Charlotte Injury Lawyer Blog

Over the years, technology has made great strides in communication. From the iPhone to Facebook, people are able to stay in touch in ways inconceivable ten years ago. However, with great strides come even greater problems, even for those in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Although the internet has allowed for freedom and limitless sources of information, it has also stolen the privacy we enjoyed once before. Even if you do not have a personal Facebook page, it is very probable that a picture of you is posted on someone else's page. It is important to consider this lack of privacy before you partake in any activity. In the legal world, we are still trying to understand what ramifications the internet will have on our clients' cases. We are slowly starting to see how things such as case law and the rules of civil procedure adapt to the changing times.

Recently, a Supreme Court Judge in New York State's Suffolk County, permitted an insurance company to access a Plaintiff's Facebook history in a personal injury case. This allowed the insurance company to not only access the Plaintiff's current Facebook page, but also all deleted pages and related information. This is a dramatic turn of events as it allows the insurance company to go on a fishing expedition and wave pictures in front of a jury that could be taken completely out of context. For example, a picture of the Plaintiff on a trip that was planned prior to the accident, but occurred after the accident, could be used by the insurance company to show that the Plaintiff is not injured. Even though the Plaintiff could simply be having a "good day," or had just taken their pain medication, the jury may not want to hear an explanation and will have the picture branded in their memories. As a result, the insurance company achieved their goal of not fairly compensating the injured Plaintiff.

What you post on social media sites can also cost you your job. In a recent article published by the Charlotte Observer, a local waitress was fired because of her Facebook status. Managers of the restaurant where she worked let her go because she had violated "company policy against speaking disparagingly about customers," as well as "violated a second policy against casting the restaurant in a negative light on social networks." The waitress had received a bad tip and let all her Facebook friends know about it.

These are just a few examples of how an individual's privacy and life off-line can be affected by the internet and social media. We at Hull & Chandler, P.A. ask that you be cautious with what you post on social media sites and what is posted about you. If you have any questions or concerns about this matter, please contact us here.

Tis' the season for good food and good times with family and friends! Whether it's in Charlotte, North Carolina, or the country as a whole, the holidays mean increased travel to family and friends, holiday office parties and winter getaway vacations. Unfortunately, it is also one of the most dangerous times of the year with respect to highway traffic. During the holiday periods, highway fatalities that involve one or more impaired drivers increases significantly, starting with the Thanksgiving/Black Friday four-day weekend, known as one of the most deadly weekends of the year. Traffic accidents are also on the rise during the month of December, particularly during the Christmas and New Year holiday periods.

During this holiday season, remember to stay vigilant and alert. This season we ask that you make a commitment to do a few simple things to make your holiday travels safe and enjoyable.

- Be aware of your fellow drivers and potential hazards;
- Don't drink and drive;
- Avoid the use of cell phones and don't text. Rather enlist the help of a co-pilot to help you navigate your travels;
- Get a good night's rest before your travels;
- Leave plenty of time to reach your destination and take frequent breaks; and
- Download our app (for iPhone and Android users) to prepare yourself in case an accident occurs.

The North Carolina Department of Transportation provides a comprehensive list of driving and travel tips we all know, but often times fail to follow particularly when faced with the stresses and festivities of the holiday season.

The attorneys and staff at Hull & Chandler wish you safe travels during this holiday season and look forward to serving you in the coming year. If an accident does occur, please feel free to contact us at Hull & Chandler, P.A.

In the battle between hiring an attorney or using a 'do it yourself' legal services website, who comes out on top? When you factor in all concerns such as cost, legality, personal contact and quality, what it really comes down to is getting what you pay for. As a Business Litigation and Estates attorney in Charlotte, North Carolina, I am often asked by potential clients why they should hire me and pay more when they can use online sites, such as Legal Zoom, and save money. Although using online legal services may seem like the fast, easy and inexpensive thing to do, there are many reasons why going to an attorney is the better option and the winner of this battle.

Personal Contact

The first factor to take into consideration is personal contact. When meeting with an attorney compared to logging on to a website, you are able to build a relationship. With this relationship, your attorney learns about you and your needs and will be able to assist you beyond your original expectations. An attorney is also able to determine if your needs are something you wouldn't have even considered. For example, if you think you need a copyright, you can go to an online service and plug in what you need, and you will instantly get a copyright. If you go to an attorney with the same need, you might find out you actually need a patent and not a copyright. Without this personal contact, you may not get what you actually need, and in the end, you'll end up wasting time and money. Unfortunately, this personal touch is not available through online services.

Quality

The next aspect to consider is quality. With online sites, a person fills out a basic template and a product is produced. How was your information transformed into the final product? Who knows, but it certainly is not tailored to your exact needs. When you hire an attorney, not only do we work side by side with you to ensure you understand all steps in the process, but we also customize and tailor everything to fit your individual needs. For example, when preparing your Will, there are many complexities that a website cannot ascertain by having you answer a blanket questionnaire. When you hire an attorney, we work with you to answer any questions and ensure your family is protected. A Will is your last chance to be heard and allowing a website to generate this document is not wise.

Cost

The price differential is probably the main reason patrons use online legal services over hiring an attorney. Unfortunately, as the saying goes, you get what you pay for. By working with an actual attorney, the overall price may be a bit higher, but you can be assured that you'll get exactly what you are looking for and exactly what you need. Furthermore, your attorney is only a phone call away, so if you have any questions or concerns throughout the process, you know there is always someone there to answer them.

Legality

The final thing to take into consideration when choosing who you want to represent you is legality. As shown in a recent article by the News and Observer, the North Carolina State Bar has decided to take on the leading online legal center, Legal Zoom, questioning whether or not their actions constituted the unauthorized practice of law. As a response, the company said that there were inaccuracies in the State Bar's claims, stressing that its services are automated and don't involve legal advice. So whether or not the site's practice is authorized, Legal Zoom admitted their services are automated, and thus confirmed all points listed above.

Superior qualifications, outstanding reputation and nominations from both state and federal judges - these are just a few requirements necessary to be offered an invitation to the National Trial Lawyers Association. Charlotte Personal Injury Attorney, Michael Chandler of Hull and Chandler, P.A., is one of only 100 attorneys selected in North Carolina; this is quite an honor for Michael, as well as a reflection of his work and success.

The National Trial Lawyers Association is a national organization whose mission is to promote excellence in the legal profession by providing news, information, training, networking and education concerning both business and professional matters to trial attorneys. Only the top 100 candidates from each state are invited to join. Prior to receiving an invitation, all candidates are carefully screened and rated based on their reputation amongst their peers, the judiciary and the public. Selections are made based on previous year's achievements and verdicts as a trial lawyer; as well as, leadership, influence, stature and profile in the Trial Lawyer community. View his profile here.

Since starting his practice in 1999, through his tenure as a Personal Injury Attorney/Partner with Hull and Chandler, P.A., he has successfully worked with hundreds of clients in earing this honor. In addition, he has been named a North Carolina Rising Star by Super Lawyers Magazine for 2010 and 2011.

As a Personal Injury and Business Litigation attorney in Charlotte, NC, I counsel my clients daily about the advantages and disadvantages of taking a case to trial. This past week I had the opportunity to sit on the other side, as I was the Plaintiff in an action to recover my medical expenses from an accident that occurred in 2008 that was not my fault. After two days of sitting in the other chair, I believe I have learned so much more than I ever could have by just trying a case.

In the early stages of any case, I always inform my clients of how long the litigation process actually is. Most people do not realize that from the time of filing a lawsuit, it could be anywhere from a year to eighteen months, or more, before we see the inside of a courtroom. Therefore, I always try to make it clear that if it is possible, settlement is the best option. However, sometimes settlement is impossible and a lawsuit must be filed. Even after filing a lawsuit, the Court supplies the parties many opportunities to settle their case. Depending on the Court the lawsuit is filed in, there is either mandated Arbitration or Mediation. Again, I explain to my clients that if settlement is an option, it is very important to consider it. Although time and money is often a factor when considering whether or not to file a lawsuit, it is also important to remember that trying a case in front of a jury is comparable to rolling the dice at a casino. Unfortunately, no matter how good of a case you believe you may have, you never know what a jury may do.

In my case, I was merely asking for my medical bills to be paid after a rear-end accident. My medical bills consisted of a hospital bill and ten chiropractic visits. Unfortunately, the insurance company was only willing to offer me half of my bills. After months of trying to negotiate with them, they refused to budge and I proceeded with filing suit. One year and seven months later, I finally got my day in Court. While preparing for trial I quickly realized that this was not a place where I wanted to be. Although I knew the law, and had great confidence in my colleague, I felt helpless. As I sat in the courtroom, and all my personal information was revealed for the jury, I felt vulnerable and exposed. Although I try to prepare my clients the best I can before they have to testify, I never knew that they may face such emotions being up on the witness stand.

After what I believe was a great presentation by our side, the jury only awarded me half of my medical bills. Waiting for the jury to come back with a verdict was nerve racking, and hearing it read out loud shocked me. I did not understand how the jury could not have awarded me my medical bills in an accident that was not my fault. I tried to remember what I tell my clients before trying any case; it is a gamble. But, it was hard for me to remember that as I sat in the Plaintiff's chair. I do not regret filing my lawsuit. Although I did not get the verdict I was hoping for, I took away a great deal from my experience. I can now understand what emotions my clients are feeling while they are sitting in that chair. It is definitely not a place I want to be again, but hope that my experience will make it easier for my clients to be there.

First, I would like to extend a warm "thank you" to everyone at the Charlotte, NC firm of Hull & Chandler, P.A. for allowing me to intern with their firm. Given that I'm someone fresh out of high school with no legal experience, these past seven workdays were eye-opening for me. I have learned many skills of being an attorney and maintaining a law firm that I would never have been able to learn in a classroom setting. Also, thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to allow me to shadow or to explain a part of your job description. I will definitely remember this past week when I choose my career or when I consider doing a summer internship when I am in law school.

I would definitely say that I accomplished my goal in doing this senior project. Not only have I had the opportunity to shadow lawyers and learn the inner workings of a law practice, but I have begun to contemplate the area of law that I would find most suitable to my personal and professional goals after I finish four years of college at Washington University in St. Louis. Among the most valuable skills I can take away with me are:

• The proper way to answer questions if you are called as a witness in a trial;
• The proper way to litigate as done by a paralegal in the opening stages of a personal injury case;
• The proceedings of a sentencing hearing, a criminal hearing, and a civil court hearing;
• The way in which new clients are received during their initial consultation with an attorney;
• The valuable opportunity I had being able to speak French and interpret for a client during a meeting last week; and
• The proper way to organize a firm, serve defendants, bill clients, and close cases.

Furthermore, I was able to see firsthand from an aspiring lawyer's perspective, the professional care and courtesy that was awarded to each client who met with one of the attorneys. It is also clear to me that the lawyers keep the best interest of the clients they represent in mind when they make the decision to settle the case or to take the case to court. I would definitely recommend the law firm of Hull & Chandler both professionally and personally.

WRECKamend Car Crash Claim Kit is now available for free on the iTunes App Store. This mobile phone application allows the user to record evidence at the scene of an accident that will be useful in settling their insurance claims. Information collected on the iPhone App is compiled into an accident report that can be e-mailed to your attorney of choice. Features include a camera and voice recorder to assist in collecting statements at the scene of the accident from the other driver or witnesses. The iPhone App includes fields to enter information on the other driver, witnesses, insurance policies and other relevant information for your claim. GPS is used to record the time and location of your incident.

In addition to the evidence collection function, WRECKamend iPhone App provides useful information concerning North Carolina automobile insurance, car repair and rental and basic medical questions. With the push of a button the iPhone App connects you with emergency 911 to report your accident. Another button connects you with the law office of Hull & Chandler, P.A. so you can consult a lawyer while you are at the scene. Information on local towing, car repair and hospitals is provided through the application by Google Maps.

Hull & Chandler, P.A is a law firm in Charlotte, North Carolina with a focus on personal injury and other litigation. Hull & Chandler, P.A. has provided this iPhone Application as a service to its clients in an effort to accurately record the evidence at the scene of an auto accident. We believe that the Application is the first of its kind developed by a law firm in North Carolina.

WRECKamend is available Here

or link to it from our website: www.hullandchandler.com
or follow WRECKamend on Twitter: @WRECKamend
or follow Hull & Chandler, P.A. on Twitter: @lawyercarolina

To receive update from this blog and more, follow our firm on Facebook and Twitter:

Facebook

Twitter: @lawyercarolina

Lawyers, R. Michael Chandler and I. Timothy Zarsadias, with Hull & Chandler, P.A. settled an automobile accident case for $400,000.00. A write up of this case was published in North Carolina Lawyers Weekly on September 9, 2010.

The client in this case was a 17 year old student who was riding home from school with another student. She was injured when the driver of her vehicle pulled in front of a logging truck.

The driver of our client's vehicle died in the collision and our client was knocked unconscious. She was transported to Carolina's Medical Center where she was in the ICU for three weeks recovering from her injuries.

The driver's insurance tendered the limits of their insurance policy of $100,000.00. However, the insurance carrier for the logging truck denied the claim based upon the truck driver's contention that the plaintiff's vehicle ran a stop sign.

Hull & Chandler, P.A. filed suit on behalf of our client alleging that the logging truck was exceeding the speed limit and failed to maintain a reasonable lookout and control.

Despite our client's less-than-clear recollection of the moments leading up to the collision due to the head injury she sustained, we were able to use accident reconstruction experts to show that the truck driver could have taken action to avoid the accident.

After we successfully defended a motion for summary judgment, the case was settled for $400,000.00, which was structured at our client's request to pay our client, after legal fees and liens, in the amount of $498,000.00 over the next 38 years.

It seems that House Bill 813 has lost its steam in the attempt to get it passed through the North Carolina Senate and will most likely not be enacted into law this session. This is reminiscent of last year when Representative Glazier introduced and got the bill passed in the House, only for it to fail in the Senate. Senator Pete Brunstetter, a Republican from Forsyth County, has tried to get the bill through the Senate this time around. He said that negotiations broke down among the interested parties, including lawyers, medical groups, the chamber of commerce and the insurance federation. A critical blow to the bill's support occurred when the North Carolina Advocates for Justice withdrew its endorsement of the bill in June. The Advocates for Justice were a major driving force behind getting the bill passed. Senator Brunstetter said that the legislation probably will be proposed when the General Assembly meets in 2011. So, for now, North Carolina looks like it will remain a contributory negligence jurisdiction for at least another year.

Information obtained from:

Bill that would help victims sue appears stalled by The Fayetteville Observer
- article can be accessed at: Bill that would help victims sue appears stalled

Jake Daniel for Hull and Chandler

House Bill 813, like most pieces of legislation, has both proponents and opponents. Mainly, the proponents of the bill are those who are in the legal profession, due to the fact that comparative fault is a system more in line with justice since it allocates fault among those who are responsible. The opponents, being mainly the insurance companies take their position because, according to them, switching to a comparative negligence state would mean more pay-outs to claimants. Because there are two groups with opposite, but legitimate, goals, compromises have to be made to satisfy both groups.

One compromise that the state legislature has made to insurance company lobbying is adopting a modified version of comparative fault where a plaintiff is barred from recovery if her fault exceeds a certain threshold. The North Carolina House of Representatives decided to adopt an amendment to House Bill 813 which states that where a party contributes equal to or greater than the combined responsibility of all other parties, she will be barred from recovery. The other option would have been to allow recovery only when a party's fault did not exceed the combined responsibility of all other parties. Now, with the amendment, a plaintiff who is 50% at fault in an accident can recover nothing, whereas, without the amendment, a plaintiff could recover even if he was 50% at fault.

Another compromise deals with the area of damage allocation. Right now, North Carolina has joint and several liability. This means that if there is more than one defendant in a case, the money awarded to the plaintiff can be recovered from any single defendant. Basically, if one defendant can't pay, the other defendant(s) is liable for the insolvent's share. If comparative fault is implemented, many view that it is unfair to hold a single party liable for more than her proportional fault. A better way to allocate the amount awarded is a method of allocation called several liability. Under pure several liability, each defendant is responsible for her percentage of fault in an accident. The wrench comes where one of multiple defendants is insolvent and cannot pay her portion of the judgment. When this happens, a way to fix the problem is to reallocate the responsible shares among the other parties depending on their proportion of responsibility. This switches the burden of a co-defendant's inability to pay from the plaintiff to the other co-defendant(s) who can pay. Reallocation is seen to be the fairest way to deal with the problem of insolvency.

In another compromise to insurance companies, The North Carolina House of Representatives has adopted an amendment stating that a liable defendant's share can not be increased by reallocation if her percentage of responsibility is less than the plaintiff's. Therefore, if the plaintiff's fault in an accident is more than that of the solvent co-defendant, the plaintiff will have the entire uncollectible share of the insolvent defendant reallocated to her. This is something that would not happen under our current scheme of contributory negligence. In essence, this is a limitation on the amount that a plaintiff can recover under a modified several liability regime of comparative fault.

House Bill 813 is a compromised bill between two-heavy hitters. As it stands now if passed, North Carolina will enact a law that incorporates modified comparative fault system along with modified several liability, allowing for reallocation of the uncollectible share.

Information obtained from:

The Road to Comparative Fault in North Carolina by Burton Craige, a Raleigh attorney
- article can be accessed at: Road to Comparative Fault in North Carolina

Jake Daniel for Hull and Chandler

The most important thing that people want to know about the new comparative fault law is whether it will drive up automobile insurance rates for drivers. North Carolina senators requested a reliable breakdown of the issues to determine the effect that implementing this new law would have on insurance premiums for the citizens of North Carolina. In response, the North Carolina Advocates for Justice hired an independent firm, Pinnacle Actuarial Resources, which specializes in analyzing the insurance industry to study other jurisdictions that have made the switch from contributory negligence to comparative fault.

The study was done in the contiguous comparative negligence states of South Carolina and Tennessee. The data indicated that switching from contributory negligence to comparative fault did not result in any substantial increase in insurance rates. In fact, the study suggested that since those states switched to comparative fault, North Carolina and Virginia rates have increased at a faster pace under their contributory negligence scheme. South Carolina converted from contributory negligence to comparative fault in 1991 and Tennessee followed in 1992. Both states had higher insurance rates than North Carolina before they switched. "After the change, the gap between South Carolina and North Carolina closed from 29.4 percent in early 1991 to 2.6 percent in early 2009. The difference between Tennessee and North Carolina fell from 19.4 percent to 5.4 percent. After moving to comparative fault, according to Pinnacle Actuarial Resources, increases in premiums slowed significantly in South Carolina and Tennessee while North Carolina's contributory premiums climbed at a steeper rate."

However, insurance companies continue to warn consumers that insurance rates will surely rise if comparative fault is adopted. The insurance companies base this on the logic that comparative fault will allow for more lawsuits to be filed that are currently not possible under our contributory negligence regime. More lawsuits filed means more money paid out by insurance companies, meaning higher insurance premiums for everyone. EPIC Consulting LLC conducted a study that was completed in February for the N.C. Rate Bureau, a nonprofit entity serving the North Carolina insurance industry, where the actuaries found data to support this contention. The actuaries reported that a shift to comparative negligence law in North Carolina could increase the number of bodily injury claims by approximately 16.6 percent.

In the end, it is important to remember who is conducting these studies and why. Both the proponents and the opponents of the bill have a stake in the game it's up to the people of North Carolina to decide what's best for them as citizens of this state.

Information obtained from:

The Road to Comparative Fault in North Carolina by Burton Craige, a Raleigh attorney - article can be accessed at: Road to Comparative Fault in North Carolina

Adopt Fairer System of Accountability by David Pishko, a Winston-Salem attorney and president of the N.C. Advocates of Justice
- article can be accessed at: Adopt Fairer System of Accountability

Let those at fault sue and watch your insurance costs rise by Jennifer Cohen, executive director of the Insurance Federation of NC
- article can be accessed at: Let those at fault sue and watch your insurance costs rise

Jake Daniel for Hull and Chandler

This is the first entry in a four-part series giving educational information on House Bill 813 which is being debated this session on the North Carolina Senate floor. This article gives a short overview about what House Bill 813 is all about. Once a week over the next three weeks, a new entry will be posted about the bill discussing different aspects of its content.

House Bill 813 is a proposed enactment that will transition North Carolina into a comparative fault jurisdiction, bringing us into the company of 46 other states who already have some form of comparative fault in place. The only other jurisdictions that currently operate under a contributory negligence regime are Virginia, Alabama, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Comparative fault allocates responsibility among the parties liable in a case involving injury. This is different from our current system where it stands that if person is the slightest bit at fault in an accident (even 1%), he or she cannot recover any damages whatsoever.

The Uniform Apportionment of Tort Responsibility Act (UATRA) is a model bill that was approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 2002. This bill basically takes the experiences of other states that have enacted a particular form of comparative fault and incorporates the best features of all those jurisdictions into one act. The North Carolina House of Representatives has integrated UATRA into its bill, so if it passes in the Senate without a complete overhaul this session, North Carolina will most likely enact a comparative fault law based on UATRA.

Contributory negligence is seen and viewed by many versed in that area of the law to be outdated. Comparative fault is thought to be more in line with justice and fairness because it proportions the amount of damages to be paid by a person's level of fault. North Carolina Representative Rick Glazier is the sponsor of House Bill 813 and he has stated that the bill would modernize basic tort law in North Carolina.

Next week's article will address the impact on drivers' insurance in North Carolina if House Bill 813 is enacted into law. The articles that will be posted the following two weeks will respectively address the compromises reached in the bill to help meet the needs of both North Carolina drivers and insurance companies, and how the new comparative fault law, if enacted, will function.

For more a more in-depth look at comparative fault in North Carolina see Road to Comparative Fault in North Carolina published by attorney Burton Craige.

Jake Daniel for Hull and Chandler

Attorney Inezmarie K. Docar of Hull & Chandler, P.A. is knowledgeable in American Sign Language, allowing her to give assistance to an often overlooked group. She has been signing for over twelve years, and can assist those clients who are hearing impaired and would otherwise have trouble communicating with their attorney who is not familiar with American Sign Language. Inezmarie's practice focuses on Corporate Law, Estate Planning, Personal Injury Law and Civil litigation.

Attorney Docar is able to assist clients in a wide range of corporate issues from formation and business planning, drafting corporate documents, corporate litigation, dissolution, contract review, Non-Profits, and intellectual property matters. In addition to corporate work, Attorney Docar can also assist those who are seeking counsel to help with Estate Planning matters, such as Wills, Trusts, Living Wills, Power of Attorney appointments, and Estate Administration. Lastly, Attorney Docar can also assist those clients with Personal Injury matters such as a recent motor vehicle accident, slip and falls, dog bites, wrongful death and property damage.

Attorney Inezmarie K. Docar looks forward to assisting clients of the hearing impaired community, and hopes that her knowledge of American Sign Language will make her clients feel more comfortable.

On August 3, 2009, Attorney Michael Chandler received an arbitration award of One Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,100,000.00) on behalf of a client in a catastrophic automobile accident.

Our client was injured by a drunk drive when the drunk driver crossed the center line in the road and collided with her vehicle. Our client was severely injured in the crash impairing her ability to walk. Multiple surgeries and other medical treatment was required due to the injury.

Expert testimony was required to prove the permanent nature of the injuries and lost earning capacity. The arbitration was held before a panel of three arbitrators and the award was made of $1,000,000.00 for the injuries sustained and $100,000.00 for loss of consortium.