Welcome to the ShTexaslawyer.com Blog

Property damage is one of several factors attorney and insurance companies use to evaluate a claim. It isn't the ultimate factor, but it can be very determinative of the outcome. If there is a lot of property damage it is easier to believe a person was hurt. Dramatic property damage photos look great to a jury. If you were pulled out of the car by the fire department using the "jaws of life" or a saw, it makes the jury wonder just how bad the accident was. If your car looks like a bomb went off in it, the jury wonders how anyone survived. Usually though, the property damage isn't that bad. In all honesty, the insurance company knows that a low property damage accident can be very painful and cause significant injuries. The insurance company also knows that if the property damage is minor there is a good chance the can try to convince the jury you weren't hurt. Jury's have been very skeptical of injury claims for years now. This skepticism was created by the insurance industries very effective propaganda campaign.

The insurance industry has done a phenomenal job of creating propaganda to prejudice juries against claims. Commercials like the famous Allstate ads asking if an accident was staged, or if a house fire was arson are fine example of this propaganda. There have been studies by places like Baylor University looking at the claims of Tort Reformers in Texas and debunking much of the myths about what was claimed to be a crisis. (Straight from the Horse’s Mouth: Judicial Observations of Jury Behavior and the Need for Tort Reform, Baylor Law Review, [Vol. 59.2] 2007 Larry Lyon/ Bradley J.B. Toben/ James M. Underwood/ William D. Underwood/ James E. Wren). For example the study found that:

• Over 83% of the Texas district court judges had observed not a single
instance of a “runaway jury” verdict on either actual or exemplary
damages during the preceding 48 months.
• Over 85% of judges had not at all or in only one instance granted
relief during the past four years due to an excessive award of
actual damages. No judge in the entire sampling had granted such
relief during the prior four years in more than three cases.
• Over 83% of Texas judges had not witnessed a single jury award
too high (compensatory damages).
• 15% of Texas trial judges observed juries refuse to make any award
of punitive damages when the judge believed such an award was
warranted.
• 44% of the judges had not personally observed a single frivolous
lawsuit in their courtroom during the prior four years.

Yet, the propaganda would have you to believe Texas was full of sue happy plaintiff running away with tons of cash on unwarranted and frivolous claims. Enough so that legislation passed several times to curb the perceived crisis. I have been, and remain embarrassed by the inability of the Texas Bar Association to fight this propaganda. It is a disservice to Texas that the Texas Bar Association was not more active is stopping the unnecessary legislation or a counter educational truth program.

Back to the point, there are numerous studies showing how collisions as low as 10 mph can cause significant injuries. A few examples are:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/esv/esv19/05-0363-O.pdf
http://www.safetyforum.com/lowspeed/
http://www.chiroweb.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=15498
http://www.carinsurance.com/Articles/content123.aspx
http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/54/car_accidents/low_speed_impact_injury_facts.html

However, the problem for lawyers isn't believing you were injured, it is whether they think they can convince a jury you were injured. Most lawyers know that a minor impact case is more likely to go to trial than a large property damage claim. So the focus is on what they think they can accomplish at trial, not what can happen in settlement. The adjusters are trained to try to dismiss and fight these low impact cases. The term MISTI or MISTY has been coined by the insurance industry to classify these claims as Minimal Impact Soft Tissue Injury cases. Many insurance companies have special groups of adjusters assigned to handling these types of cases. Their job is to minimize the possibility of injury and to pay as little as possible.

Does all this mean your low impact case is worthless? No, but it is going to be a fight. There are factors than can be addressed to explain why the damage to the car was minimal but the injury severe. Factors such as one car going under the other, your position in the seat, if you saw the accident coming or not, etc. If you have a minimal impact case and are injured you should not try to go without an attorney. The insurance company has done a massive amount of prep work for your type of claim and is going to fight you to the end. Have an attorney review your case. You may have to shop a while before you find an attorney willing to work the case. Lawyers, like everyone else, like to take the fat easy fruit from the bottom of the tree, not the small hard to reach fruit at the top. But, you will find help and hopefully be able to get compensation for your injury.

I can understand why insurance companies dream of a world I am about to describe. It would save them an incredible amount of money. But, I’m not so sure that injured people would be as pleased. Essentially, their hope would be a world where lawyers were essentially unnecessary, there were no liability claims, and everyone took care of their damages through their own insurance policies. This fantasy can’t work however, just like all utopian dreams, there are holes in the plan. Working backwards through their dreams, the holes become obvious.

Read more »

It was interesting to see two vastly different views on the past tort reform efforts in Texas being reviewed almost simultaneously. In support of tort reform efforts was and commentary made May 2, by Perryman Group (I’d direct link the article for you, but the link always goes back to their main page http://www.perrymangroup.com/ , go to the news publications and then commentary, its entitled “A Texas Turnaround”). The contrary position was stated in this article from Fox News.

Read more »