Phoenix-Mesa Motor Vehicle Accidents Blog

Why You Need an Attorney to Be Treated Fairly

When you are suffering the physical and emotional effects of an injury, you need to focus all of your time and energy on healing and getting your life back on track. You certainly do not need to endure the stress and worry that comes with being mistreated by an insurance company, whether it is your own insurer or that of the person or business responsible for your injuries.

Unfortunately, insurance companies have a financial incentive to settle claims quickly and cheaply. This tempts many of them to act in bad faith.

How Do I Know if I Am Being Treated Unfairly?

There are many "sneaky" and just plain illegal actions that could be considered bad faith on the part of an insurance company that is seeking to protect its bottom line. Several of them include:

• So-called "low-balling" of settlement offers - proposing to pay much less than the claim is actually worth to quickly resolve it
• Purposely "dragging their feet" to lengthen the claim investigation time - this often prompts a claimant to agree to an essentially unfair settlement just to get some compensation
• Denying valid claims in an attempt to frustrate a claimant enough to give up pursuing the claim
• Denial of claims for inconsequential technicalities that could have been easily remedied
• Failure to pay the full amount covered by the policy, despite injuries warranting such compensation

What Can I Do?

Many insurers will not hesitate to treat individual claimants unfairly, but are much more reluctant to do so when an attorney is handling the claim. To relieve yourself of the pressures of dealing with dishonest and potentially unlawful actions of an insurance company, especially during an extremely difficult time in your life, you should seriously consider seeking the counsel of a lawyer with in-depth knowledge of bad faith practices common in the insurance industry.

Laws against texting while driving are sweeping the nation, and all indications are that Arizona may be next in line to enact such a law. Currently Phoenix has an anti-texting law, but drivers elsewhere in Arizona are not specifically prohibited from texting while driving.

While texting is not expressly forbidden in Arizona, a police officer may cite a texter for reckless driving under current law, and that has caused some lawmakers to question the need for a ban. But most of the opposition seems to stem from Arizona's freedom-loving ways -- many residents are resistant to government telling people what to do and what not to do.

With mounting evidence that using cell phones while driving can kill, Arizona may be finally ready to overcome three years of resistance and pass the anti-texting bill. First proposed in 2007, anti-texting bills have heretofore faced enough legislator opposition to preclude passage in the state.

The federal government's latest assault on distracted driving, new guidance issued by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), interprets existing law as prohibiting commercial truck and bus drivers operating vehicles weighing in excess of 10,000 pounds from texting while operating their rigs. Since two high-profile public transit accidents in 2008 and 2009 underscored the dangers of texting while operating a vehicle, the federal government has taken an increasingly prominent role in addressing distracted driving. The federal effort includes convening a transportation summit in September where distracted driving dangers were discussed and remedies proposed.

In support of its texting ban, DOT's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) cited evidence that drivers sending and receiving texts take their eyes off the road for 4.6 out of every six seconds. To emphasize the significance of this degree of inattention, FMCSA explained that a driver texting at 55 miles per hour typically drives the distance of a football field including end zones without looking at the road.

Truckers who violate the federal texting ban are subject to fines up to $2,750.

Arizona State Rep. Cal Holman, 76, was returning home for lunch one day in January 2007 when two cars, both traveling at speeds exceeding the speed limit by more than 20 mph, struck his vehicle, killing him. Yet the drag racers whose deadly game killed an innocent man may not be held responsible, despite the fact that one exceeded the speed limit by 22 mph, and the other by 33 mph.

Statistics illuminating the dangers of drag racing on a national scale are sparse; the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration documented 135 fatal car accidents attributed drag racing in 2001. But while drag racing may be illegal and all too often deadly, the drag racers who crashed into Holman's vehicle may escape accountability for his death. Under Arizona law, because Holman was turning left, he was responsible for assuring that his path was clear. Had Holman been driving in a straight path or making a right turn, there would be no doubt that the drag racers were responsible for his death.

Under A.R.S. 28-772, the driver of a vehicle turning left in an intersection is obligated to yield to a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction that is within the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. The attorney general has interpreted this statute as allowing drivers to make left turns only when it is safe to do so. Arizona courts have upheld this interpretation, ruling in Smith v. Johnson in 1995 that Arizona's left turn statute is one of negligence per se, eliminating due care as a defense when a driver making a left turn is involved in a crash.