Columbus Personal Injury Lawyer Robert Erney Home

DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., a division of Johnson & Johnson, issued a recall on its ASR XL Acetabular System (a hip socket used in traditional hip replacement surgery) and ASR Hip Resurfacing System (a partial hip replacement that involves placing a metal cap on the ball of the femur) - both of which have been used in hip replacement surgery.
Both hip replacement products have been recalled by the manufacturer from hospitals, surgeons, and patients because they have been linked to a high failure rate. The products also have the possibility to release high levels of metal ion into patients. Pain, swelling, problems walking, and other complaints were noted by the company according to CNN Money. The FDA has received about 300 complaints about the ASR line of hip replacement devices since 2008 and after more than two years the company issued a release that it was recalling the two types of hip replacements.
About 93,000 of these devices have been implanted worldwide, the New York Times reported in March 2010. Patients who have had the ASR line of hip replacement products have needed additional "revision" or secondary surgeries to replace these devices. The medical procedure is what is known as a "revision surgery" or "secondary surgery." These "revision surgeries" or "secondary surgeries" can become very expensive and are painful procedures which could have been avoided had the hip replacement device not been marketed as potentially defective.
If you have suffered injury from the ASR hip replacement system, please contact us by filling out our contact form or calling us at (888) 880 - HURT (4878).

1. Your car is the second largest investment you're like to make. Preserve its value and your safety by having it repaired professionally.

2. Never drive a car that could be unsafe because of damages.

3. Some insurance companies may want you to visit their drive-in claims center before having your car repaired. You can do this, or you may leave your car at a reputable repair shop and ask that the insurance company inspect the car there.

4. You are not required by law to obtain more than one estimate or appraisal.

5. You have the right to go to the repair shop of your choice. The insurance company cannot require you to go to a particular shop.

6. Differences in repair estimates are common. A lower estimate may not include all necessary work. If you\'re not sure why on estimate is different from another you've received, ask a reputable repair shop to explain.

7. Choose a shop that has unibody repair equipment and certified (by I-CAR or ASE, for example) technicians.

8. Ask if the shop will be using genuine manufacturer (OEM) replacement parts.

9. Ask if the shop offers a repair warranty.

10. Let the repair shop help you negotiate your claim with the insurance company.

On Thursday, January 28, 2010, the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the lower court rulings in favor of the estate of a Chillicothe woman who was killed in a head-on car crash caused by a drunk driver the day after his car was to have been impounded by area police.

Justices found the three Circleville, Ohio, police officers named in the wrongful death suit brought by the estate of the deceased woman were not immune as public employees of a political subdivision from personal liability for the injuries they caused when it is alleged they engaged in “wanton or reckless conduct.”

The suit alleged that the Circleville, Ohio officers failed to prevent the drunk driver from retrieving his vehicle from a police impound lot on the day after his arrest for a DUI offense, despite a state law requiring that the drunk driver’s car and license plates remain impounded until after his initial court appearance on the DUI charge. One day later, while again driving intoxicated, the drunk driver caused a head-on crash on U.S. Route 23 in Ross County, in which both he and a twenty – three year old woman were killed.

The Supreme Court of Ohio invalidated a common law exception from civil liability for injuries that are caused by a public employee’s breach of a “public duty.” The Court stated that a judge or a jury could find that the officers acted wantonly or recklessly, which would defeat their claim of immunity and entitle the estate to recover on its claims against them.

This is a very important victory for injured victims in Ohio where their injuries were caused completely or in part by the improper conduct of employees of political subdivisions.

The case is Estate of Graves v. Circleville, Slip Opinion No. 2010 – Ohio – 168.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled on January 6, 2010, that a dog bite victim may pursue the dog owner for damages under the dog bite statute and for negligence under the common law. This is a great court ruling for dog bite victims. This decision was a victory for the family of a twelve year old girl who was mauled by a dog.

The trial judge had allowed the girl’s mother to sue the dog owner only under Ohio’s dog bite statute, limiting the money award in the case. The jury awarded compensatory damages of $5,000.00 for the girl’s medical bills and other costs. The mother appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court, finding that the mother should have been entitled to bring this action under both Ohio’s dog bite statute and theories of common law negligence. The dog owner appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals. This is a very important victory for dog bite victims. We now can file suit under R.C. 9955.28, the dog bite statute, and for negligence under the common law. This will allow dog bite victims to pursue additional compensatory damages, as well as possible punitive damages.

The name of the case is Beckett v. Warrenn, Supreme Court No. 2008 – 2106, decided January 6, 2010.

The Ohio Supreme Court has decided that Ohio Revised Code Section 3937.18 permits insurance companies to include an express limitation of coverage in an automobile insurance policy that precludes payments made under uninsured / underinsured motorist coverage for medical expenses that are paid or payable under the medical payments coverage purchased in the same policy. Stated differently, the Ohio Supreme Court found that an insurance company may decline to pay medical expenses pursuant to uninsured / underinsured motorist coverage when those same medical expenses have previously been paid or will be paid pursuant to the medical payments coverage in the same policy.

In this particular case, State Farm had a “non-duplication” clause, which stated that the insurance company did not have to pay under uninsured / underinsured motorist coverage any medical expenses paid or payable under the medical payments coverage of the same policy. The Supreme Court upheld the non-duplication clause in the State Farm policy, declaring it to be valid and enforceable.

This is a harmful decision for auto accident victims in Ohio. If you are injured by someone who does not have any insurance, or has insurance coverage less than the amount you have under your uninsured / underinsured motorist coverage, your own insurance company will cover your medical expenses under your medical payments coverage, but will not have to compensate you for those same medical bills under your uninsured / underinsured motorist coverage benefits.

Based upon this new case, our advice is that if we are presenting an uninsured or underinsured motorist claim, we will use the injured party’s health insurance to pay for medical bills rather than their automobile insurance medical payments coverage. This is the best way to level the playing field with an automobile insurance company today.

The name of this case is State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Grace, 2009 – Ohio – 5934, decided November 17, 2009.

A major issue that we all have to deal with at some point in time in our lives is over-priced automotive insurance premiums.

It can seem so hard to find a well-established, reputable insurance company to have your policy through that will offer you affordable auto insurance. There are some things that if you are aware of them, can help you to achieve the outcome you are looking for.

One thing that is standard, no matter what company you try to deal with, is that if you are 25 years of age or younger, your rates will be much higher. Statistics have proven that most accidents that occur involve younger drivers.

This does not mean that an older driver will not have an accident; this is just the standard average. One option to lower your insurance premium is if you still live at home, you can be added to your parent's policy and the amount will be cheaper than a policy of your own.

Another thing you must take into consideration is that your premium will be affected by how many claims you have put against your insurance in the past. The more claims you have filed, the higher a risk you are assumed to be, so your insurance premium will, of course, be higher.

There are some things that you can do to help prevent your rates from being outrageous. Here are a few:

-The lower your annual mileage, the cheaper your policy will be. As a rule of thumb, keeping your mileage below 10,000 miles annually will provide you with a lower premium.

-Installing and implementing safety devices on your vehicle offers you a reduction in your premium. This includes things such as, anti-lock brakes, security system, air bags, and so on.

-Enrolling and completing a defensive driving class can provide you with a lower rate on your premium.

-Attaining and keeping a good credit history and score can provide a reduction in your rates.

-Improving your driving history by not filing any claims for the policy period will provide a reduction in rates for the following year's policy.

-Raising the deductible associated with your policy can reduce your premium, but keep in mind that raising this means more out of your pocket if you have an accident.

Implementing some or all of these ideas can help you save money on your car insurance. Keep your insurance company apprised of what you are doing, and check with them regarding the discount offered for completing the driving class.

Ohioans would be shocked to learn that their "full coverage" auto policy is often useless when they need it most: after a serious accident to a family member or loved one.

Tragically, many Ohioans who exercise personal responsibility and purchase insurance have discovered that, after a tragedy, their "full coverage" policy was worthless and provided them with little coverage - or none at all.

Over the last eight years, these "full coverage" auto policies have been eroded in a variety of real world situations by fine print insurance exclusions buried in in comprehensible and hard to read insurance policies. This is no accident: the insurance industry is deliberating shrinking Ohioans' insurance protection with the blessing of the Ohio Legislature and the Ohio Supreme Court.

In case after case, courts are upholding these exclusions in common accident scenarios - even in situations where fully insured family members are driving insured vehicles.

The purpose of this project is to bring this issue to light, identify some major companies who are inserting these exclusions into their policies, and document how many of these exclusions they have chosen to include.

SOME EXCLUSIONS WIPE OUT ALL COVERAGE FOR AUTO ACCIDENT INJURIES

Some recurring accident scenarios illustrate how insurance companies are avoiding ALL responsibility for paying certain claims due to fine print exclusions.

EXCLUSION NO. 1: THE "FAMILY EXCLUSION"

SCENARIOS:

1. A family takes a well earned vacation in their insured vehicle. The occupants consist of: (1) husband, (2) wife, and (3) their minor children. They bought "full coverage" auto policy with $500,000 of liability coverage and the same amount in "Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists" (UM/UIM) coverage, and $5,000 in medical payments coverage. The husband takes the wheel and drives a leg of the trip. He loses control of the vehicle, and seriously injures every occupant in the car. The wife and children have combined medical bills of $200,000.

RESULT: Their auto policy has a "family exclusion." Under this exclusion, the wife and minor children have no coverage at all under the liability or UM/UIM portions of the policy for husband/Dad\'s driving negligence. They are entitled to receive only $5,000 per person in medical bills for a total of $15,000.

2. Same facts as Number 1, except that a minor friend of the children accompanies the family on the trip, and is similarly injured.

RESULT: The wife and children still have no coverage for the husband/Dad's driving negligence. The family friend is covered and is entitled to collect up to the $500,000 liability limits.

3. You and a friend are driving to a golf course or a shopping destination in your fully insured vehicle. In order to stay alert, you allow your passenger friend to drive a portion of the trip. Unbeknownst to you, the passenger's auto insurance has inadvertently lapsed. Your friend negligently wrecks your car and seriously injures you.

Assume that the same coverage is in place as before.

RESULT: Under the family exclusion, you have no coverage despite occupying your own insured vehicle with a "full coverage" policy. Despite the fact that your friend was uninsured, you cannot pursue a UM claim under your own policy, as most policies exclude your insured vehicle from UM/UIM coverage.

SUMMARY

This exclusion eliminates coverage for entire classes of victims simply because they are members of the insured's family or household. It is arbitrary and even bizarre in its application, particularly when the entire premium paying family is excluded, but a non-family friend riding in the vehicle is cloaked with coverage.

Consumers who purchase coverage simply have no idea or expectation that family members will not be covered in such a wide array of accident scenarios. In fact, just the opposite is true. Indeed, this exclusion directly contradicts the purpose of buying liability and uninsured/underinsured motorists coverage: to protect one's family.

HISTORY OF THE FAMILY EXCLUSION

Ohio traditionally recognized intra-family immunity (one family member could not sue another family member), but abolished this defense in Shearer v. Shearer (1982). To avoid this new exposure, insurance companies began inserting intra-family exclusions, also called household exclusions, into the liability sections of their policies. These exclusions were held valid by Ohio courts.

Insureds responded by making "uninsured motorists" claims, arguing that since the family member-tortfeasor was "uninsured" for purposes of the particular accident in question, the injured family member was entitled to UM coverage under his or her own policy.

In response, insurers began to insert "intra-family exclusions" into the UM sections of their policies. These exclusions were eventually disallowed by the Ohio Supreme Court in Alexander v. State Farm (1992). Alexander disallowed the exclusions because Ohio\'s uninsured motorists statute (R.C. 3937.18) MANDATED UM coverage for persons injured in a motor vehicle accident where the claims arose from causes of action recognized by Ohio law.

By the time Alexander was decided in 1992, inter-spousal and intra-family liability were both recognized by Ohio law, so insurers were stuck paying such UM claims.

As a result, the insurance industry turned to the legislature for relief from the impact of Alexander. The result was HB 261 (eff. 9/1997), which redefined uninsured motorist vehicles so as NOT to include "a motor vehicle owned by, furnished to, or available for the regular use of a named insured, a spouse, or a resident relative of the named insured." <

In other words, an insured's vehicle by definition could not be considered an "uninsured vehicle." The specific purpose of this provision was to overrule Alexander so that insurance companies could again exclude inter-spousal and intra-family claims from UM coverage if they chose to do so.

Subsequently, the legislature realized the harshness of the family exclusion. SB 267 (eff. 9/2000) deleted the intra-family exclusion, thereby returning UM law to where it had been pre-1997; that is, UM coverage was once again mandatory for inter-spousal and intra-family torts.

SENATE BILL 97 REVIVED THE INTER-FAMILY EXCLUSION...

The next legislative change cam in October 2001 with SB 97. It eliminated the mandatory offer of UM coverage. Once offered, however, the coverage must comply with the statutory requirements. SB 97 added the language "(I)Any policy of insurance that includes uninsured motorist coverage * * * MAY INCLUDE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT PRECLUDE COVERAGE FOR BODILY INJURY OR DEATH SUFFERED BY AN INSURED UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES. ."

Since the enactment of SB 97, courts have upheld the "family exclusion" in numerous cases involving family members seriously injured or killed while riding in insured vehicles. In one particular case, Calhoun v. Harner, a father driving the family vehicle turned left into the path of another motorist, killing his young daughter.

The court of appeals upheld the family exclusion, reasoning that, on the basis of SB 97, "insurance companies and their customers are free to contract in any manner they see fit."

There are numerous other cases throughout Ohio that have upheld the "family exclusion" in similar scenarios:<

* A minor grandchild wrecked her grandparents' insured car, injuring both grandparents. The grandparents brought an uninsured motorists' claim against their own insurance company. DISMISSED (Lowery v. Geico, Medina Co.)

* A minor driver driving her grandfather's vehicle allowed her boyfriend to drive the car. He crashes the car and kills her. DISMISSED (Milburn v. Allstate, Franklin Co.)

* On Christmas Day 2006, Henry Mo was driving in the family vehicle with his wife and two minor children. He wrecked the cart at an intersection, injuring his wife and both children. They brought UM claims against their insurance company for their injuries. DISMISSED (Mo. v. Progressive, Putnam Co.)

THERE IS NO "FREEDOM TO CONTRACT" WITH THESE EXCLUSIONS

It is a fiction to suggest that a consumer is free to "bargain" for policy terms, much less understand what to ask for if sold a "full coverage" auto policy. Policy holders don't "bargain" for policy terms and conditions that are written by the insurance industry in fine print language and delivered to insureds weeks after they purchase insurance coverage. In fact, many insurance agents are not even familiar with numerous exclusions in their own companies' policies, much less in a position to discuss these confusing and technical policy terms with insureds.

The reality is that the insurance industry pushes the sale of policies on price points and "saving insureds money." Just turn on your TV or radio for the barrage of ads and this point is obvious.

Paradoxically, SB 97 has breathed new life into the "family exclusion", despite the fact that just a few years prior, SB 267 was designed to eliminate the family exclusion. As such, it is now alive and well in Ohio. <

Nationwide, Grange, and Motorists have not included this exclusion in their standard line policies (CAVEAT: It is unknown whether these companies have chosen to include this exclusion in other related or affiliated companies' policies. For example, Nationwide and Grange have numerous subsidiary companies which write "high risk\ policies and they may have included the family exclusion in those policies).

The industry's response is that the exclusion exists in order to fight potential fraudulent claims and staged accidents. This is fallacious for many reasons. First, in all the cases we have outlined in this project, none involved fraud. Every one of these situations involved horribly tragic accidents - a parent making a simple driving mistake that kills a child, or an inexperienced granddaughter who wrecks the family vehicle - and nothing more.

Second, the insurance industry spends millions each year on "Special Investigative Units" (SIU's) which are specially trained to sniff out suspect or fraudulent claims. If the occasional fraudulent claim exists, it should be denied and fought on a case by case basis.

However, it is specious to suggest that an entire class of LEGITIMATE inter-family injury claims should be excluded because of the possibility that a handful might be suspect. Playing the family "fraud" card in this instance is similar o the shopworn adage of "destroying the village to save the people." This overkill should not be sanctioned when premium paying insureds are paying hundreds or thousands of dollars per year for auto coverage.

EXCLUSION NO. 2: THE IMMUNITY EXCLUSION

SCENARIO:

You are driving in your insured vehicle with your family. As you enter an intersection, you are clobbered by a police car, ambulance, or fire truck responding to an emergency call. Your family is seriously injured. However, these vehicles are immune from liability under Ohio law if they are responding to an emergency call and are not engaging in reckless or wanton driving at the time of the collision.

Because the government vehicle is immune from liability, you make a claim for your family\s injuries under the uninsured motorists portion of your "full coverage" auto policy.

Until 2007, it was unsettled as to whether motorists injured by emergency vehicles could pursue uninsured motorists claims against their own insurance companies. When the uninsured motorists\' statute was amended in 1997 by House Bill 267, it specifically allowed motorists to bring UM claims when injured by emergency vehicles cloaked with immunity.

In Snyder v. American Family Ins. Co., the Ohio Supreme Court ended any uncertainty in this area and ruled that insurance companies could legally deny UM claims against their own insureds injured by vehicles/parties that were immune from liability. In eliminating these claims, the Court noted that the insurance policy in question provided that UM benefits would not be paid "UNLESS THE INJURED INSURED WAS 'LEGALLY ENTITLED TO RECOVER' AGAINST ANOTHER MOTORIST." Since Columbus police officer Jennifer Snyder was not\"legally entitled to recover" from a fellow police officer (who ran her over over while in pursuit of a criminal), she could not bring a UM claim against her own insurance company.

IT DID NOT MATTER TO THE COURT THAT THE POLICY IN QUESTION ACTUALLY DEFINED AN "UNINSURED MOTORIST" AS A PERSON "HAVING IMMUNITY." Rather the "legally entitled to recover" language in the policy was interpreted by the Court as a "term and condition" permitted by Senate Bill 97 to deny recovery. The Court interpreted Senate Bill 97 as an open invitation to allow insurance companies to include any exclusion they see fit under the theory that the parties are "free to bargain" for these one sided contract terms.

All insurance companies listed in the attached chart define an "uninsured vehicle" as one that is immune from liability. That provision, if read alone, would seem to support the idea that insureds can bring a UM claim against the companies listed when injured by an emergency vehicle with legal immunity. However, every policy also includes \legally entitled to recover" language relied upon in Snyder to deny UM claims in such cases. Therefore, every company listed that has the "legally entitled to recover" language in their UM coverage now enjoys the benefit of the "immunity exclusion" created by the Snyder decision.

EXCLUSION NO. 3: THE "NON DUPLICATION" CLAUSE - GIVING WITH ONE HAND AND TAKING AWAY WITH THE OTHER

Ohio citizens purchasing "full coverage" policies pay separate premiums for different coverages. for example, insurers will charge a separate premium for liability, uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, and medical payments.

However, in many cases, an insured\'s medical payments coverage has been rendered illusory by a fine print clause known as the "non-duplication" clause. In reality, it should properly be labeled "the subtraction clause," meaning "we will pay benefits under one portion of your policy, then turn around and subtract it from another section of your policy."

A simple example will illustrate how this clause allows Ohio insurance companies to recapture money paid for an injured insured's medical bills, while at the same time accepting premiums for this coverage.

EXAMPLE:

Jane is injured by an uninsured drunk driver. She fractures both legs and needs surgery. Her medical bills exceed $30,000. She had the foresight to purchase "medical payments" coverage of $25,000 and uninsured/underinsured motorists\' coverage of $50,000.

Jane tenders her medical bills to her insurance company for payment, and the company pays its limits of $25,000. At the conclusion of her treatment, she also makes a claim for benefits under her uninsured motorist coverage for the limits of her coverage - $50,000. Her insurance company agrees that her injury claim is worth $50,000 and offers it...but subtracts the $25,000 it paid previously for her medical bills, and sends her a check for $25,000.

Before SB 97, this practice was illegal. In Berrios v. State Farm, the Ohio Supreme Court invalidated insurance industry attempts to deduct medical payments money paid for an insured's medical bills from any amount eventually paid under the uninsured/underinsured portion of the injured person's policy. The reasoning was straightforward and simple: since insureds paid separate premiums for both coverages, they should be entitled to both coverages IN FULL without any subtractions. In essence, the Supreme Court sent the message that "you ought to get what you paid for." In our example above, Jane would have been entitled to the $25,000 in "med pay" and $50,000 for her uninsured motorist claim, for a total of $75,000

After SB 97, insurers began to include "non-duplication" clauses in insurance contracts, in an 'attempt to circumvent the Berrios decision. In a series of recent decisions, courts have upheld this clause and have allowed insurance companies to deduct medical payments previously paid from any settlement made under an uninsured/underinsured motorists' claim.

The insurance industry's reasoning for this clause is that by not allowing a deduction for medical bills previously paid, it creates an unfair windfall" or a "double recovery" to the insured. In the scenario we have outlined, it's hard to fathom how it is a "windfall" for Jane to recover the maximum amounts under her policy for a serious injury - especially when she paid separate premiums for this coverage. The subtraction clause is yet another example of an insurance "trap door" that is sprung on the consumer who pays separately for this coverage, only to find it eventually re-routed into the company's coffers after an accident.

When this after the fact subtraction is explained to clients, their standard reaction is "why am I paying for this coverage if it's going to be taken away from me after the fact based upon some fine print clause I never even knew about?" And they are right. Allowing insurers to shrink coverage after accepting premiums for that same coverage represents a windfall to insurance companies for a sleight of hand maneuver that is little more than a legally sanctioned consumer rip-off.

CONCLUSION

This project has focused on some of the exclusions which insurance companies have inserted into auto policies. We concentrated on some of the larger companies to illustrate recent industry trends. Time constraints did not permit an examination of all policies sold in Ohio, as there are over three hundred auto insurers in Ohio. Given the sheer numbers of insurers in Ohio, and the fact that consumers are not even provided with their policy language until after they sign up for coverage, it is not a leap of logic to conclude that an overwhelming majority of consumers simply rely on their agent over the phone or online company representatives to assure them that their "full coverage" policy will protect their family members in an accident.

Additionally, insurers have a choice as to which exclusions they wish to unilaterally include in their auto policies. None of these exclusions are REQUIRED by Ohio law. While Nationwide, Grange, and Motorists deserve a modicum of credit for choosing not to include the onerous "family exclusion" in their policies, the fact remains that the totality of all the listed exclusions serves to significantly water down or eliminate Ohioans' "full coverage" auto policies.

This project has hopefully shown that: (1) the "full coverage" auto policy has become a meaningless and even false misnomer when applied to real world accidents; and (2) legislative action is needed to level the playing field for Ohio consumers, who are clearly not getting what they pay for when buying a "full coverage" auto policy - despite paying hundreds or thousands of their hard earned money for it.

Source: Ohio Association for Justice, Justice On Your Side (JOYS) Committee, Brian R. Wilson, Chairperson<

I am a trial lawyer. I am proud to represent injured victims in court during trial. It is a great honor and privilege to advocate for another person in front of a jury. Here is how I feel about trial lawyers:<

1. The trial lawyer is one who cares about the client
as a human being, cares about the cause of
the client's case, cares about the decisions of the
judges and juries being fair and just, and cares
about the rights of the "underdog;"

2. The trial lawyer is one who is passionate. We
must have an intense and burning desire to help
others, to take on causes, to teach the law and
advocacy skills with energy and enthusiasm.
Passionate lawyers don't take losing lightly, and we
are quick respond to debate on important issues;

3. The trial lawyer is one who prepares with intensity;

4. The trial lawyer is one who understands what really
causes or achieves the result;

5. The trial lawyer is one who should guard the
image of lawyers as a profession;

6. The trial lawyer is one who follows this motto:
"There is never a wrong time to do the right thing;"

7. The trial lawyer is one who sets the pace with his
or her work ethic;

8. The trial lawyer is a leader by example, word, and
deed;

9. The trial lawyer is one who really gives of his or
her time, effort, energy, and money to important
causes;

10. The trial lawyer respects and honors the power of
the people. This includes the right to trial by jury
and the decisions made by jurors;

11. The trial lawyer is one who digs deep to muster up
all the courage necessary to fight the wrong;

12. The trial lawyer is an innovator;

13. The trial lawyer is a thinker;

14. The trial lawyer must be a fighter;

15. The trial lawyer must seek to be a problem-solver;

16. The trial lawyer must understand history and
appreciate the lessons of history;

17. The trial lawyer must always tell the truth;

18. The trial lawyer must be a good and true listener;

19. The trial lawyer must do the work of and for society
for the good of the client's cause;

20. The trial lawyer must hold the solid but flexible
principles of our great Constitution;

21. The trial lawyer must believe in his client's case.

I am actively representing victims of car accidents in all of the major suburbs of Columbus, including Bexley, Blendon Township, Blacklick, Brice, Canal Winchester,Clinton Township, Dublin, Gahanna, Galena, Galloway, Genoa Township, Grandview Heights, Grove City, Groveport, Hilliard, Lithopolis, Lockbourne, Marble Cliff, Mifflin Township, Minerva Park, New Albany, Obetz, Pataskala, Pickerington, Powell, Reynoldsburg, Upper Arlington, Urbancrest, Valleyview, Westerville, West Jefferson, Whitehall, and Worthington.



I am also currently representing injured victims of car accidents in Delaware, Ohio, Newark, Ohio, Marion, Ohio, Marysville, Ohio, Circleville, Ohio, and Lancaster, Ohio.

I would like to personally thank our Past Presidents. Before you were presidents, you were vice-presidents, secretaries, treasurers, directors and committee chairs. Each one of you molded, shaped and guided this organization. Each one of you strengthened this organization in your own way. Each one of you preserved our mission. Our mission is justice.

Tim Boone, thank you. During Tim’s year, we: changed our name (COAJ); brought back the Louisville Slugger Award; created the position of Information Director (Mark Lewis); began educating the public on “The Judiciary: The Least Understood Branch of Government”; held various committee gatherings; created a Young Lawyers Committee; and initiated a Past Presidents gathering.

COAJ was awarded “The Best Local Trial Lawyer Association” last Friday by the Ohio Association for Justice because of Tim’s initiative on the judiciary. Every one of Tim’s programs and initiatives will be retained during my year as president. Please join me in giving a round of applause for Tim’s leadership, dedication and service to the COAJ

Jami Oliver’s pro bono project, initiated during her year as president in 2005- 2006 will also be maintained. This is an excellent program designed to preserve access to the judicial system for those who otherwise would not have the resources to preserve and protect their legal rights.

We will continue our judicial screening program which began under Mike Miller’s presidency in 2004-2005. This august we will interview and evaluate incumbent and challengers for a number of Franklin County judicial races.

Your Board recently voted to expand the screenings to Delaware County as well. As the Central Ohio Association for Justice, your Board felt our responsibilities to serve are not confined to only Franklin County.

The purpose of the judicial screenings is to educate the public and in turn, improve the judicial system.

We will continue our annual seminar on ethics, substance abuse and professionalism. This year’s seminar will take place December 9, 2008 at a cost of only $50.00 for members.

We will be maintaining our other member services and benefits which include 3 dinner / luncheon meetings, discounted costs for CLE seminars, networking, fellowship, and collegiality opportunities, discounted rates through preferred vendors, outstanding speakers at our dinner and luncheon meetings, lawyer referral, list serve, online deposition day, a great website, the Judicial Reception in September, our Members Only Seminar, and the quarterly newsletter.

To complement our new name, we selected, at our leadership retreat, a new logo and motto. The new logo is on your tables. Our new motto, which will be on all official letterhead, promotional materials, brochures, correspondence, and our website, is: “JUSTICE* SERVICE* PROFESSIONALISM.” Our motto capsulizes our new mission statement which is “Promoting justice for individuals in all local, state and federal courts; supporting members; assisting the legal communities; improving the judicial system and serving the citizens of central Ohio.

Our motto and mission statement also encompasses our core values, which are assisting the legal profession, the courts, and the community to .envision and affect changes that improve the judicial system, promoting the highest levels of professionalism and ethics within the legal profession, promoting the free access of individuals to the courts, encouraging cooperation, the sharing of ideas, goodwill and professionalism among the trial lawyers of Central Ohio, upholding the dignity and rights of families, children, and individuals in the courts of Central Ohio, preserving the rights of individuals in the civil and criminal justice system, promoting understanding and goodwill , among trial lawyers, the judiciary, and the public in Central Ohio, inspiring excellence in advocacy in dispute resolution through training and education, and


upholding the honor and dignity of the legal profession.

The Central Ohio Association for Justice began in 1962 with Russell Volkama as our first president. We are 46 years old. We enter our 47th year with optimism, enthusiasm and a great sense of tradition. Today, we have approximately 265 members, a 9-member board, and 9 subspecialty committees.

I would like for you to meet our chair persons. As I call your name, please stand and remaining standing so that we may honor you as a group: Consumer Law-Dave Mayer & Matt Wilson; Criminal Law –Mark Miller & Robert Essex; Domestic Relations, Brad Frick, Employment Law, Mark Granger & Jason Dewickey; Medical Malpractice: Craig Barclay & John Alton; Negligence & Insurance, Sidney Mclafferty & Rebecca Weiss; Probate Law,Tom Bonaserra & Michael Bonasera; Workers Compensation, Bill Thorman; Young Lawyers, Logan Phillips & Jessica Johnson, Ethics Seminar, Chenika Pierce; Members Only Seminar, Scott Wright, Past Presidents Gathering, Chenika Pierce, Information Director: Bob Wagoner; Judicial Screening: Bob Wagoner; Louisville Slugger Award: Mark Lewis; Newsletter: Ron Petroff & Morgan Masters; Pro-Bono Project: Jami Oliver; and Website: Shawn Harris. These Chairs and Co-Chairs are leaders of leaders. Thank you for your service.

In our leadership retreat we did some long range planning and prepared a strategic plan for this organization. The board established 5 goals: 1. increase membership 10% per year for the next 5 years; 2. increase attendance at luncheons, dinners and seminars; 3. develop and include other practice areas into our Association; 4. strengthen our relationships with the Ohio Association for Justice, the American Association for Justice, the Columbus Bar Association, and the Ohio State Bar Association; and 5. increase member services and benefits.

My theme this year is “Improving the Judicial System.” Our thrust could include a number of different potential avenues, including: education of the public; judicial screening; improving the image of trial lawyers; preserving the contingency fee agreement; preserving access to the judicial system; preserving the independence of the judiciary; defending the judiciary; community involvement; problem solving courts; racial and ethnic bias in the judicial system; and user friendly courts.

At all of our dinner and luncheon meetings during the upcoming year, our guest speaker will be a judge. Judges will come from Municipal Court, Common Pleas Court, the Court of Appeals, Supreme Court, and Federal Court. The judges will share their thoughts on improvements which are needed in the judicial system.

I have also established an ad hoc committee, made up of the officers of COAJ, to focus on action steps that we can take to improve the judicial system.

We will create a positive atmosphere at our luncheon and dinner meetings this year. We will provide opportunities for you to share “good news” at our meetings. We will create opportunities for members to share their humor, their stories, their talents and their successes. We want you to leave our meetings feeling uplifted, educated and inspired. We will find new ways to lift each other up, support and encourage each other.

Bring a guest to our meetings this year. Your guest just might join our organization. Your guest just might become a committee chair. Your guest just might become a Director. Your guest just might become an officer. Your guest just might become President of this organization and lead us into the future in new and powerful ways. Bring a guest to our meetings.

Receiving justice is hard work. We pray for justice. We work for justice. We fight for justice. We are all in this together and we need to do everything we can to help each other. Our fellowship, our friendship and our relationships are our greatest strengths.

Before he died, John McConnell said: “I would not be who I am today if I had not responded to my own deep-rooted belief that the friendships I cherish and the people I help, ultimately define me as a person.” Our friendship and the people we help will ultimately define us as lawyers and as people.

Helping people achieve justice is our business. Improving the judicial system is our challenge. Together we can make a difference. Membership in this organization can help us achieve both. Thank you.

It’s about service. It’s always been about service, and it will always be about service. Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart, said that whatever you choose to do in life, do it with passion. I am proud to be a Rotarian and to be part of an organization that does so much good in our community and around the world. Becoming the 98th president of Columbus Rotary is a great honor for me. It is a great moment for me because it is my chance to serve.

All over the world right now, Rotary is changing leadership at the club, district, and international levels. The genius of Rotary is the changing of leadership on an annual basis. Changing leadership insures that rotary remains relevant, invigorated, motivated, and inspired.

With 1.2 million Rotarians and 33,000 clubs throughout the world, Rotary is the oldest and most influential service organization in the world. As President of Columbus Rotary, I view myself as the servant of all of the leaders. I am happy to serve because service is my passion.

As I look around this room, I see some of the finest people I have ever known. People who care about others. People who believe in the importance of service. People who value fellowship, friendship, and relationships. People who believe in the goodness of Rotary.

People with “Rotarian hearts.” People who find joy in a life of service. People who, over and over, say “yes” to Rotary. People who understand that by changing the lives of others, they change their own lives. And why do you do it? Because service is your passion.

Your “yes” to Rotary is changing our world. Thank you for all that you are doing for our community and our world.

Maureen and I recently returned from the RI convention in Los Angeles. Approximately 20,000 Rotarians from all over the world attended the convention. The plenary sessions were amazing and inspirational.

Bill and Melinda Gates gave Rotary International one hundred million dollars in the form of a challenge grant to support Rotary’s End Polio Now program. What does that say about the reputation of Rotary on the world stage as a global humanitarian organization?
RI has until December 2010 to match the 100 million dollar Gates Grant. RI has spent 70 million dollars of the grant since it was awarded in November 2007. Rotary International has promised the world’s children to End Polio Now. Rotary keeps its promises. Rotary will not quit until polio is eradicated in every country of the world. RI will continue its efforts in the areas of health, hunger, water, literacy, and the eradication of A.I.D.S.

Rotary is heavily involved in international disaster relief, as evidenced by its new “Shelter Box” program. RI’s new incoming president, D.K. Lee, addressed the convention at the closing ceremony and explained his theme for the upcoming Rotary year. D.K. Lee told us that 30,000 children under the age of 5 die every day in the world from preventable causes, such as pneumonia, measles, diarrhea, and malaria. He explained that so much can be done to keep these children alive with so little, such as mosquito nets, rehydration salts, vitamins, vaccines, clean water, a trained birth attendant, a visiting nurse, and nutrition programs.

D.K. Lee is asking that Rotary clubs around the world assist and provide service projects to reduce child mortality in our world. In 2008 – 2009, he has asked us all to Make Dreams Real for the world’s children by giving them hope and a chance at a future so that one day their dreams might come true.

Here in Columbus, the state of Columbus Rotary is strong. We are the 14th largest Rotary club in the world. Today we have 430 outstanding members, 4 active avenues of service, 47 committees including individual projects / sub committees, outstanding weekly programs, a very strong and financially secure foundation, successful Interact, Rotaract, and Young Professionals Clubs, and a growing and vibrant scholarship program.

We also have outstanding annual events, such as the Service Above Self Awards, the High School Service Above Self Fair, the Rotarian of the Year Award, an excellent staff, a strong and growing promotion committee, and numerous great service and vocational projects, locally and internationally. We are blessed with a strong club board, a strong foundation board, a strategic plan, a great website, a weekly bulletin, and great people devoted to our mission.

We have a deep seated and a strong set of core values. Our core values are to encourage and foster the ideal of service, fellowship, high ethical standards in business and professions; the advancement of international understanding, good will, and peace through fellowship. Our mottos are “Service Above Self,” “They Profit Most Who Serve Best,” and the Four-Way Test that guides our personal and professional lives.

Based on our strengths and our core values, we move into the future with great confidence in our ability to fulfill the object of Rotary and our mission of service. And why do we meet, Monday after Monday, performing service and looking for new ways to make positive and enduring change in the lives of others?
Why is it that members of this Rotary club have remained members, in some cases for thirty, forty, and fifty years? It is because “Service is Our Passion.”

We have our challenges and they fall into the areas of membership, less than full engagement, and limited fellowship opportunities due to our size. I believe that we can take our challenges and turn them into our greatest strengths. We need to trust each other, keep open minds, and think big.

Our club has been around for almost 97 years. I believe we have lasted this long because we have made changes along the way. In order for Rotary to continue to be effective, it must change along with the times. We must work on our membership and do everything we can to create a fully engaged club. We need more hands, hearts, and minds to do service. We need to create an environment where “going the extra mile” is a way of life.

Because we have so many new members on an annual basis, we must find ways to welcome them warmly into the family of Rotary. We must develop a sense of generational sensitivity. We must open new avenues of fellowship in order to develop the kind of relationships necessary to support high levels of service and full engagement. We must raise up new Rotary leaders with regular leadership development and training. We must bring more qualified women into Rotary.

We must become more sensitive to diversity and develop membership that fairly represents our more diverse community. We must bring qualified younger new members into our club. And when we do we must bring those new members into the wide circle of the Rotary family. We must let the community know who we are and the service we provide. As leaders we must lead. We must never fear change. We must embrace it. Leadership does not mean reacting to change. Leadership means making change.

The new century of Rotary requires new visions of service and fellowship. This is our challenge. And this is our time

I have set five goals for my year. Goal #1 is to increase our membership. I have strengthened our membership development committee to a team of 7 Rotarians including Tedd Dameron, Rob Pierce, Mike Voinovich, Mike Schoedinger, Bill Lane, Jackie Cooper, and Millie Droste.

We have established a new committee, called Membership Three, encompassing New Member, Membership Development, and Participation and Retention that will work together on those three important aspects of membership. We will hold a series of round table luncheons to train our members to recruit with methods and materials. We will recognize and honor Rotarians who bring in new members.


Goal #2 is to increase participation, retention, and engagement. I have expanded our Participation, Retention, & Engagement Committee to include Jerry Converse, Judy Czarniecki, Lisa Westwater, George Arnold, and Kathleen Lach. I have strengthened the committee leadership throughout the club by adding second vice chairs to all 36 committees. Each committee now has a chair, vice chair, and a second vice chair who will work together as a team of three. In doing so, I have widened the circle of leadership to bring more minds, hands, and hearts into our various service-related committees.

Goal #3 is to increase opportunities for fellowship. Fellowship is the fertile ground from which service grows. Beginning next week, your officers, John Deal, Sandy Knoesel, and I will serve as greeters at the doors prior to the meetings.

I have created a Fellowship Committee composed of Hugo Trux, Joanne Schorsten, and John Ziegler to help us create fellowship opportunities. I have decided to incorporate a very short period of fellowship into all of our weekly meetings. For this reason, we will be starting our meetings at 12:05, rather than ten minutes after twelve, beginning next week.

Goal #4 is to increase service projects in all four avenues. At our leadership retreat, I asked the committee leadership to increase their efforts to locate and select appropriate service projects. I reminded them about the power of an idea and the fact that many great projects were born from an idea by one Rotarian. With the help of our partner, First Link, we now have a service project database to guide us where the needs are the greatest. Our committee chairs will help us decide where we can do the most good with our resources. I have also asked committees to work together, interdependently, on group projects.

My fifth and final goal is to create a Leadership Development Training Program in 2008 – 2009 for all members. I have established a new Leadership Development Committee, comprised of Christie Vargo, Charlie Boltwood, and Donna Glanzmann. We will have quarterly leadership development roundtables covering topics such as communication skills, leadership styles, leading and motivating volunteers, mentoring, time management, goal setting and accountability, strategic planning, ethics and the four-way test, building consensus, and teamwork. Our Leadership Development Program will enhance Rotarians’ personal growth and further develop their leadership skills, allowing them to better serve and benefit their communities, their families, their business endeavors, and our club.

I ask you to do three things this year: bring a guest to Rotary; attend as many weekly meetings as you can; and participate in fellowship activities and committee work in one of the four avenues of service. I also ask that committees select service projects aimed at reducing child mortality.

As President, I am given the gift of three Paul Harris fellow awards. I in turn now give these gifts to three very important people in my life, my wife Maureen, and my mother and father, Catherine and Duane Erney.

We are ordinary people who come together in teams to do extraordinary things. We will continue to assist homeless families in Columbus, because service is our passion. We will continue to support the Rafiki Village orphanage in Kenya, because service is our passion. We will continue to support Enterprise Academy because service is our passion. We will continue to support and foster membership, engagement and fellowship, because service is our passion.

Columbus Rotary will be 100 years old in 2012. The Centennial Committee, chaired by past president Dick Argo, is already at work. We will have a huge celebration in 2012 and a centennial service project that will be a lasting reminder to the community of the generosity of Columbus Rotary and our love for this city.

With faith in God and faith in each other, we move into tomorrow with confidence and optimism. We have done a lot. But we can do more. In fact, we can do more than we might believe possible. The best days of Columbus Rotary are still ahead.

In the coming year, we will do everything we can to help each other. But we will save our best for others. We will continue to make positive and enduring change in the lives of others. And it will come naturally to us, because Service Is Our Passion.

Pull out your auto insurance policy and carefully review it. Make sure that you have uninsured / underinsured motorist coverage. This coverage protects you if you are injured in an accident by another driver who either has no auto insurance or has lower limits. Please understand that many Ohio drivers have state minimum limits of $12,500.00 per person. Usually, that amount of coverage will barely cover your emergency room visit.

I recommend that you have at least $100,000.00 per person and $300,000.00 per accident of uninsured / underinsured motorist coverage.

Please also make sure that you have medical payments coverage of at least $5,000.00. It is preferable to have $25,000.00 of medical payments coverage. This coverage will pay your medical bills if you are injured in an auto accident. This coverage is very important, particularly if you do not have health insurance coverage.

It is also wise to have an umbrella policy. You would be surprised to learn that the premiums for an umbrella policy are very low. It is not that expensive to purchase a $1,000,000.00 umbrella policy that can protect you in the event of an accident.

Many insurance agents do not tell you about uninsured / underinsured motorist coverage, medical payments, and umbrella coverage. Frequently, you have to specifically request this coverage. I cannot over emphasize how important it is that you have this coverage in your auto policies.

Protect yourself by reviewing your automobile insurance policy today. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to call me.

Robert D. Erney

It is best to avoid significant gaps in treatment. A gap in treatment is a period of time in which you are not obtaining any medical care and treatment. A gap in excess of thirty (30) days typically will cause an insurance adjuster to question treatment which occurs after the thirty-day gap.

Consequently, we recommend that you obtain medical care and treatment for your injuries on a regular basis in order to avoid any gaps in treatment in excess of thirty days.

Sometimes, however, your doctor will schedule you for a sixty or ninety day follow up. As long as the gap in treatment can be explained medically, it should not be a problem. The problem occurs when there is no legitimate medical explanation for the gap.

Avoiding gaps in treatment will help us to obtain full and fair compensation for you at the time of settlement.

Written by: Robert D. Erney Esq.

Trip and fall; sounds like no big deal, right? Yet, don’t you know that there are thousands of people who get hurt from these accidents each year? With such significantly high number, it may be difficult to judge whether these trip and fall accidents are the fault of the injured person himself/herself, or if they are the responsibility of other parties.

It seems that everybody lately has been either slipping and falling, or tripping and falling, and blaming these accidents to other people, such as a neighbor, employers, maintenance crew, product manufacturers, establishment owners, residential property owners, council or government entities, and so on.

Many individuals are complaining about being hurt or injured in another person’s premises just so they could have a premise liability claim, and recover money from the parties they are accusing legally responsible.

Slip, or trip and fall are the most common cause of action for a premise liability. In determining legal responsibility for this type of claim, three important elements should be present: ownership, possession and control. The individual who possess these three elements may have responsibility for any injuries suffered by another person from a hazardous condition within their premises.

However, suing somebody over a premise liability is not as easy as people assume. There are strict guidelines in establishing liability, and this is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. An object left on the floor or an uneven patch on the road doesn’t always mean responsibility of a person or entity. Liability depends upon certain circumstances or causes.

Although property owners are subject to a certain degree of duty of care, it is not always their fault when someone trips and fall within their property, especially when such accident could have been avoided by a standard reasonable person. There are faulty conditions on the road that an ordinary person would be able to notice and avoid.

So when a property owner is held legally responsible for a trip and fall? The court or jury must be able to evaluate some of the following major considerations in holding liability against a proprietor:

• There was a harmful or faulty condition on the premises
• The defect or faulty condition within the premises either was created by the owner himself/herself, or at least had been noticed by the owner yet he/she failed to take action even after having a reasonable time to do so.
• The owner had knowledge, or should have had knowledge, regarding the faulty condition
• The property owner owed some duty of care to the injured individual
• The property owner breached that duty of care
• The breach of duty was the proximate or actual cause of the trip and fall accident
• The accident caused injuries or damages to the individual

The difficulty in proving a genuine trip and fall case comes in the question whether the owner knew or should have been aware of the defective condition. This is where trip and fall lawyers come in handy. They will be able to help plaintiffs prove liability against property owners.

Eighty percent of motor vehicle crashes in the United States involve distracted drivers, according to a government study that videotaped the drivers of 100 vehicles in northern Virginia and Washington D.C.

Researchers reviewed thousands of hours of video and data from sensor monitors linked to the drivers and discovered that driver distractions such as talking on a cell phone, eating, and applying make-up, can significantly increase the risk of a crash.

Of the popular multi-tasking activities drivers engage in while on the road, reaching for a moving object while driving showed the greatest potential for a crash - increasing the risk by nine times. Reading, applying make-up, and dialing a cell phone each increased the risk of a car accident by about three times.

Additionally, the study revealed drowsy driving as a factor that could enhance the driver''s risk of a crash or near-crash by four to six times. Drowsy driving is frequently underreported in police crash investigations, according to the study's authors.

Under Ohio law, there is no liability if a person slips and falls on a natural accumulation of ice and / or snow. There are some exceptions. For example, if a business owner or homeowner shovels their snow they have a duty to shovel the snow with reasonable care. If they fail to use reasonable care, they could be liable.

The same is true for removal of ice. If a business owner or homeowner voluntarily attempts to remove ice, once again, it must be removed with reasonable care. If reasonable care is not used, there could be liability.

If a person slips and falls on an unnatural accumulation of ice, there also could be liability. An unnatural accumulation of ice would occur if water freezes on a sidewalk or parking lot after accumulating in an unnatural way. I handled a case a few years ago where ice formed in a parking lot as a result of water shooting out from a basement opening due to a faulty sump pump. I was able to successfully settle the case by arguing that the ice was formed unnaturally.

A 2 1/2-year-old boy and his mother recently won a $856,000 jury award in a case involving a dog attack on a Hawaiian beach. The verdict is thought to be the highest in the state's history for a dog bite case.

The Attack
Keeton Manguso weighed only 24 pounds when a Rottweiler owned by Mariko Bereday attacked him on the beach. He suffered multiple bites to the hip, back and arms and received stitches for his injuries.

Jim Bickerton, attorney for Manguso and his mother, Veronica Tomooka, said a former University of Hawaii football player had to punch the dog in the head to get it to stop attacking the boy.
The dog's owner denied claims that her dog attacked the boy, despite photos of his injuries, and said she would appeal the verdict.

Previous Citation
However, Hawaiian Humane Society records from 2003 showed that Bereday had received five warnings and one citation for not keeping her dog on a leash.
"It really highlights that the rules that say when a dog is out it public it should be leashed are there for a very good reason. Too many people want to enjoy the pleasure of running with their dogs at the beach and don't stop to think about the risk that poses, especially to young children," said Bickerton.

Bereday was sentenced to five days in jail when her dog attacked another child, a 4-year-old girl, five days after it attacked Manguso. She was also cited with a $2000 fine and the dog was ordered to be put down. That case is being appealed.

(Source: azcentral.com)

Two U.S. senators, motivated by a bus crash that killed five college baseball players, announced a proposal Thursday that would require seat belts on long-haul buses.

The proposed legislation also would require changes to bus windows that would help stop passengers from being thrown out of the vehicles during accidents.

Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, also want better training for drivers and stronger bus roofs that will hold up in rollover accidents. They said the legislation would reduce deaths and injuries in bus accidents.

They announced their proposal nearly eight months after a bus carrying Bluffton University's baseball team toppled off an overpass in Atlanta. Five players, the bus driver and his wife died.

Some of the players killed and those who were injured were thrown out of the bus and pinned underneath it. The bus did not have not seat belts.

The proposal applies to motorcoaches that travel from state to state, not city buses or school buses. (AP)