Toyota has been examined by U.S. lawmakers and auto-safety regulators after a series of recalls, most tied to unintended acceleration. Last week, the company halted sales of a new hybrid Lexus sedan because too much fuel spilled in government crash tests, posing a fire risk.
Now House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and Representative Bart Stupak, chairman of the oversight and investigations panel have demanded that Toyota “turn over information about brake-override technology in older model vehicles and describe the role a consulting firm plays in the investigation of unintended acceleration.” Toyota “was asked to discuss the override systems in cars such as the 2005 Camry.”
The lawmakers “also asked Toyota, based in Toyota City, Japan, for information about the work that engineering and research firm Exponent Inc. is performing on unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles.”
Toyota has promised, including in testimony this year before Waxman’s committee, to equip all new vehicles with brake- override software by model year 2011.
Under section 627.727(1), vehicle liability insurance policies must include UM coverage unless the named insured rejects such coverage in writing. But, the company only has to provide information abou tthe available coverage in the annual notice.
Mr. Beckmeyer rejected UM coverage in his application for auto insurance. The initial six-month policy period was August 28, 2005, to February 28, 2006. Before the policy period expired, Progressive sent Mr. Beckmeyer a renewal reminder and notice of premium due to continue the policy for another six months. The renewal notice did not include information regarding UM coverage options, and Mr. Beckmeyer did not elect such coverage for the renewal policy period, February 28, 2006, to August 28, 2006. Mr. Beckmeyer was fatally injured by an uninsured motorist on May 26, 2006. The personal representative of Mr. Beckmeyer’s estate asserts that Progressive’s failure to include the UM coverage information with the six-month renewal notice allows the estate to recover UM liability benefits to which Mr. Beckmeyer was entitled.
The District court of Appeal found today that the insurer was not required to include information about UM coverage options in six-month policy renewal notice — Trial court correctly interpreted plain language of statute as requiring only annual notice, even where, as in this case, the policy renews every six months — Trial court correctly found insured was not entitled to UM benefits where insured initially rejected UM coverage and did not elect such coverage for renewal policy period.
Be sure you have check the box for UM coverage. Don’t let this happen to you or your loved ones!
The National Law Journal (3/15, Qualters) reports, “Judging by the recoveries that National Law Journal affiliate VerdictSearch counted among its Top 100 Verdicts of 2009,” commercial verdicts fell last year. “A bright spot for plaintiffs attorneys was personal injury causes of action. Medical malpractice awards jumped from $321 million to $509.2 million; motor vehicle verdicts hit $738.9 million (up from $470 million); and products liability jumped to $1.1 billion from $458 million the year before.”
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (3/14, Fauber) reported, “For years, drug companies sought out influential university doctors with impressive credentials to bring their message to other doctors and persuade them to write prescriptions for their products.” But as “the practice of doing promotional speaking for drug companies has come under fire in recent years,” more “medical schools…have developed conflict-of-interest policies that ban such talks.” Companies have, therefore, “been forced to back away from that approach,” turning to private physicians instead, who are not regulated by conflict-of-interest policies. As a result, US Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) “has co-introduced legislation requiring companies to release payments to doctors to highlight conflicts of interest for the public.”
Another rear end collision on the Buckman Bridge in Jacksonville Florida causes traged when a womans SUV plummets into the river. The Florida Times Union has the full story.
The risk of rear-end collisions is particularly great in city traffic where traffic patterns create “stop and go” traveling. 75 percent of accidents recorded by the police occur at speeds below 30 mph.
Under Florida law “when the defendant produces evidence which fairly and reasonably tends to show that the rear fact is not presumed,” the driver may not be liable. If you have been a victim of a rear end collision, it is important that you hire an attorney immediately after a rear-end accident. The days after the car accident are crucial to investigate whether the at-fault driver will be raising one of the three fact patterns that could rebut their presumed negligence.
Common rear end collision injuries are whiplash, cervical or neck injuries, baqck injuries, cuts and abrasions. If the seat back in the car failed in the impact, injuries may be more severe. Michael E. Seelie, Personal Injury Attorney counsel clients in Jacksonville, Florida and the surrounding communities of Orange Park, St. Augustine, Green Cove Springs, Callahan, Palatka, Fernandina Beach, Gainesville, and Lake City in rear end collisions.
Underinsured and uninsured motorist coverage protects drivers when the other driver either doesn’t have enough auto insurance or none at all. These are important coverages to have. according to Michael Seelie, a board certified trial attorney in Jacksonville Florida who specializes in auto accident cases.
“I have had to tell people, that have had severe injuries, that there was no coverage for their injuries. You can buy bodily injury insurance which will cover you if you hurt somebody else, but what happens to you if the person who hits you doesn’t have any bodily injury insurance and is fairly poor and can’t pay a judgment? Especially if you think you can’t afford it, don’t opt out of uninsured and underinsured insurance.
The AP (2/22) reported, “Federal prosecutors say a New Jersey pharmaceutical company has agreed to pay $3.5 million to settle allegations that it claimed its heart drug was eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. The U.S. attorney’s office in Boston said Monday that Eon Labs Inc., a subsidiary of Swiss company Novartis AG, submitted false reports to the government between April 1999 and September 2008 that misrepresented Nitroglycerin SR’s regulatory status and failed to advise that the drug did not qualify for Medicaid coverage.” The agreement “settles a whistleblower lawsuit.”
FDA is considering changes to the fast-track medical device approval process called 510(k). This is popular among manufacturers because it is a faster, cheaper path to market than the premarket approval process. The approval process has drawn scrutiny from the Government Accountability Office, which last year identified 20 types of high-risk devices that slipped through FDA.
Meanwhile, Saturday marks the two-year anniversary of the Riegel v. Medtronic, the Supreme Court ruling that granted immunity to medical device manufacturers.
To see AAJ’s release see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398804575071791464778482.html .
USA Today (2/8, Carty, 2.11M) reports as Toyota “grappled Sunday with reports that it was recalling its Prius hybrids in Japan and may do so in the United States, evidence continued to beg whether the automaker and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration responded quickly enough to reports of sudden acceleration in some of its other models.” The Prius concerns “center over braking delays, but insurer State Farm told USA TODAY that it notified NHTSA in late 2007 that it was seeing an increase in sudden acceleration trends with other Toyota and Lexus models.” Congress is “also studying Toyota’s and NHTSA’s reactions,” and the House Oversight and Energy committees will hold hearings on the issue in the coming weeks.
”Toyota has been hit disproportionately hard by unintended-acceleration problems because it has been slower than some competitors in introducing braking technology that could have prevented it, according to safety records and consumer advocates.” Safety advocates “and other critics said there may be multiple potential causes for sudden acceleration, and therefore, multiple solutions. But the most puzzling potential cause is electromechanical interference.” The Detroit Free Press (2/1, Gardner)
