According to a new study commissioned by the Million Dollar Round Table (MDRT), even families who appear financially stable are not always protected against risk. Nearly half of Americans say they could only maintain their existing lifestyle for 3 months or less if they were to lose their primary source of income and even fewer have insurance products like life insurance and long-term disability insurance to protect against risks.
The study found 61% of families would need to assume debt if they lost the primary wage earner in their family while 38% would have at least $10,000 in debt. Just half of Americans have life insurance. Among adults with dependents, 47% say their families would run out of money without their income in less than two years if they were to die.
One key area of financial planning that is overwhelmingly overlooked is the risk of disability or illness. 1 out of every 20 Americans are unable to work due to an illness or disability, but just 20% of Americans have short-term or long-term disability insurance. Only 39% of those who do have coverage think it would be enough to cover their care and medical expenses if they are seriously hurt, disabled, or sick.
Many Americans with long-term disability (LTD) insurance receive it through their employer, although LTD insurance can also be purchased as a private policy. An individual policy may have looser definitions of “disabled,” greater coverage, and flexibility, although these policies are usually more expensive than group coverage.
The post Study: Only 20% of Americans Have Disability Insurance appeared first on Philadelphia Disability Insurance Lawyer.
When I write a headline entitled “Crashing Through the House,” it’s because the car and driver in this case literally crashed through a house.
We start our little story back in 2012 when 23-year-old Daniel Sajewski, Jr. crashed his father’s Mercedes in through the front picture window of a home and right out the back. You can see the picture here — in through the front and right out the back.
Ya’ think there might be some law out of this? That’s why I’m here. You’re welcome. Let’s get started.
First off, and coming as no great surprise to anyone, Sajewski was bombed out of his mind, blowing .30 on the breathalyzer, more than a wee bit over the limit in any jurisdiction that has any laws at all. (Depending on which story you read, he was downing shots of Jack Daniels, tequila and drinking beer.)
And then there was the part about Sajewski asking his then-girlfriend Sophia Anderson to take the rap, and claim she was the driver. He promised, according to news reports, to cover her legal bills and take her on vacation.
I’m betting you’ve already guessed that this deal, shall we say, came apart.
Sajewski had, at the time, six outstanding warrants on six different cases, suggesting he was not exactly a leading light in his community. He’d been charged with drinking on the subway, possession of marijuana and failure to complete community service for a previous conviction.
He had a record for petty theft and other drug possession charges, as well.
Sajewski ultimately pled guilty to driving while intoxicated, reckless endangerment and making false statements. He was sentenced to one-and-a-half to three years behind bars.
Now this is the part where I come in, the civil side after State Farm coughed up 180K in insurance proceeds for the house that its insured demolished. (The two 90+ year old sister who lived there were both unharmed.)
State Farm wanted its 180K back, and sued the driver Sajewski, Jr. as well as his father, Daniel Sajewski, Sr., as Papa actually owned the car.
Papa Sajewiski said, in effect, let me out of this suit because my ne’er-do-well kid took the car without permission. Not my fault!
Junior Sajewski supported his papa, and agreed that he took the car without permission. (I know! You’re shocked that Junior would help out his papa after wrecking his fancy car!)
But. Not so fast. In New York, it’s not just drivers of cars that are liable for the damage, but the you see, the owners also. (VTL 388(1)). This makes sense because owners are in the best position to evaluate the competence of the people they lend their cars to.
In the trial court, the judge said in legally sounding language, no way, no how, you ain’t getting out of this suit. Owners are responsible too.
But Papa pointed out that, while there is a strong presumption of permissive use of the vehicle, that presumption is rebuttable. And look here at the two affidavits of Papa and Junior, both saying the same thing.
Papa appealed. And yesterday, he got shot down again, this time by the Appellate Division, Second Department.
The court was pretty clear about this. For even though the testimony of no permissive use was un-rebutted by any other source, that is not always enough. While the court didn’t write the back story with four-part harmony (and feeling), it had the briefs. And they noted that the improbability of a story, or the interests, could effect how a jury would receive the evidence. The court wrote that:
[i]f the evidence produced to show that no permission has been given has been contradicted or, because of improbability, interest of the witnesses or other weakness, may reasonably be disregarded by the jury, its weight lies with the jury’
So the question will, one day, go to a jury, where it belongs. Because questions of fact aren’t for the court.
And given the long history of legal trouble that Junior has been in, I’m willing to bet that a jury will wonder why Papa didn’t hide the keys if he really didn’t want Junior to drive. And I’m not the only one to wonder why, as the court noted:
Daniel [Junior] had access to the appellant’s [Papa] residence. Further, the key to the vehicle was kept in a “central location” inside a bin located in the kitchen of the appellant’s residence. Additionally, on previous occasions, Daniel had been permitted by the appellant to drive other vehicles owned by the appellant.
Just remember this story the next time you loan a car to someone that might be somewhat less than reliable. Because you can be on the hook.
As the rapidly burgeoning #TrumpRussia scandal moves forward, with evidence piling up that Trump is trying to obstruct congressional investigations into collusion between his campaign and Russia, Donal Trump has picked some personal counsel.
This is the same firm that employs former Senator Joseph Lieberman, who was rumored to be in line to be FBI chief. Whether it was an obvious conflict of interest to keep considering Lieberman, or Lieberman thought the 10-year gig might not actually provide the job security it once did, nobody has (yet) leaked.
But rather than go down that rabbit hole, I wanted to focus on this tidbit from one of Trump’s former lawyers, Patrick “Paddy” McGahn. Mcgann had represented Trump many, many times, and testified when Trump’s Taj Mahal casino went belly-up.
If the McGahn name sounds familiar, it’s because his nephew Donald McGahn is now White House Counsel. That’s another Trumpian rabbit hole I’ll try to avoid.
No, the place I’m going is this little piece of deposition testimony from Paddy McGahn over the Taj bankruptcy proceedings: It seems that the lawyers decided they could never meet with Trump one-on-one. The rule was that there always had to be a second lawyer in the room.
Why a second lawyer? To run up the bills? Hell no, to protect themselves.
Trump, Paddy McGahn testified, always had a practice of having two present when meeting with Trump to avoid problems with his lying. He and another attorney would meet together with Trump because “Donald says certain things and then has a lack of memory.”
So the lesson for Kasowitz is this: Make damn sure there are no one-on-one meetings with Trump. Record anything that can be recorded and have someone take explicit notes while it happens.
This is the only way to protect yourself when making representations about Trump, as he has a penchant for tweeting or saying something completely opposite later on. It’s a a habit.
Once upon a time — like in 1847 — New York was a progressive state. We had, I believe, the first ever wrongful death statute for the benefit of families whose bread-winner was killed due the negligence of others.
And back then that was progressive.
The problem is that we have stagnated. This first-ever law has never been updated.
Essentially, if a family’s non-breadwinner is killed by the negligence of others, that person’s life — in the eyes of New York’s law — is worthless. Because there is no “economic loss” associated with the death. Mostly this means a child or retiree. Neither an infant, nor college student nor retired parent is likely to be providing an “economic” benefit in New York.
The grief of family members is, in New York, completely non-compensable.
Just as I addressed Lavern’s Law last week — the proposed legislation that measures the medical malpractice statute of limitations from the time the malpractice could reasonably have been discovered instead of when it happened — I address different legislation today.
If I can do my little part to help push New York into the 21st century I’ll be happy.
There is really no justification for telling families of the deceased that the court house doors are closed to them for their grief. Many of our sister states have such legislation. When out out-of-state lawyers call me to discuss potential wrongful death matters in New York, they are stunned to hear of the antiquated state of our civil justice system.
For many people, the courts are the only outlet for justice. We don’t encourage vigilantism, by any means, and a working, viable justice system is part of what makes a society function in a semi-civil fashion. And having this outlet oft-times provides a small means of holding people or companies accountable so that the same thing doesn’t happen to someone else’s kid, or parent.
The legislature is in session now and considering the bill.
If you don’t know your legislators, you can find them here by simply popping in your address.
Give a call to voice your support. It takes only a few moments.
But such is the state of the law in New York, where the statute of limitations in medical malpractice matters is calculated from the time the incident occurs — not from the time the person found out about the conduct.
‘Scuse me while I put on my advocacy hat for a moment. This won’t take long.
New York is in a deep minority of just six states that measures the time to sue from the date of the malpractice, and this hits people particularly hard if they have undiagnosed cancers.
Lavern Wilkinson, for whom the law is named, went to Kings County Hospital on February 2, 2010 with chest pain. A radiologist saw a suspicious mass on the x-ray. But Wilkinson wasn’t told.
When it was found again two years later when her complaints wosened, the 15-month statute of limitations — you read that right, people sometimes have a paltry 15 months to discover the malpractice, hire a lawyer and bring suit — had expired. As per the Daily News summary of the incident:
A chest X-ray found the cancer had spread to both lungs, her liver, brain and spine. The disease was now terminal.
She left behind family including an autistic daughter.
That 15-month statute of limitations, by the way, is for city hospitals. For others, it is 2 ½ years.
But you know what? The problem still exists. Think about this: Pap smears are done every 3 years. A misread abnormal Pap that isn’t picked up until the next one? So sorry, you’re out of luck.
The curious thing about this bill, currently pending before the New York legislature, is that it enjoys wide bi-partisan support. There is no conceivable reason why the substantial burdens of medical negligence should fall to the patient and the patient’s family. None. Zero. Nada.
And you know what else? If the hospital was private, and contains to get immunity for its conduct, it is you the taxpayer that picks up part of those costs. You. Not the hospital that was negligent.
But the bill has never been brought to the floor for a vote.
Want to do something constructive today? Contact your New York Senator or Assemblyperson and let them know that this bill should be brought to the floor for a vote.
And yeah, the next victim could be you. Or me. And we may not even know it.
Cellino and Barnes, perhaps New York’s largest personal injury firm, collapsed yesterday. Ross M. Cellino Jr. brought an Order to Show Cause asking why the firm should not be dissolved. The Buffalo based firm – fueled by a massive multi-million dollar advertising and marketing budget — expanded in recent years to open offices around New York and now in California.
Cellino’s partner, Stephen Barnes, is scheduled to respond in court on May 19th. Details of the reason for the collapse will most surely come out in the lawsuit, along with accusations of some kind as between the two.
At stake in the suit are potentially thousands (tens of thousands?) of injured clients, whose cases now face the prospects of chaos, delay and disarray. It could be years before the entanglements of the two are sorted out, as issues involving its very expensive phone number (all 8s), marketing campaign and leases are sorted out while the lawyers jockey over how to manage the clients.
The dissolution will also have to deal with potential future business — notwithstanding the disarray — and that such business was generated by the years-long marketing campaign.
Most assuredly, lawyers at the firm are now contacting high-value individual clients in efforts to persuade them to stay at one of the new firms bound to be birthed from the tumult and pandemonium that is likely taking place.
But it isn’t as if the lawyers can simply divvy up the clients — for it is the clients that get to choose the lawyers. If clients do not believe they’ve been treated well with personal attention in the past, they may flee the firm altogether.
Both Cellino and Barnes have a checkered history, notwithstanding their success in building their mega-firm. In 2005 Cellino was suspended from the practice of law for six months while Barnes was censured. (In re Cellino)
The two of them had, in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, advanced loans to numerous clients. Part of this was having a relative set up a high interest funding company for clients, and then directing clients to that funding company without informing them of the relationship.
Barnes was also cited for ambulance chasing (“Barnes sent a letter to a hospitalized surgical patient and concluded that such conduct was an impermissible solicitation of legal employment in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility.”)
This story is one to follow given the inevitable problems that will result in the dissolution of a firm with thousands of clients.
The sketches hang in my office as souvenirs from a trial long ago. I represented the estate of the courtroom sketch artist in a medical malpractice trial, and a grateful widow sold them to me when the trial was over.
Watergate. The scandal by which all others are measured, as the ubiquitous -gate suffix was tagged to anything and everything that it could be tagged to.
The scandal stood for, above all else, obstruction of justice and abuse of power. As everyone knows (or should know) it wasn’t the “third-rate burglary” that sent Nixon packing. It was the cover-up.
I look at the sketches every day.
And now, with FBI Director James Comey being fired amidst an investigation he was conducting into the TrumpRussia scandal — no need for the -gate suffix here — Watergate is on everyone’s mind.
For it was Nixon that gave the order to ax special prosecutor Archibald Cox who was doing the investigation. And when the attorney general and deputy attorney general both refused, and resigned in what became known as the Saturday Night Massacre, the job fell to future judge Robert Bork.
No one in the Trump White House, it seems, could foresee that a president firing the guy that was investigating his own administration regarding Russia’s meddling in our election, and possible collusion, might be a problem.
But while Trump can fire Comey, and Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, and Preet Bharara, all of whom were investigating him — he can’t fire everyone. Because not everyone works for him.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is investigating Trump. And Schneiderman is beyond Trump’s reach.
The tell for if/when Schneiderman is getting close to something will be when Trump starts tweeting about him.
Ultimately, however, the Constitution charges we the people with the task of removal. And if not by an unwilling Congress, then by a change of the Congress the next election day.
One way or another the republic will survive this. We can only hope that there are no improvident actions in the interim that cost people lives.