Southern California Injury Law Blog

An insurance company must protect its insured from a potential judgment greater than the insurance coverage, otherwise an insurance bad faith claim may arise, explains a California injury lawyer.

Insurance companies naturally want to avoid having to pay for claims. A company may even be willing to gamble at trial, knowing that the exposure is limited to the amount of insurance it must pay out. However, an insurer must not jeopardize the insured, or risk ruin of the insured, to avoid paying a claim. An insurer must consider the insured's interest as it would its own.

Consider why an insurer must protect the insured. An insurance company typically chooses the defense attorney to defend a lawsuit. The insurance company controls the litigation. It is authorized to decide when to accept or not accept an offer of settlement. However, if the insurer wants to gamble and go to trial, it must be very careful to weigh the possible outcomes to the insured first. This is especially true if the insured stands to lose greatly if found responsible for an accident or injury. Here is a recent case in point:

Our client, a road construction company, was accused of violating safety measures causing a solo rollover accident that killed one passenger and severely injured two others. The damages portion of the case would clearly exceed the policy coverage of the insured, $2,000,000. In fact, early estimates were that the claims combined would exceed $20,000,000, 10 times the insurance coverage. The insurance company had an opportunity to settle the case before trial, within the policy coverage, but refused. It wanted to risk trial, deciding that there was no chance of liability. Unfortunately, it was wrong and the risk was far greater to the insured if even 1% liability was found. The company was not only risking damages to the insured, but also an insurance bad faith claim against it, explains a California injury lawyer.

The insurance company authorized the matter to trial on liability. The jury disagreed with the insurance company's position and found some liability against our client. We were then brought into the case asking the question of the insurance company, “Why hadn't you settled the case when you had an opportunity to do so?” The insurance company continued to refuse to settle for anything more than the policy limits. After review of the trial transcript and the early claims file, it was apparent that the insurance company wanted to risk a trial but that a jury could find some liability. We were successful in demonstrating to the insurance company that not only should it have predicted some potential liability, but also the risk was too great to take the matter to trial without making every effort to settle beforehand. We argued that the insurance company acted in bad faith, failed to protect its insured, and would further cause harm if the matter went on to a trial, which would probably bankrupt the client's business. Eventually the insurance company agreed to pay the entirety of a settlement amount, $10,275,000.

If you, or your company, have been found responsible in excess of the policy of insurance, you should contact a bad faith attorney immediately to evaluate the claim and to assess whether you have rights against your insurance company. Even before a case has been submitted to a jury or to a judge for trial or arbitration, if you feel that your exposure is greater than the amount of insurance coverage, you should consult with a qualified attorney. Early intervention, in many cases, provides an incentive for the insurance company to settle the case or agree to protect you no matter what the outcome.

For more information on insurance bad faith claims and other insurance issues relevant to personal injury law, or to speak with a California injury lawyer, feel free to call 866-981-5596.

You purchase insurance (or it is provided to you by your employer as part of your compensation package). You, either directly or indirectly, pay the premiums. You are injured, and the insurance policy pays for medical treatment related to your injuries. Most people at this point would typically assume that the insurer has done what they were hired to do and that will be the end of it. On the contrary, oftentimes it isn’t. In California, insurance policies typically have buried within their boilerplate provisions what is known as a “right to reimbursement.” It gives the insurance company a right to seek reimbursement for the expenses they have paid on your behalf from any third party who has caused you injury. “Right to reimbursement” clauses are outlawed in many states, but is permissible in California so long as the insurance contract is clear and precise in its language.

It sounds innocuous enough: why should an insurance company have to bear an expense caused by a negligent third party? In operation, however, it is one of the most nefarious aspects of the California insurance industry. In catastrophic injury cases, it threatens to derail the entire notion of what people expect from insurance companies. It isn’t really the Defendant who is reimbursing the medical provider, it is the insured.

The “right to reimbursement” and the right to proper treatment comes directly from what the injured person would have received the negligent third party that injured them. In essence, the insurance company is reimbursed in whole or in part, and the insured is left with a significantly reduced recovery, or occasionally no recovery at all. For example, in cases involving insurance provided by your employer, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the medical plan is entitled to 100% reimbursement before the insured receives a single dime.

The core question becomes: what was the point of buying insurance? If one’s recovery is reduced or eliminated due to the insurance company’s priority claim, then was the benefit earned by paying the premiums? “Rights to reimbursement” undermine the entire notion of insurance. The idea of purchasing a policy is to ensure that someone else pays for your catastrophic damages. If the insurance company is receiving a significant reimbursement, the poor, injured insured is essentially filing a lawsuit, litigating his claim, and negotiating a settlement only to turn around and give the funds to an insurance company who was paying out benefits for which premiums had already been paid. Such a system shocks the conscience, and it is surprising that significant attention hasn’t been given to this situation by the Federal or California legislatures. Then again, lobbying clout and donation dollars primarily flow from coffers of large insurance companies. Coffers that swell, in part, from recouping from injured insureds funds that should be helping injured citizens get back on their feet.

For Fountain Valley and Newport Beach auto accidents lawyer info, please visit our Orange County motorcycle accident sites at accident and injury web site for more information and articles on your rights and ability to recover for your injuries.

An initiative measure has qualified for the ballot this next voting period that will alter how premiums are calculated for drivers who have maintained their automobile insurance coverage in effect without a 90 day period of lapse. The initiative allows automobile insurance companies to offer a discount to a person even if they switch to a new carrier. The initiative is sponsored only by Mercury Insurance.

The Legislative Analyst, in preparing the ballot analysis asked for input from the state insurance department on whether there would be an increase in premiums to some drivers. They answered a resounding yes. Here is why.

Insurance companies must develop a rate plan that is complex and provides different tiers of coverage and rate options. One of the tiers is the discount offered to an existing insured that has maintained coverage.

Every discount must also have a surcharge, because the overall rate must be approved by the state so that insurance companies stay solvent and able to pay claims when needed. If a carrier wants to offer a discount to customers of another company, it must in turn surcharge its existing customers. Here is the department of insurance link for your use.

What is most disconcerting is the company that is promoting this ballot measure. They do not have a good reputation for treating claimants and their own insured’s well. See these blog and consumer reports for more information.

Mercury recently was hit with a $250,000 fine for claims violations reported to the commissioner. Many more claims go unaddressed because the Insurance Commissioner has been so slow to respond in the years past.

The insurance commissioner, after fining Mercury said, "It is vital that insurance companies put their customers first," The California Department of Insurance (CDI) conducted a review of consumer complaints filed with the Department against Mercury Insurance, Mercury Casualty, and California Automobile Insurance Companies, collectively known as Mercury Insurance Group.  Of the 121 files reviewed, a total of 258 violations, 258 were discovered to have occurred from January 2004 through December 2005.  That is two per file reviewed and is an indication of fire where smoke was found. These violations involved several of the company's claims-handling practices, including unreasonable delays in affirming or denying coverage and issuing claim payments.

Just say no to proposition 17.

James Ballidis is an attorney specializing in the handling of insurance and car accident claims.

I have recently written on the number of examples where tort reform has not worked. Workers compensation is a failure, as workers have no right to sue their employers for negligence. Health insurance companies, operating under ERISA laws deny coverage wrongfully, and often, and have no legal recourse. In none of these examples has there been a fair treatment of those injured due to the negligence of another. Instead there has been a compromise of their rights, allegedly for the sake of society.

One frequent argument proposed for tort reform is that a less expensive and more effective method of controlling negligence is through government supervision and regulation. Nothing could be further than the truth as evidenced by the recent Los Angeles Times article on October 21, 2009 investigating Cal OSHA penalties for employer negligence. I invite your review of this article personally becasue I believe it deserves a Pulitzer for fair and in depth investigative reporting by Jessica Garrison.

An employer, Bimbo bakeries in California, had six amputations and a fractured hand at the workplace between 2003 and 2006. Cal OSHA investigated each of these violations, determined them to be caused by a serious failure to abide by safety regulations, maintain guards on equipment and operate the factory safely. Investigators levied fines anywhere from $2000-$21,000. However, the article pointed out that the Cal OSHA appeals boards waived almost all of the fines assessed and levied against this particular employer, not because they found the investigations without merit, but according to Candice Traeger, chairman of the appeals board, a backlog of cases drew a federal complaint causing the board to settle thousands of cases for pennies on the dollar.

Did the employer learned lessons through the efforts of governmental oversight? I doubt it given the first fine in July of 2003 of $21,750 was waived for an amputation; the second amputation in October 2004 generated a fine of $22,500 and was reduced to $5000 and so on. The employer effectively pawned its responsibility off on workers compensation insurance, a system you and I have to support in part through the State Compensation Insurance Fund, with tax dollars. This employer will continue to operate in callous disregard for its employees’ safety.

Recognize that each worker is only paid a limited portion of their damages: only a small portion of their lost wages, medical bills as authorized by the employer, and a permanent disability rating far less than a jury award typically provides for loss of limb. They will however have to live with the amputation, limitations, embarrassment and disfigurement for the balance of their life.

Tort reform simply does not work, and limitations on damages payable to the victim are unjustified. Instead we should be asking these companies why they are refusing to act responsibly, and how much in punitive damages should they have to pay until they do.

I can assure you that as a California personal injury attorney, if I were not precluded from bringing suit, each of you as jurors, listening to testimony arising from six different amputations would feel not only comfortable but compelled to award compensation damages to the most recent victim and punitive damages to punish the company for its conduct. You have taken that capability from attorneys and given it to Cal OSHA in the hopes that effective oversight is enforced.

As you can see, your government is only as effective as the money you give to them, and I am not clear why my taxes should be used to enforce laws that a company should be observing on their own. Make these companies pay for their own errors and they will either comply or go out of business. If the latter option is chosen, more responsible employers will populate the bakery field and responsibly save death and injury to countless victims.

Most people will tell you they are fed up with high insurance rates, fraud and waste in medical auto and homeowners insurance. The standard answer by insurance companies is tort reform.

They claim that if you simply stop lawyers from suing them, they would save so much for you in premiums. Of course they proclaim this as a way of getting much more. If they can preclude lawsuits, then they are also free to act without care or regard to others in their charge. They can avoid setting up procedures to ensure their insureds are treaeted fairly. These actions cause death as in this article about tort reform failures.

Health insurance companies protected by ERISA have a free ride, and cannot be sued for monetary damages when they wrongfully deny coverage to a woman that needed a liver. . A young woman died because of this callous attitude that insurance companies have when they face no consequences for their actions.

We all agree that insurance costs for health care have gone up more than any other area, yet most people carry insurance through their employer and are precluded from suing for damages and injury when insurance companies fail to act properly. That is becasue tort reform does not save dollars, it simply reallocates them to big business and those that run companies.

Simply say no to the basic protects of our tort system, developed over 300 years, that make companies and insurers act properly or pay the consequences.

According to new federal safety data, traffic fatalities in Orange County have decreased 15% in 2008 from the previous year but O.C. motorcycle accident deaths have increased 44%. There are several reasons for the increase; less skilled riders, a bad economy and more powerful riding equipment.

It started with the high cost of fuel and now with lower incomes, more than ever people are turning the cars in for motorcycles. However, driving a motorcycle is not like driving a car. Newer motorbikes are heavier, faster and more difficult to control. In California over one-third of all motorcycle accident victims did not have the proper Department of Motor Vehicle endorsement on their licenses.

It is not unusual for me to see an accident outside one of the motorcycle performance shops in Orange County. You know the guy, just bought the bike, can't wait to ride, has little training on this bike, pulls from the parking lot and gives too much throttle, inevitably dumping the bike.

The California Office of Traffic and Safety is encouraging every motorcycle driver to get trained through the California Motorcyclist Safety Program. Graduates of these programs qualify for DMV endorsements and won’t have to take the skills exam. I recommend that you go out with a seasoned rider, and learn the performance and tendencies of your new machine.

With the exception of bad motorcycle accident data, Orange County ‘s vehicle fatalities are decreasing and DUI deaths are down thanks to more awareness and social responsibility. California vehicle fatalities were down 14% last year, the lowest level since 1975.
If you have been involved in a motorcycle or vehicle accident, don’t hesitate to contact a motorcycle accident lawyer as soon as you are able. You can call us at 1 866 752-7474 for immediate help.

James Ballidis is an attorney with the firm of Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie.

Summer is quickly approaching and so far this year, the Orange County Fire Authority has responded to 14 calls of near-drowning in the Orange County area. This is quite alarming especially since the summer swimming season has not yet begun. Of the 14 calls, four have been fatal.

In the last two weeks, a one year old boy from Aliso Viejo and a 47 year old man from San Juan Capistrano have died from drowning. The one thing these two calls as well as the other 12 have in common is that no one was watching. At a party or a public pool, don’t always think that someone else is watching your child. Lifeguards often times are distracted and can’t always see everyone in the pool! Additionally, just because someone is an adult doesn’t mean that they can swim.

Officials from the OCFA will soon begin a new water safety campaign to provide safety tips for parents. The most important tip is to assign someone to watch your pool during large gatherings, and it goes without saying that children should be monitored at all times.
.
If someone you know has experienced an pool related drowning or injury in a pool setting, don’t hesitate to call an experienced Orange County accident lawyer or a personal injury attorney that specializes in pool drowning claims. Call us at any time for a free consultation at 1 888 752-7474 for any personal injury needs you may have.

Should sports athletes really be pursued so aggressively for illegal drug use? I say let's treat them with the same standards that we apply to personal injury victims, The victim and the athlete have an opportunity to be compensated by the public (you and I pay insurance premiums for accident victims), because society places a value on your circumstance. While one is an entertainer, and one suffers peril, we never-the-less pay to both of them. However, each must be honest to get paid and each must not try to cheat the system. Otherwise, we lose trust of that system and remove the rewards. Let's see if I am on the
right path.

In an LA Times article, STRIKING OUT IN STEROID DEBATE, by Michael Hiltzik, March 2, 2009, he makes several good points about the unfair prosecution of steroid users in professional sports. The overall point however is a little misguided. He states, "Unless we define with clarity what's acceptable and what's not, and unless we demand from our police the same pristine integrity we demand of our targets, sports will never be free of doping issues."

On his first point, every athlete, especially in baseball, knows what is legal, and what is not appropriate enhancement and frowned upon by the public. That is why baseball promised anonymity, when baseball was asking for blood samples to determine if they needed a formal drug policy. Otherwise, no one would care about giving a blood sample, even A-rod.

A personal injury victim is also asked to be honest, and forthright about their injuries and damages, wage loss and past history of injury. This allows us to trust their claim with a minimum of oversight. But when the process becomes a game of hide and seek, we, the public, get fed up. If you lie, hide, try to act like you did not know, or deny the truth in an effort to get more than you deserve, whether you are a victim in a truck or auto accident, you cheated, and the punishment is severe and quick. In personal injury cases, benefits are taken away. Juries are even known to get so revolted that they actually may not award anything to the accident victim. Do not try to cheat the public trust and grace. I guess the same can be said of bank bailout money as well.

It seems reasonable that the same standard should be applied to professional athletes. If you are lying, cheating, hiding and doing things you inherently know to be wrong, to get more than you deserve, you too should be punished, severely. Take away your titles, awards, and your contracts our grace gives you. Even if the penalty is more severe than you really deserve, that is the price you pay for loss of our trust. After all the professional athlete is no more deserving, and in fact less deserving, than an accident victim.

As in personal injury cases, professional sports will eradicate the sport of illegal drug use, not by rules and lawyers, but by public penalty and ridicule. The athlete will not want to pay that price if it is severe enough, and the sport will move forward fairly, and in our continued grace.

All 50 states are looking forward to funding highway and local municipality projects thanks to the recently passed federal stimulus bill. Most states will receive money to upgrade roads, bridges and various other municipal projects to hopefully make our lives a little safer.

A recent study on the most deadly highways in America ranked 4 of the top ten deadliest roads right here in Southern California. One surprising fact is that these are all interstate highways. Normal expectations are that deadly road accidents involve rural, windy country roads, and while they are dangerous also, these highways are dangerous for a variety of reasons.

I-15 in San Bernardino County was ranked #1 in fatalities during the last five years, and our experience in representing victims of this stretch of road is the same. Ironically, it is dangerous because it is so straight and wide that it is implicated in so many accidents since many drivers fall asleep driving on it. Additionally, alcohol is a factor since this is the major thoroughfare between Southern California and Las Vegas. If you need to consult with a California accident attorney, chose to do so sooner rather than later, so that evidence can be preserved.

I-10 in Riverside County, I-5 in Los Angeles County and I-5 in San Diego County all placed in the top ten. Whether you are driving on local roads or large interstates, keep your focus to avoid any personal injuries or accidents. Of course if you have been a victim of such a collision contact an attorney that specializes is personal injuries in California to protect and preserve your rights.

In today's economic environment, insurance companies are affected the same as regular companies. When the market for securities drops, and people are losing their homes, insurance companies are facing non-renewal of premiums and losses in their safe investment of capital. Additionally, many companies have had to pay out huge claims for natural fire and floods, more often than I can recall in recent years.

As a result, many insurance companies are now lowering their payout of claims for personal injury cases. What can we do as aCalifornia personal injury attorneys during this period. Here are a few ideas.

first, I suspect that the reduction in offers and amounts is only temporary while the financial and housing markets settle. Once the largest of the issues is addressed, I expect it will be business as usual.

I also believe that if the carriers are reducing their offers to personal injury victims, they will have to pay the full value of the case later in litigation. therefore, I am recommending that we file and serve in Orange County Superior Court to move the cases along.

Additionally, I am alsop of the oopinion that currently it may be better to file and serve the lawsuit than to attempt a settlement, as a defense attorney is not as likely to be swayed by the current economic environment when evaluating the case for settlement authority.

What I would not encourage during this short troubling time, is settling cases at less than full fvalue. That will give the insurance companies incentive to continue their cost cutting and also reward bad behavior on their part. So let's keep up the good work and get full value in settlement despite the extra effort that current economic times may require.

If you need a California Personal Injury attorneythat is not williong to settle your case for less than full value, call us at 1 888 752 7474 for a free consultation.

How often have you signed up for a gym membership, signing assumption of risk and waiver of liability forms without reading them. What would you do even if you did read them. Would you really not join a gym if it simply said that you assumed all of the risks that were known and unknown at the time of the signing of the document?

The law of assumption of the risk in California has been morphing into a very strict application as against the consumer. Several well-known cases have demonstrated a continued restriction on the ability of a person to file a lawsuit against the company if they have signed an assumption of the risk document. The most bizarre of these examples was a case involving a television set mounted improperly on the wall of a gym. As the patron was walking by, the television set fell on him causing him significant injury. Because he had signed a waiver and assumption of liability risk form with this well-known Gym, the court concluded that he'd waived his right to bring a lawsuit. I doubt any of you would have anticipated and injury from poor installation of a television, and when it fell on your head causing serious injuries as you are walking by, you would agree i when you signed assumption of risk documents, that you would not sue. In fact you probably would assume that the facility is under obligation to make it safe for your use.

There are several excellent defenses to assumption of the risk but they are hard to enforce. It takes a very skilled personal injury attorney to advocate waiver of assumption of the risk. In several high-profile cases that this office has handled over the years, we have been successful in avoiding assumption the risk claims. There are several keys to unlock challenges to signed assumption the risk forms

1. Inspect carefully the release and assumption of risk document to determine whether it is too vague, too broad, or does not comply with the language consistent with cases on the subject

2. Make sure that the defendant can produce the actual signed copy of the assumption of the risk document. We have found that there are numerous occasions where there is a subsequent record of the signing of such a document, but the original document cannot be produced.

3. Make sure that the assumption of risk document was signed by the actual client who was injured. In a gym membership for instance, a spouse who signs up both spouses may be precluded from bringing in action, but the non-signing spouse may still have rights.

In a recent case of Kindrich v Long Beach Yacht Club 167 Cal App 4th1252, a man was injured when disembarking a boat, causing his broken leg. The lower court held that this man could not sue, because he had executed an assumption of the risk document, and was precluded from being bringing an action. However on appeal,, the Court reversed advising that the injuries were actually due to something other than sports and sporting activities, therefore the traditional rules of assumption of the risk would be applicable, and are far less severe than gym membership cases such as the one that was noted above.

If you have a personal injury case and you've signed an assumption of the risk document, consult a personal injury attorney immediately to advance your cause. Don't give any statements to the other side until you've consulted with this attorney, to ensure that all of your rights are protected. As always feel free to contact our a truck or personal injury attorney for a free consultation at 1888 752 7474.

The Metrolink Chatsworth disaster here in California was one of the worst train disasters California has experienced. Over 135 persons sustained serious personal injury and 25 people tragically lost their lives. Since that sad day, we have learned more about the terrible set of circumstances that led up to the catastrophic event. Distractions such as texting, driver fatigue due to overworking, and possible mechanical malfunction are all presumed. However did you know the victims and their families have limited time to file their claims?

With all that these families are going through, the last things is to worry about claim forms and filing deadlines. However the cut-off date is quickly approaching for this accident. You must file in early March 2009 claims against Metrolink, track owners, and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation authority (LACMTA). The statute of limitations is artificially short for governmental agencies, 'to allow the agencies to investigate". Here it would seem more appropriate to waive the claim filing date cut off, but good luck getting a judge to agree with you.

Unfortunately nearly half of the victims have not filed claims yet and their rights may be forever barred if they don’t act soon. Getting a California personal injury attorney that you trust and that can handle these bureaucratic procedures for you is the most prudent thing you can do. You need an expert on your side to handle the details, know the deadlines, and handle the insurance and governmental agencies.

Personal Injury cases such as these are complicated and need a qualified and highly experienced California personal injury lawyer such as Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie. They have a team of lawyers ready to fight for your rights and recover for all of your future needs.

A number of articles in legal journals and newspapers have recently been pointing out what seems to be a significant increase in truck accidents at interstate interchanges. Our office as a California Truck accident attorney firm has also noted an increase in reported collisions and cases. Interchanges in California and in Orange County have been particularly noted. The 605 to 10 freeway interchange, the 5 to 57 freeway interchange 405 to 5 freeway overpass interchange northbound are just some of the examples. Why are we seemingly experiencing an increase in the number of truck accidents at these interchanges.

As a truck accident attorney, we frequently see the remnants of a truck accident and the damage that it can cause. It is been our experience in handling a number of truck accident victim cases, that with the increased speeds of vehicles and trucks traveling on the freeways, there is inadequate on-ramp off-ramp exposure to allow the truck time to merge or exit.

The prudent truck driver, of course, prepares for this contingency by early lane changes and by maintaining a safe speed. Unfortunately, in more recent accidents, truck drivers are either less experienced, less dedicated than their forbearer's to safety, or there seems to be less policing of their driving habits.

It is not unusual, for instance, to see a large 18 will semi truck traveling in the number two or number three of a 5 Lane Hwy., rather than in the slower right hand lane. This makes other cars vulnerable to the erratic lane changes of the truck, and may even impede the truck driver's ability to move over timely to enter or exit a freeway. Additionally, as evidenced by the recent case of criminal conviction of a truck driver, truck drivers are increasingly tired, over extending their trip times, and not complying with their duties and the law designed to protect the public using public roads.

Reconstructing our freeways does not appear to be a reasonable solution. The cost and congestion would undermine the effort and potentially cause additional accidents or collisions. Instead we would advocate that the policing of trucks be more rigorously enforced. In California, as Truck accident attorneys, would recommend that laws be adopted that only allow trucks to travel in Lane' other than the far right, when passing are overtaking other vehicles or trucks. This would protect motorists from aggressive unexpectedly changes by semi trucks. As a personal injury attorney dedicated to reducing truck accident victims, I would also recommend that stiffer fines be imposed upon not only the driver but also on the company that they operate trucks for in the event that they are traveling in excess of 55 on our speed limit designed to protect motoring public.

Lastly it would be worthwhile for trucking companies to be required to adopt a periodic retraining and review of rules designed to protect motoring public and to hold those companies accountable if they cannot produce evidence of compliance with that effort.

None of these recommendations are urged at her in, but common sense. However until we required the trucking companies complied and bring their drivers to bear our roads will not be as safe as they seem to be 10 years previously.

If you've been a victim of a truck accident please feel free to contact us for a free consultation at 1-888-752-7474 or contact us at Truck accident attorneys,.

Avoiding a dog bite can be a precarious effort. If you run, you entice the dog to chase you. If you yell and scream in an attempt to intimidate the dog, you can actually frighten the dog and in so doing may instigate an attack. If a dog is barking or growling at you, it may be attempting to show you aggression or fear. Are these attacks avoidable?

In our client’s case, attack could not be avoided. The dog had escaped the backyard of the neighbor' s house, and had attacked our client' s dog. When our client attempted to separate them, he was attacked as well. Although he received a $325,000 settlement, for the injuries he had sustained, an after-the-fact settlement still means our client was a victim.

Several dog experts in recent years have proposed methods for avoiding an attack by a dog. However, those methods have been met with mixed results. As alluded to earlier, if you attempt to out run the dog you will likely be brought to the ground from behind and sustain more serious injury. There are several things you can try however that will minimize the possibility of an attack.

1. Don't look the dog directly in the eye. By avoiding direct eye contact, you minimize your appearance of aggression to the dog. Many times you will see the dog become more passive attitude you can move away from each other slowly yet effectively.

2. Don't run at the dog. As a personal injury attorney I have seen a number of cases where a client has attempted to scare the dog by running at it. While the dog may initially begin to turn and flee, in the confusion of the moment more typically the dog circles and attacks from a different direction. Instead simply remain still and if you can't relax. By relaxing, the dog's primal instinct seems to improve its disposition.

3. Some experts have suggested that you show dominance by screaming or yelling to establish authority. Clients that this personal injury attorney has represented has not seen not as effective tool. However, it may be worth your while to appear larger than you are by standing tall in a wrecked, using your code to make your appearance wider and by standing your ground at least until an attack is imminent.

It is an attack is unavoidable, protect yourself with your hands and legs. Injury to these extremities is more readily resolved in significant biting her thrashing of the torso neck or other vulnerable areas. If you've been attacked by a dog, feel free to contact us for a free consultation at 1 888-752-7474. As an expert attorney dedicated to representing dog bite victims, we will provide you with competent and experienced representation that will maximize your damages award.

Mercury Insurance continues to campaign on television and in print that they offer good coverage and high standards of customer service for their insureds. Of course, as a personal injury attorney who handles hundreds of claims yearly, I know first hand that they do little to resolve cases fairly with other insurance companies, and claimants, and treat their own insured poorly as well. Here is the latest "victory" for Mercury.

A person insured by Mercury as an "additional driver" was struck by an uninsured motorist. Making claim under his policy, he thought for sure he would be covered. After all that is what uninsured motrist coverage is about right? And that is why you pay for uninsured motorist coverage right! Wrong. Mercury wrote an exclusion that you would not see easily, even if you bothered to read your policy every time you renew. In lawyer speak the policy said he was not covered unless occupying a covered automobile. Policies by other insurers in the State would cover a pedestrian struck by an uninsured motorist, but not Mercury. So they refused to pay him and won on appeal. See Mercury Ins. Co. v. Pearson, 169 Cal. App. 4th 1064.

You, the unsuspecting public buy insurance and pay for uninsured motorist coverage to protect you. Do you have time to read through all the little exclusions that Mercury has recently cooked up to save a buck or do you rely upon the broad assumption that unless you are told otherwise, you think you are buying the same insurance everyone else is getting? You apparently do not get all you bargained for with Mercury. Maybe Mercury should feel the pain by your change to a more reputable carrier.

The military offers health insurance to their personnel. If that person is injured on the roadway while not on duty, they are covered. However, federal rules require reimbursement of the amount paid if the victim recovers from the negligent third party. What about the circumstance of not enough insurance, or no insurance? Of course if there is no insurance, there is no point in prosecuting a negligent person if they cannot pay a huge judgment, since the Navy gets paid first.

But look at when someone has insurance. Take my recent client who was injured severely in an accident. The defendant had only $100,000 of insurance and no house, no car and no other means of paying for a judgment. The policy was offered, but the Navy has to be reimbursed, $98,000. So what to do.

The Judge Advocate will allow a waiver of the lien in extreme cases. So we are in the lengthy process of asking for that waiver. While we have been successful in most cases such as this, it still is long and hard to get a waiver. It is also not for the weak of heart or a non professional. As this case unfolds, I hope for good news for this client. I will keep posting on this one.

Today, North Dakota has moved a bill into legislation to increase the number of children who can receive health insurance coverage. The plan was to increase the eligibility standards of their State Children's Health Insurance Program to 200 percent of the poverty level, or stated another way, the Federal and State Government would contribute and pay for coverage of children in a family earning $42,400 a year.

Any effort to increase coverage for children is highly applauded by this lawyer, because the cost of health care is so enormous, particularly with accidental tragedy or severe illness. But this issue should be more aggressively addressed at the national level.

Why should a child of a family working to make a living with $42,000 in income or less be covered while the child with a family income of $50,000 in income not be covered. Why are we only covering the less fortunate of children, and adults for that matter.

The common denominator in each family is that they are working. The working class should not be forced to pay for health insurance for their family from their paycheck. Instead, our government should rewrite ERISA, the law that encouraged health insurance to be offered to employees. ERISA is archaic, causing more confusion that settles it and needs reform Why not mandate that employers must offer and pay for all coverage of all family members.

The business owner, of course, will complain that the costs will drive up prices of goods, and services and they will not be able to compete, and even may go out of business. Therefore the simple and sometimes overlooked solution is an incentive program for businesses to comply. Current law allows deductions for health insurance premiums as a business expense for companies. Expand the deduction to include beneficiaries. Additionally, tax breaks and incentives can be given for compliance and penalties for non compliance. A tax break that allows the costs of an average premium for family coverage can certainly be calculated by those charged with such tasks. Reduce the taxes paid by business owners and companies reduces the obligation of government to collect and fund with taxes, while increasing the direct payment of premiums to insurance companies, and will increase revenue for insurers, thereby reducing the cost of insurance for all. Additionally, if the formula is properly calculated for tax credit, virtually no additional "cost" to the business or owner will be incurred.

Lastly, pubic funds that are now devoted to such causes as the North Dakota State Children's Health Insurance Program, can be diverted solely to fund and help those children that have no insurance because the parents are not working or cannot work, increasing their benefits.

Taxing individuals and business to funnel to a program for the poor is justified, but if they are working poor, lets cut out the middle man (Government) and the bureaucracy that comes with it.

I recently wrote to the American Bar Association legislative counsel and got no response. I thought I might as well post here and start a grass roots movement on such an unfair subject. Here is what I wrote last week, (and got no response by the way)

"My name is James Ballidis. I am a practicing member of the California State Bar Member (119461) and specialize in personal injury auto and truck accident lawsuits enforcing injured victim rights.
Over my 23 year career, we have always had to deal with liens and claims arising from ERISA policies, but thanks to the judiciary, ERISA has been interpreted to allow for just and equitable apportionment of damage proceeds between the victim, the treating doctors not paid by ERISA health insurance, and ERISA providers seeking reimbursement.

ERISA, drafted so many years ago, did not anticipate the current environment of reimbursement and was relatively silent on the rules of reimbursement. 29 USC 1132 [a](3) provides for reimbursement claims to fall under the 'appropriate equitable relief" standard, when enforcing liens and reimbursement rights. As a practical matter, our district has taken the view in the past, that principals of equity, in the absence of specific legislative language, would apply to reimbursement issues. Thus when there is inadequate insurance and assets to compensate all parties aggrieved by a third party's actions, such concepts of unjust enrichment, and the "common fund" theory of equitable apportionment of proceeds to all parties were used, to allow the practitioner to manage a fair settlement providing recovery to all in a proportionate and fair manner.

Recently however, a troubling case came down in the 8th Circuit that now places a priority on ERISA liens to be paid from the proceeds of settlement before any sums are paid to a victim. While Courts will hide behind language suggesting that the language of the policy could allow for less than full reimbursement, as a practical matter, all policies of health insurance demand reimbursement and language is almost always drafted to give the most reimbursement to the carrier at the expense of the victim.

I direct your attention to the case of Admin. Comm. of the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Shank, 500 F.3d 834. This case was later denied review by the Supreme Court probably because there has not been another district deciding on these facts directly.

In This case, a woman was severely injured in a major accident, had catastrophic brain injury, will never work again and sustained $462,000 in medical bills paid by Wal-Mart. The plan sought reimbursement (OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT PAID) from a $700,000 settlement. After attorney fees and costs, the amount to the Plaintiff was $417,000. Thus Wal-Mart sought to capture all the proceeds leaving this poor woman without any possible fund for future use, or recovery for lost wages, damages for pain and suffering or otherwise.

All the typical arguments were raised on appeal to an order that the entire sum not be payable to Wal-Mart. Common fund, which suggests that each party be reimbursed a ratio of their damages to the total damages was rejected. So was the theory of the victim must first be made whole before any reimbursement is required. Common Law Pro Rata reimbursement was also rejected. The Court reasoned that "Appropriate equitable relief" meant appropriate to maintain and protect the plans funds and integrity, without consideration for the victim at all.
Wal-Mart Won. Of Course the media crushed them and they gave the money to the victim but the damage has been done. The impact on this case has been immediate. Virtually all reimbursement companies are now demanding full reimbursement with little ability to counter their demand.

Let's discuss the typical case:
Client is involved in a clear liability accident but the defendant is woefully uninsured. Defendant owns a house (with little equity now) and had a $100,000 policy limit of insurance. They have no other assets, ie Middle America defendant. The client required 3 surgeries and incurred $150,000 in medical fees paid by their employer under an ERISA plan. The client has underinsured motorist coverage of $100,000 thinking they are protected but it does not apply.
The Plan refuses to accept anything less than the $100,000 policy limit or at least the amount after attorney fees to collect it, leaving the victim no money for being out of work, providing no pain and suffering, no co-pay assistance and generally causing this life to be in turmoil. If the injuries are severe enough that they do not work again they will become a ward of the state. If they are lucky enough, they get back to work but are in financial crisis.
THIS OUTCOME HAS BEEN NOW OCCURRING IN VIRTUALLY EVERY CASE IN MY OFFICE WITH AN ERISA PLAN SEEKING TO BE PAID IN FULL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CLIENT.

The fair and reasonable approach, which obviously will have to come from legislative amendment is:
A fair compromise of a settlement should be to drafted to protect the rights of the ERISA plan and the victim.

Here is an amendment that seems reasonable:

"Appropriate equitable relief as it pertains to ERISA plans seeking reimbursement or enforcement of liens means: an equitable apportionment of the proceeds of any settlement between the ERISA plan and the victim in accordance with each of their total damages claims, after deduction of attorney fees and costs, if any."
This needs immediate attention for victims and working attorneys who are now faced with heartbreaking news for the family of an accident.

May I please have your response

Respectfully
James Ballidis"

I will keep you posted if the ABA responds and if not, what I am going to do about it.

James Ballidis

If you’re a parent of a teen, you know how difficult it is to get your child’s attention. However, California teens are now paying attention and are all worried now that lawmakers around the country are suggesting that the driving age be raised to 17 years old. From their perspective, their independence, rite of passage and freedom from the parents will be taken away from them. Basically they hate the idea!

This all began when the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety came out this month with a new report to save lives. Sounds like everyone can agree so far. The theory is that if they wait to give teens one extra year to mature, that it will bring down the high fatality statistics and injuries teen drivers have. However, some opponents argue that it is inexperience, not immaturity that causes teens to have such a high rate of personal injury crashes.

According to the Automobile Club of Southern California, the proposed regulation would work very similar to the current laws but with a few changes. Currently, teens in California can get a permit to drive at age 15 ½ and then get a full driver’s license at 16. With the new rules, you could still get a license at 16, but it would be provisional and it would only be a full license when the driver becomes 18. The details are still being worked out.

Across the country, age varies for driver’s licenses from state to state. For example, you can drive at 14 ½ in South Dakota but only at age 17 in New Jersey. States everywhere, including California, are trying to find a standard for all teens across the country. However, there are obvious difference between states, rural and urban setting, and other factors. Not all states are the same and either are kids. Nevertheless, since New Jersey rose its licensure age, it has had a 66% decrease in serious personal injuries among youth drivers.

Each year more than 5,000 teens die in automobile accidents and it is the leading cause of death for teens. Tens of thousands more have serious personal injuries. In fact a 16 year old driver has crash rates 10 times that of a 30-59 year old driver. Is it immaturity? Inexperience? A little of both? Statistics show that teens have higher rates of crashes due to factors such as alcohol, drugs and distractions such a texting and passengers.

In addition to teen crashes, this age group also has the highest rate of violations—a definite precursor to accidents-- in some cases. Speeding and avoiding signals are two of the most risky behaviors teens do with the exception of DUI’s. Teens are naturally overconfident when they get their first license and therefore take excessive risks that lead to violations and /or crashes. In addition to the above risky behaviors, many teens do not wear their seat belt. This is a cause of many fatalities when unbuckled kids are thrown from the crashed vehicle.
So far, only a few states like Florida, Georgia and Delaware have proposed legislation to raise the teen driving age to 17. Bills in Massachusetts and Illinois tried to raise the driving age to 18 but they have all failed. What will happen in California? No one really knows. One thing is for sure, we will be sharing the roads with teen drivers, so it’s important to stay alert and drive defensively.

Orange County, California has some of highest gas prices in the nation. At last check, we were creeping closer to the $4.40 a gallon mark. These higher prices can really dig into any family’s budget. Car buyers are now becoming more conscious of three magic letters, MPG. Yes, SUV owners are now questioning why they need a car that gets 10mpg. Primary concern, of course is safety and the vehicle’s crash tests. Larger automobiles will always “win” in any accident that involves a collision and personal injury. However, a new car has just come onto the market from Europe that just might change the way we think about safety and small cars.

It’s small and it’s called the Smart For Two; only 108 inches long, 62 inches wide, and 61 inches tall. In other words, it’s a small box with four wheels, 70hp engine, and performance that delivers 0-60 in 12 seconds. Size does become somewhat of an issue if you want to take along more than one friend, but then again, how many times to do you see one person in a car on an Orange County freeway? It just might be a great commuter car with a rating of 40 MPG.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, IIHS, released its safety report last week and gave the Smart For Two a top marks for both side and front crash tests. It received 5 stars for driver frontal impact but only 3 stars for the passenger. The two main reasons that it did not get a “top safety pick” are that the car is the smallest one they have ever tested. The institute really doesn’t have an appropriate category for this size of car and it doesn’t have good whiplash protection. For a small car, though, Daimler Corporation of Germany really has engineered many safety features only larger cars have.

One reason this car does so well in crash tests is its safety system called the tridion safety cell. The high stress areas are made from steel and during a crash, the energy is redistributed to protect the occupants from major personal injury. Four airbags; two frontal and two side also protect passengers from injury as well and the collapsible steering column is there to protect your head and thorax. They all come as standard equipment.

Other safety features include, ABS brakes which will prevent skidding on all types of surfaces. In addition, the Electronic Stability Program, which integrates the throttle and brake system to prevent over braking and swerving maneuvers. This new small car is packed full of new safety features to protect you from serious injury.

Sadly, with all of its safety features, some insurance companies won’t insure this automobile. They conclude that the category is just too small and they don’t have any type of historical safety data on this new type of car. So if you chose to purchase this type of vehicle, shop insurance before you shop for your car to be sure you have coverage.

As energy costs skyrocket, Americans will eventually be attracted to smaller automobiles. But if you just can’t separate yourself from your gas guzzling SUV, check out www.gasbuddy.com for the cheapest fuel in your area.

The recent death of Heath Ledger has brought some attention to the dangers of mixing over-the-counter drugs with various prescription drugs. Moreover, many teens and adults are taking these substances and driving without any concern that it will impact their ability to function behind the wheel of a car and cause personal injury to someone. In recent studies, there seems to be little difference if you use your cell phone, drink alcohol or take drugs when you’re behind the wheel of your vehicle.

Continue reading "DRUGS, CARS AND SPEEDING ARE A RECIPE FOR PERSONAL INJURY" »

California is number one for a lot of things; entrepreneurs, great quality of life and diverse beauty, but highest speeding related fatalities? Yes, it’s not something to be proud about. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety administration (NHTSA), California ranks number one in speeding accidents in both interstate and non-interstate roadways. Moreover, the period between Thanksgiving to Christmas has the highest accident rate, and is a California personal injury lawyers busiest time as well. One reason is that many Californians are taking long road trips to visit family and enjoy winter vacations.

By far, traffic is a spoiler of many long trips; unexpected detours, traffic congestion, and accidents. Wouldn’t it be nice to have traffic alerts come directly to your computer, cell phone or other handheld devices? Well, now a company provides online solutions to your traffic problems. Traffic.com will help Christmas travelers get to their destinations faster by knowing the best time to leave and the best route to take. Knowing the best route can save both time and fuel, and with todays fuel costs, this can save you lots of money.

Continue reading "CALIFORNIA IS RATED HIGHEST FOR SPEEDING, PERSONAL INJURIES AND FATALITIES" »

Rose Tani was a 90 year old woman who had survived internment in a World War II camp and had 5 children. Unfortunately, she was a little too impatient on December 19th, 2007 and drove around a school bus and a railroad crossing with its gates down. She was killed instantly by the impact of the crash. Her story was in the news primarily because her son, Daniel Tani is a NASA astronaut who is presently living on the space station, but the story also highlights the increasing number of car accidents involving railway crossings.

Statistics show that California ranks second in highway-rail fatalities and is third in total collisions. Last year in 2006, 36 people were killed in California—a 63% increase over the year before. In terms of fatalities among railroad employees, though, these injury rates are down significantly due to less human error, the leading cause of train accidents. If you have been injured in a train-related accident or know someone who has, don’t hesitate to contact a professional personal injury attorney for further consultation of your rights.

Continue reading "TRAINS IN CAUSE MORE PERSONAL INJURY IN CALIFORNIA THAN IN OTHER STATES" »

Every 31 minutes someone is killed in an alcohol-related accident. In fact Americans who drink and drive after holiday parties and celebrations make the period between Thanksgiving and New Year’s one of the year’s most deadly and dangerous seasons due to alcohol-related crashes. This is a main reason why since 1981, every President of the United States has demonstrated his commitment to preventing impaired driving by proclaiming December as National Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month.

Continue reading "DRUNK DRIVING KILLS OR CAUSES PERSONAL INJURY IN MORE WAYS THAN YOU CAN IMAGINE" »

Lori Coble was taking her son, Kyle to the Irvine Spectrum for his birthday wish, his first ride on the Ferris wheel for his 5th birthday. On the drive home, His sister Emma, 4, and Katie, 2, his mom and grandmother were struck from the rear by a big-rig carrying 40,000 pounds of electronics. Within hours, the Coble family tragically lost all three children. Unfortunately, this is not a rare occurrence.

According to the Truck Safety Coalition, www.trucksafety.org, more than 5,300 people are killed each year and over 10,000 are injured in truck-related crashes. The statistics are incredible. The number of deaths is equivalent to 26 fully- loaded airplanes falling from the sky each year.

Continue reading "TRUCKS ARE A MAJOR CAUSE OF PERSONAL INJURY IN CALIFORNIA" »

Auto accident victims have been under siege in the last 9 to 10 years in California. It is not an attack you will read about because it is not news worthy, hidden among the issues of our time. It is not a bludgeoning of victims by a

Continue reading "Are Auto Accident victims ripping off the system?" »

Insurance premiums have been on the rise for several years. Most people stay with the same insurance company year after year because they assume they must be paying less for their insurance because they have been loyal customers. This may not be the case. If you review the rates you have been paying over the last five, chances are they have steadily increased.

Continue reading "My Insurance Premiums Keep Rising What Can I Do" »

By Suzanne Leslie Esq.
Most people are not familiar with their auto insurance coverage. I frequently hear “I have full coverage” when in actuality they have very little coverage and may be exposing themselves to personal liability. Here are some basics.

Liability Coverage:

Liability coverage will pay for any injuries or property damage that you may cause to another party should you be at fault for an accident. The amount of coverage you should carry under your policy depends on your assets. If you own a home or have other assets, you should carry a higher liability limit. If you do not have enough liability coverage and you cause a substantial amount of damage to another, you may be personally liable for any amount over and above your liability insurance. You might also consider carrying an umbrella policy if you have several assets or a large amount of equity in your home. This coverage would come into effect if the damage sustained by another person exceeds your liability policy limit.

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage: There are many people who drive without insurance. If you are involved in an accident with an uninsured driver, and you sustain an injury, you have a right to make a claim under your uninsured motorist coverage. Your claim would cover your medical expenses, loss of earnings, future medical expenses and pain and suffering damages. In the case where the party who hits you has auto insurance, but their liability limit is insufficient to cover your damages, then you may have a right to collect under the underinsured motorist portion of your policy to make up the difference the other party could not pay. It is a good idea to carry just as much uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage as your liability limit.

Medical Payment Coverage: This coverage will allow for payment of any medical expenses you or anyone in your vehicle may incur, irregardless of who is at fault for an accident. It is important coverage to carry even if you have medical insurance because it can pay for any deductible or co-payments, which you may be personally responsible for. Also should you wish to seek medical attention with an out of network physician, medical payment coverage can pay for that medical care.

Comprehension/Collision Coverage: This coverage provides for payment of any damages, which your vehicle may sustain, whether or not an accident is your fault. If the case where your vehicle is stolen, it would be replaced. This coverage will have a deductible, which applies, so try to carry a deductible, which you feel you would be able to afford should you have an accident.

Rental Car Coverage: Rental coverage is important to carry and does not cost much. If you vehicle is involved in an accident, rental coverage will help pay for a replacement vehicle while yours is undergoing repairs. If an accident is not your fault, many insurance companies will not provide a rental vehicle directly and they will require that you pay for the rental out-of-pocket and later be reimbursed. Sometimes you must wait several months for reimbursement and a rental vehicle might be financially draining.

Suzanne Leslie is a partner at Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie and is an expert in insurance and auto accident cases.

California statutes require a vehicle owner carry at least $15,000 of insurance. With the rates of insurance escalating, many people carry the minimum insurance; an amount set more than 25 years ago and unchanged since that time.

You and your family can protect themselves from uncompensated injury and damages. Obtain uninsured motorist coverage. It is very inexpensive, sometimes only several dollars per 6 months and if the other driver does not have insurance or minimum insurance, you are able to use your uninsured motorist coverage. This way you and your family are protected from that person who does not carry sufficient insurance or has no insurance at all.

If you need help with an uninsured motorist claim, call an experienced lawyer in california that can help with your case.http://www.allenflatt.com/lawyer-attorney-1129430.html

While 20 years ago $15,000 would protect a larger portion of the population when an accident occurred, it is hardly enough in cases where someone is significantly injured. An emergency room hospital visit, ambulance and MRI can be as high as $5,000 to $7,000. Therefore $15,000 is going to be inadequate under such circumstances.

So what should a person do if they are faced with what may be minimum insurance and who wants to give a percentage to an lawyer? You should! Let me show you how a qualified personal injury lawyer adds value.

First any lawyer that is faced with a minimum policy case must consider whether it is ethical to collect the full fee, particularly if the injuries are severe. If an lawyer does not at least discuss your concerns at the initial meeting, then you should consider looking for a more qualified lawyer.

There are a number of ways to gain additional recovery than the car owner’s accident insurance policy. FOUR are the most often uncovered:

FIRST: The driver’s insurance should be thoroughly investigated. For instance does the driver have an excess policy? Is the driver carrying other types of insurance? Does the owner of the vehicle have an excess rider that covers persons driving their car? We have routinely uncovered more insurance than was first told to our potential clients, by asking the correct questions early in the case.

SECOND: Was the other driver in the “Course and Scope of any employment”. This is a specific term of art and does not simply mean that the person was on the clock at the time of the accident. If the other driver uses his car to transport materials or go to outside appointments, even if he or she is not going to a specific appointment at the time of the accident, the employer may be responsible since the employer benefits from having the employee driving his or her own car. Transporting tools on a construction job, or salesman who have samples in their car are all successful examples of coverage established by us in cases where there was originally thought to be no or little insurance.

THIRD: Does the driver of the other car have any assets that should be considered before letting that driver out of any claim? Many people own homes outright and can contribute to a settlement or judgment by taking a long-term loan on their home. The choice is always that of the client, but the client should be told of all locatable assets before deciding that they do or do not want to pursue more recovery.

FOURTH: Do you have underinsured motorist coverage? This is coverage that you purchased, (inexpensively by the way if you check your bill) that you might claim against if your claim exceeds the other driver’s coverage. As long as the accident is not your fault, you are entitled to make a claim without your rates being altered. California statutes require however that you collect the full amount of any other insurance from the other party before you are entitled to make an underinsured motorist claim and you must carry greater uninsured motorist coverage limits than the other driver’s insurance limits.

Even in the most dire of circumstances, we have had great success getting more money into the pocket of the client than the doctors or hospitals by advising of limits of insurance and negotiating the reduction or elimination of those medical bills hovering over a client.

You should always consider a personal injury lawyer whenever you are facing trouble because of limited insurance. We are almost always able to get greater sums into the pocket after all is said and done than the client would be able to do. Feel free to call us at 1 888 752-7474 for a free, no pressure, consultation.

Yours truly Jim Ballidis