Arleta, CA Personal Injury Law Firms & Lawyers | Page 4 Results

A lawyer would not be able to handle a $250 dog bite case. Talk to the owner and see what he will do. Sue him in the Judge Judy (small claims) court. You will have to prove the dog has a vicious propensity (has done this sort of thing before) and that may be difficult to do

It sounds like, in the exercise of good faith, the insurer for the at-fault driver should tender / offer you the 100K of per injured person policy coverage limits it contracted with the at-fault driver to pay. That insurer will want a Release from you. IF your car was insured, at the time of the accident, hopefully, you had Uninsured / Underinsured Motorist Coverage (UM/UIM)in effect at the time of the accident to serve as a floating layer of protection over and above the liability insurance for the at-fault driver. Hopefully, you also had Personal Injury Protection (PIP) insurance coverage on your car policy, too. You need to demand that the at-fault driver's insurer tender / offer the 100K to you, and get that in writing. IF the at-fault insurer DOES tender the 100K BEFORE you accept that, you need to get with YOUR auto insurer pursuant to the WA. Supreme Court case of Hamilton v. Farmers Ins. to advise of the tender of liability coverage limits to see IF your insurer wants to buy out the underlying liability claim by making a substitute payment to you of the 100K OR if your insurer says it's OK to accept the 100K from the at-fault insurer and give a Release. Generally, you cannot do anything that might prejudice the ability of YOUR auto insurer to recover against the at-fault driver. The only reason that your insurer might want to buy out the underlying liability claim is that your insurer's investigation could show that the at-fault driver has substantial personal assets and is just truly UNDERinsured / doesn't have sufficient coverage. It's pretty rare that your insurer will want to buy out the underlying claim. I've only seen that done four times in 35 years, and each time the at-fault driver had commercial real estate. AND if you are paid the 100K of liability coverage, you then move on to your UM/UIM coverage (which is a no-fault coverage using it won't affect your rates / you've already been paying premiums for that coverage) to get additional compensation AND if you get the 100K from the at-fault insurer AND you also had PIP coverage, the 100K does NOT make you whole for your injuries, SO your insurer does not have a right of subrogation / reimbursement from / by you from the 100K for PIP payments made (insurers don't have a right of subrogation in WA. until you / the insured has been made whole). Generally, though, your insurer will get a credit for PIP coverage payments made against the WHOLE value of the claim and that will bear on what your insurer decides it wants to offer you on your UM/UIM claim. It is going to depend, then, on how much UM/UIM coverage you contracted for with your own insurer. Of course, IF you did NOT have UM/UIM coverage then you are probably only going to get the 100K of the liability coverage. Clear as mud?

In this situation it does not appear they are liable unless they did something wrong. If they caused the water to be there, knew it was there, or should've known it was there and did nothing about it, the office is liable. On the other hand, the patient who spilled the water is liable and may have homeowners insurance.