ends of the insurance spectrum, both for and against them. If you find yourself in the aforementioned situation, you ma have claim for bad faith, and so may the insurance company. If that if the case, contact us today at 877-374-5999 toll-free for more information.
Jan 3, 2014 | Criminal Defense, DUI & DWI, Felony DUI, Uncategorized
Prior to the 2013 decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States, a warrant was not needed anytime someone refused a breathalyzer test or the intoxilizer at the police station after being arrested for a DUI.
Driving on our thoroughfares is considered a privilege and not a right. Thusly, if you refuse to take a breath test or the dreaded ” breathalyzer,” you are subject to having your blood drawn at your expense. This cost is usually roughly $1,000 or more.
However, since the latest decision b the Supreme Court in 2013, the court held that if it is practical to do so, then a warrant is now required before a blood sample can be taken from a DUI arrestee. What the court means by saying, ” if practicable to do so,” is simply that if there is time to get a warrant through all the proper protocol ( probable cause, neutral and detached magistrate with facts pleaded with particularity, etc.), then the officer should do so.
This is actually a simple concept. For example, if a person refuses to take the breath test, then the implied consent laws kick in, and either way, they must be submitted to a blood test or some other form of taking the person’s BAC level. Now the officer and the detainee in the back of his police car probable have anywhere from 10-30 minutes prior to reaching the intoxilizer station. This is plenty of time to get a valid warrant.
By making this rule, the Supreme Court has helped both sides of the spectrum. From the prosecutorial side, needing a warrant only solidifies their case when blood is drawn. However, it also helps the criminal defense side immensely, because, without the proper warrant, no blood can now be taken, which gives criminal defense attorneys more room for argument.
This law is very new and has just recently been enacted at the start of this year. If you find your blood being drawn without a proper warrant after you have been charged with a DUI in South Carolina, contact the criminal defense attorneys at Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower, LLP toll-free at 877-374-5999 for more information
Jan 2, 2014 | Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, Uncategorized, Wrongful Death
In modern terms, a “personal injury,” is most commonly used to refer to a tort action claiming that a plaintiff has endured an injury caused by the negligence of another, called the defendant.
In the opposing side, a “crime,” is something that entirely different that arises when a person has violated either a state or federal law, and now must pay some sort of restitution
to the state for their alleged crime.
A tort action is one that occurs in civil court as opposed to criminal court. To be a tort and not a crime, the plaintiff will sue the defendant personally, sometimes jointly and severally with another defendant, for damages due to the injury. The plaintiff, if found to be in the right; will recover monetary damages from the defendant for the defendant’s actions.
On the converse, when a person is charged with a crime instead of a tort, they are considered to be the defendant in the case, and the state serves as the plaintiff for all practical purposes.
The major difference is that when there is a crime charge due to injuries, there is no single person to serve as the plaintiff and earn a reward of compensation; but rather the focus is for the defendant to pay for their malfeasance either through fines to the state, serving the community, or at worst, being incarcerated.
Whether you have incurred a serious personal injury through an accident such as a car collision or the like; or whether you have been charged with a crime by the state of South Carolina, contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower, LLP directly at 803-548-444 or toll-free at 877-374-5999 for more information on your legal options.
Dec 31, 2013 | Criminal Defense, DUI & DWI, Felony DUI, Uncategorized
It’s not uncommon for us to go out with friends or family for a meal and perhaps decide to enjoy a drink. How
ever if you are driving it is important to drink responsibility and know when to stop so you can drive home safely. But how do you know how many drinks are too many to not put you over the legal limit of .08%?
Generally people know what their limit before they are too intoxicated, but some people may feel like they are not intoxicated and yet still be over the legal BAC limit to operate a vehicle.
Your Blood Alcohol Content Level (or BAC) is based upon the amount of alcohol that is resent in our bloodstream while you are enjoying your cold libation. Scientifically speaking, it is calculated by determining the milligrams of alcohol that are present in a portion of your blood.
There are many general guidelines for both men and women based on weight as to how many drinks per hour it takes to reach a certain BAC level that can be found easily on the internet. While this is a good general guideline, the level may vary depending on the particular person, so it is not an absolute science. Other than having a portable breathalyzer to test yourself, looking at a drink/size ration chart may be a good way to estimate how many drinks might be too many before going above the legal limit. The best advice is always not to drink and drive. If you feel that you may be too intoxicated to drive then the best bet is to get a ride home.
However if you are pulled over and arrested for a DUI you need to contact an attorney to review your case. The attorneys are Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower, LLP are experienced in handling DUI cases and have in depth knowledge of complex DUI laws in South Carolina. Contact one of our attorneys directly by calling 704-499-9000 or toll free 877-374-5999 for more information in our options.
