New Mexico Injury Attorney Blog

Auto accidents are among the leading causes of death of teenagers and young adults (ages 15-24) in New Mexico. Youth, drinking and driving is a lethal mix with often lethal consequences. The DWI/DUI laws and underage drinking laws in New Mexico are very strict to avoid the tragedy of youthful DWI/DUI accidents.

There are strict laws against underage drinking including felony charges for providing alcohol to underage drinkers. These penalties can be particularly harsh for service of alcohol to minors. However, despite these laws, minors often manage to obtain alcohol as a result of negligent or reckless bartenders, hosts, clerks or cashiers. Unfortunately, this negligence or recklessness can result in catastrophic injury and sometimes wrongful death.

Fortunately, New Mexico law holds these individuals and entities accountable for the damages caused by their negligence under dram shop laws, social hosts laws, and criminal laws designed to protect individuals from such behavior.

A recent case in California illustrates the law, the possible harm, and the potential recovery for injuries arising out of dram shop or negligent social host situations. The case of Apodaca v. Bradley involved two 20 year olds, Joshua Apodaca and Sean Patrick Bradley, who were served alcohol at a Sonoma County winery during a wedding reception, and then again at convenience store following the reception. The two were served alcohol at the wedding reception despite failing to present identification. Even more remarkably, they were later sold alcohol by a convenience store again with no identification which they then consumed in the store's parking lot.

Bradley who was driving crashed his car into a rock wall as the two travelled home. Apodaca suffered closed head traumatic brain injuries. Apodaca's brain injuries led to severe and permanent cognitive and motor deficits.

Unlike New Mexico, apparently California does not have formal dram shop laws. Instead, the lawsuit was brought under specially enacted laws to address teenage DWI/DUI. The result was a $3.1 million settlement. The winery contributed policy limits of $3 million under its insurance policy. The parents of Bradley contributed their policy limits of $100,000. Bradley himself contributed $5000.

The $3.1 million can never fully compensate Apodaca for all of the damages associated with his severe traumatic brain injury. Apodaca will likely suffer a lifetime of pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and permanent mental and physical limitations. The loss of income and earnings over his lifetime associated with his injuries are hard to calculate due to his youth. Rest assured, however, even a moderate income over his working life would approach the value of the settlement.

Instead, the bulk of the settlement proceeds will go toward a lifetime of medical care and expense for Apodaca. There will likely be little left to address his remaining damages. Unfortunately, this is often the reality of auto accidents, where there is inadequate insurance to compensate injured persons. In New Mexico, a $3.1 million settlement in an auto accident is extremely rare due to the high level of uninsured/underinsured motorists in the State. Though the settlement cannot possibly compensate Apodaca for his injuries, it is far better than the outcome in most DWI/DUI accidents where there simply is no insurance or financially responsible party to compensate the accident victim other than his or her own uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The Albuquerque Journal reports that Toyota officials bragged about the $100 million it saved by negotiating with the government for a limited recall related to the problem with sudden acceleration of its vehicles. It is reported that internal corporate memorandum noted the limited recall of floor mats among "Wins for Toyota - Safety Group." The limited recall was in lieu of the broader recall associated with product and design defects with accelerator pedals and brakes.

The New York times further reported that Leading Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee alleged that Toyota had relied on flawed studies in dismissing the possibility that computer issues were possibly the cause of sticking accelerator pedals on millions of cars. It then issued misleading statements to Toyota owners minimizing the problem.

It is estimated that there have been over 2000 incidents and over 30 deaths involving uncontrolled and sudden acceleration of Toyota and Lexus vehicles. One of the more notable incidents occurred in August 2009 causing the death of a California police officer and three of his family members. This incident led to much of the impetus behind the investigation of the defective vehicles.

Toyota's irresponsible, callous and dangerous indifference to the safety of its consumers points to the flaws in the Tort Reform movement. Tort Reformers cast trial attorneys as a plague on society. In reality, trial attorneys as Toyota will soon find, act as a check on corporate greed. Without product liability law developed compliments of trial attorneys over the past 50 years, corporations would use the same ruthless economic calculus that appears to be at work in the consumer safety decisions of Toyota. Unfortunately, the reality is that purely financial analysis of consumer safety rarely benefits consumers.

In fact, viewing the calculation, 19 deaths might have appeared acceptable from Toyota's math. What is the value of 30 lives? Toyota clearly thought it was less than $100 million. How many lives are worth $100,000 million in savings?

Compensatory damages alone should top the $100 million in savings. But the real problem for Toyota is punitive damages. Punitive damages provide the real deterrent to irresponsible corporate greed that, as in this case, can lead to defective products in the marketplace. Punitive damages are meant to deter future bad behavior both for the defendant and others prone to engage in similar behavior. Punitive damages are a function of bad behavior and corporate income. Punitive damages, where morality fails, dictate that the safety of consumers enter the profit equation. Perhaps Toyota failed to anticipate that its decision-making processes would become public, but it is these processes that justify punitive damages.

Fortunately for New Mexico consumers, New Mexico courts and judges are prone to protect consumers and the general public. In fact, New Mexico has been designated a "judicial hellhole" for corporate defendants, something for which its citizens should be thankful. Though these cases will land in federal court, the federal court will apply New Mexico law on punitive damages. New Mexico's law on punitive damages does not look favorably on corporate behavior that puts the safety and lives of New Mexico consumers at risk.

Assuming the reports of the Albuquerque Journal and New York times are accurate, if there was ever behavior suggesting punitive damages, Toyota's weighing of costs and benefits of fixing known defects in its vehicles demands them.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Work related injuries in New Mexico, as in most states, typically leave the injured workers grossly under-compensated in cases of serious or permanent injuries or wrongful death. With on the job injuries, the worker is typically limited to recovery under the Workers Compensation Act.

There are exceptions. An injured worker can recover damages beyond the limits of the workers compensation statutes when a third party has caused the injuries by suing that third party. In addition, in the case of on the job auto accidents in work vehicles, the injured worker may obtain additional relief under the employer's uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.

The recent case of Marckstadt v. Lockheed Martin (consolidated with Federated Service Insurance v. Martinez) forcefully reiterates the right to recovery under an employer's uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. In these consolidated cases, employees had been injured in auto accidents while driving their work vehicles. In both cases, the other driver was underinsured. Likewise, in both cases, the injured worker made claims against the employer's uninsured/underinsured coverage on the vehicles.

Naturally, the insurance companies in both cases denied coverage. In both cases, the insurance companies argued that it was the intent of the insured employers to reject uninsured/underinsured coverage. However, there was no written rejection of uninsured/uninsured motorist coverage (UM/UIM). In the case of Lockheed Martin, there was an X on a form indicating that UM/UIM had been rejected. However, it was not clear who put the X on the form and only after the accident did Lockheed Martin actually sign a written rejection. Neither was there a signed written rejection in the Federated case though it was clear that the insured employer intended to reject coverage.

The Court ruled that though an actual signature was not required to reject coverage,and the rejection did not have to be attached to the policy, the rejection did have to be in writing no matter what the intentions of the parties. The Court recognized that the requirement of a writing was set forth in NMAC §13.12.3.9. The Court also recognized the problems with interpreting unwritten intentions, the possibility of fraud on the injured worker in these cases to avoid underinsured/uninsured coverage, and the litigation that would ensue if the writing requirement were not in place.

If you are injured on the job in a work vehicle as a result of negligence other than your own negligence, you may be entitled to recovery of damages beyond those limitations set forth in the workers compensation act. If the other party lacks insurance or is underinsured, and you have suffered serious or permanent injuries, then you should determine the availability of uninsured/underinsured coverage on your employer's vehicle(s). Due to the severe limitations of workers compensation, and the lack of insurance with the other driver, this may be the only way to recover fully on your injuries and other damages.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Following a $16 million verdict, Ford Motor Company settles with a woman left paralyzed in an auto accident. The settlement came as the jury considered additional punitive damages against the manufacturer for design defects in the rear seat latch on its Explorer model.

The $16 million verdict came despite the fact that the cause of the accident was the driver of another vehicle that struck the Ford Explorer in which Lynn Wheeler was a passenger in the back seat. Ms. Wheeler was sitting in the center of the back seat between her two grandchildren as the family was en route to church on Christmas Day in 2005. Upon collision with the other vehicle, the rear seat latch failed folding on Ms. Wheeler and slamming her forward into the front console.

Ms. Wheeler suffered spinal cord damage and permanent paralysis from the neck down. The Georgia jury awarded a total of $17.7 million in damages. The jury found apportioned the liability and fault between the driver of the other vehicle that caused the accident holding him liable for $1.2 million for his negligence and Ford liable for the remainder on the products liability claim.

The jury was considering additional punitive damages against Ford at the time of the settlement. The punitive damages could have enormous. Punitive damages typically are based in part on the revenue of the defendant. Punitive damages function to deter future conduct. In this case, it appears based upon the evidence presented by the plaintiff's attorney, that Ford had known about the dangers of the lap only seatbelts for more than 30 years based upon extensive crash testing and research. The knowledge was well documented in Ford's own safety documentation and internal memos.

Despite the obvious dangers presented by the defective design, Ford failed to correct the problem continuing to install the lap belts rather than the safer shoulder belts. As a result of Ford's knowledge of the dangers of its defective design and its deliberate failure to correct the problem, it is likely that the jury would have awarded significant punitive damages. Due to the settlement, Ford will avoid a possibly enormous punitive damages award.

Product liability cases such as these are extremely important for the public safety. Consumers trust their safety and the safety of their families to manufacturers such as Ford. Without product liability suits such as this one, manufacturers would have little incentive to design and manufacture safer products. Indeed, as in this case, the motivation flows in the exact opposite direction as manufacturers would ignore their own safety research and findings in an effort to keep production costs down. It is important that the costs savings associated with cutting costs be weighed heavily against the costs of these suits in the event of their deliberate indifference to the safety of their consumers. Unfortunately, profit alone drives manufacturers such as Ford and the threat of lawsuits if nothing else will hopefully drive them toward more responsible design decisions.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Underinsured coverage is often the only coverage available in auto accidents occurring in New Mexico. New Mexico and Albuquerque drivers are notoriously uninsured or underinsured. New Mexico has the highest rate of uninsured motorists in the country.

With 29% of New Mexico drivers uninsured, and many more underinsured, there is good chance if you have an accident, the other driver will have no insurance. It is a very good idea to have as much underinsured coverage as you can afford. Unfortunately, even when you have acquired significant levels of underinsured coverage, your own carrier may dispute the insurance policy limits on your coverage.

This is what happened in Bird v. State Farm. David Bird had four vehicles under his policy. He purchased a new Subaru which fell under the 30 day coverage provision for newly acquired vehicles. The Subaru was to replace a Jeep on the policy. However, David still had the Jeep which was to remain on the policy for the 30 day grace period, after which separate insurance would need to be purchased if the vehicle had not been sold.

During the 30 day grace period, David was killed in an auto accident caused by an uninsured motorist. State Farm promptly settled for the $400,000 on the four vehicles but refused the additional $100,000 on the Jeep though it was still covered under the policy. The estate of David Bird was awarded $100,000 on summary judgment.

State Farm appealed arguing that no additional premiums were paid on the Jeep and therefore it was not covered despite the 30 day grace period. The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment award on the grounds that the policy provisions were ambiguous. In light of the ambiguity, the court determined that the insured's reasonable expectation of coverage based upon the 30 day grace period dictated the finding of additional coverage on the Jeep.

The law in New Mexico is very protective of the rights of insured motorists. The public policy dictates that motorist be afforded coverage in the event of an accident with an uninsured or underinsured motorist, a very common event in New Mexico. This same policy is the basis for requiring that underinsured coverage be explicitly rejected in writing by the insured. Moreover, the signed rejection must be attached to the policy itself to be effective.

In short, the law in New Mexico does all it can to protect motorists against the harm of uninsured and underinsured motorists. It is up to every driver to acquire that protection through underinsured/uninsured motorist coverage.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The New Mexico Court of Appeals has made clear the requirements for a valid rejection of uninsured and underinsured insurance coverage. The Court ruled in Arias v. Phoenix Indemnity that to be valid, the insured must sign a written rejection of the coverage. This is not new. However, the Court went further to state the signed rejection of uninsured and underinsured coverage must also be attached to the auto insurance policy to be valid.

Arias v. Phoenix Indemnity involved circumstances where the insured had in fact signed the written rejection of uninsured and underinsured coverage. The rejection was signed during the application process. There was no dispute that the Plaintiff had signed the rejection. Moreover, there was no disputing the fact that the Plaintiff had received a copy of the signed rejection during the application process. In established that a copy of the signed rejection was given to the Plaintiff along with copy of the application for insurance. However, the signed rejection was not attached to the policy itself. The Court in Arias v. Phoenix Indemnity found this omission sufficient to invalidate the rejection.

This case points out the importance of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. The case emphasizes the hurdles an insurer must clear prior to waiver of this coverage. It also makes clear the value of this insurance in the very fact that the insurer must jump through so many hoops to avoid coverage and a fee thereon. Insurers are not known for dodging income. The fact that they often do so in the case of uninsured and underinsured coverage should suggest the value of the coverage to the insured.

In fact, uninsured/underinsured coverage is often the only protection a driver will have in an auto accident. New Mexico's has the highest rate of uninsured motorists in the country currently at 29% and climbing. Many more are grossly underinsured in inadequate insurance policy limits to cover a serious accident. In the end, an injured driver will often have no recourse to liability insurance and no recourse against the driver since you cannot get blood out of turnip as they say.

New Mexico has like many states a long-standing policy of goal of protecting the public against the harms of uninsured and underinsured motorists. The policy is set forth in the statutes, and has been set out repeatedly in case law setting ever increasing obstacles to the attempts of insurers to avoid this coverage beginning with Romero v. Dairyland where the Court stated flatly that the rejection of uninsured and underinsured coverage defeats this important public policy.

Arias v. Phoenix Indemnity is simply an expansion of the long standing public policies set forth in Romero v. Dairyland. The rejection uninsured/underinsured coverage is so important and potentially disastrous to the insured that the rejection must be made attached to the policy itself. The insured must be given every opportunity to avoid what may turn out to be a fairly costly mistake.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Car accidents are a fact of life. They are far too common. Most people will be in a car accident at least once during their lives. Often times, it will be that person's negligence that caused the accident. The law requires that every driver carry liability insurance for these purposes. Most drivers in New Mexico will comply with the law. Most would do it voluntarily without the law to protect themselves against liability and suit in case of an auto accident.

Most drivers will take action to protect themselves against lawsuits. Unfortunately, they fail to protect themselves against a much greater harm which is far more likely to occur. The harm that a driver will suffer in an auto accident is far more likely to result from the physical injuries that result from the negligence of the other driver.

The costs of these injuries can be catastrophic. There is the physical injury itself which can force a person to miss work. Lost wages can financially cripple a person and his or her family. Most folks cannot afford to miss even one paycheck. Perhaps even more damaging are the medical expenses that result from the injuries. These can be astronomical. And then there is the risk of permanent injury, permanent wage loss, and all the physical and emotional pain and suffering that goes with them. And again, even greater medical expense.

So what is the problem? The problem is that New Mexico has the highest rate of uninsured drivers in the nation with 29% of its drivers uninsured. To make matters worse, New Mexico is a relatively poor state with a relatively poor population. The result is that a huge percentage of those drivers that do have insurance carry only the statutory minimum $25,000.00 in liability coverage because that is all they can afford. Medical alone can quickly exceed $25,000.00. In cases with serious injuries, the lost wages can far exceed this amount particularly if the injured person is required to quit working or change jobs due to the injuries.

In short, if you or a loved one get in a serious accident in New Mexico, it is more than likely that there will be insufficient insurance on the other side to compensate you for your injuries. This problem is easy and relatively inexpensive to address through underinsured motorist coverage. In fact, the coverage is such a good deal that the insurance companies by law must get a written signed waiver from a driver before the coverage can be waived.

Ask yourself why the law would require that an insured sign away coverage and why an insurance company would encourage the waiver of this coverage thereby forfeiting a fee? Clearly, underinsured coverage is a better deal for you than it is for the insurance company. In fact, it is about the only good deal you will ever get from an insurance company. So load up on underinsured coverage. It is almost reckless to drive in New Mexico without it.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Personal injury lawsuits against governmental entities in New Mexico have surprisingly quick deadlines. These deadlines arise under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. You should be aware of the Act's deadlines if you are suing a state, county or city governmental entity in New Mexico. Missing these deadlines even by a day will bar your personal injury claims.

Personal injury lawsuits covered by the New Mexico Tort Claims Act would include medical malpractice claims against government run medical providers such as the University of New Mexico. They would include suits against any state, county or municipal hospital or clinic. Also included would be suits involving city streets or transportation such as the City of Albuquerque for public transportation accidents or problems with the city streets or sidewalks. The Act would also cover suits against state, county or city law enforcement for civil rights claims or even auto accidents involving law enforcement. The range of these suits is very broad so it is important that you determine immediately if a governmental entity is involved.

If your personal injury claim involves any governmental entity whatsoever, then the New Mexico Tort Claims Act applies. Under the Tort Claims Act, the injured person, or his or her representative must send a Notice of Tort Claim to the appropriate entities within 90 days of the incident. It is important to note that a separate notice must be sent to each entity that may be a defendant in the lawsuit. This is a firm deadline and failure to send the notice within the 90 day period will bar your lawsuit completely.

In addition to the 90 day Tort Claims Notice requirement, the statute of limitations is shorter than the normal 3 year period for personal injury lawsuits against private non-governmental entities. In personal injury suits against governmental entities, the statute of limitations is only 2 years. Again, this is a firm deadline and failure to file a lawsuit within the 2 year period will bar your claims.

Most people injured at the hands of governmental entities such as those set forth above are unaware of the Tort Claims Act or its deadlines. Many injured persons miss the 90 day deadline before they even contact an attorney. Unfortunately, if this happens, there is very little an attorney can do for those folks except in very limited situations. Missing the deadline even by a single day will bar the claims.

Because these deadlines are very strictly enforced, you should immediately make arrangement to send out the Tort Claims Notice. You should contact an attorney for these purposes as soon after the accident as possible. Many wait until the 90 deadline is almost up before contacting an attorney. Many law firms, including this one, will be extremely reluctant to take a case with a looming tort claims deadline.

If you do not have an attorney for purposes of sending out the tort claims notices, you should send them yourself. Once the tort claims notice requirements have been met, you will have additional time to hire an attorney for the pursuit of your lawsuit. You need to make sure that the appropriate governmental entity or agency receives the notice. If there is any doubt as to the appropriate party, you should err on the side of caution sending tort claims notices to all possible governmental defendants.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

New Mexico is a comparative negligence state. As a result, it is possible for someone involved in an auto accident to recover damages even if he or she is partially responsible for the accident.

This is in stark contrast to those states that follow contributory negligence rules. Contributory negligence doctrine precludes a driver from recovering anything for his or her injuries for even minor negligence. The contributory negligence model has very harsh and unfair results since minor negligence is present in almost every accident. Contributory negligence doctrine also encourages insurance companies to fight liability even where their driver is clearly responsible for the accident. There is a big payoff for a finding of contributory negligence since it excludes recovery where any contributory negligence is found.

Fortunately, New Mexico follows the much fairer comparative negligence model. Under comparative negligence, the injured party must still prove liability or fault on the part of the other driver. However, some minor negligence will not completely preclude recovery. Instead, the law will apportion fault to the parties. Any damages will be reduced by the percentage of fault attributable to the injured party.

For example, if the injured party proves $10,000 damages and it is show that he or she is 50% responsible for the accident, then the total recovery will be reduced by 50% to $5000. This doesn't seem like much but in cases involving extraordinary damages, the recovery can be quite large even after the reduction for comparative fault. For instance, if the case involves permanent injuries or even death, the damages can be very large so that even with a 50% reduction in damages, the settlement or judgment can be substantial.

A wrongful death action can result in damages well in excess of a million dollars. Depending on the circumstances, the damages can rise to the millions. Under a contributory negligence model, the injured party or the estate would be prevented from recovering any damages at all if there was the presence of any contributory negligence. Under the comparative fault model, the injured party or the estate would recover reduced but still significant damages.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Dram shop lawsuit in results in $1 million damages verdict against a bar that served the intoxicated driver that struck and killed a bicyclist while returning home from the bar. The driver, Melissa Arrington, had been drinking at Berky's bar prior to the accident. At the time of the accident, Ms. Arrington was driving while intoxicated with a breath alcohol level of .15, almost twice the legal limit.

The parents of Paul L'Euyer brought the suit under the wrongful death statute on behalf of their son. The suit was filed in Tucson against both Berky's Bar and Melissa Arrington. The suit against Berky's was brought under the state's dram shop laws that are common in many states, including New Mexico. Dram shop laws hold bars, taverns, and restaurants liable for serving intoxicated persons who later injure innocent parties.

The lawsuit also named Melissa Arrington individually. Ms. Arrington was later convicted and sentenced to 10.5 years for vehicular homicide. Despite her undisputed liability, her insurance company was able to settle on her behalf for only $25,000.

The case raises several important points. First, bars and restaurants are liable for negligently serving alcohol to intoxicated persons who are later involved in accidents or even intentional torts. The damages against bars and restaurants can be substantial as was the case in the case of Berky's who has since closed its doors.

The case also illustrates the issue of underinsured motorists. Ms. Arrington, who is now in prison, carried only $25,000 in liability coverage, the statutory minimum insurance liability policy limits in most states, including New Mexico. If not for the insurance of Berky's, Mr. L'Euyer's parents would likely have recovered only $25,000 for their son's death. Sadly, a lawsuit simply would not have been feasible in light of Ms. Arrington's minimal insurance coverage.

Though the news accounts do not address whether Mr. L'Euyer carried uninsured and underinsured insurance coverage, had Berky's not been in the chain of negligence, Mr. L'Euyer's total recovery would have been only $25,000. Over 1 in 6 motorists nationally are uninsured. Greater percentages are grossly underinsured. The rates are even higher in New Mexico which leads the nation in uninsured motorist at 29%.

The fact is if you are involved in an car or automobile accident in New Mexico, the other driver will likely be uninsured or underinsured leaving you and your family to bear the costs of the accident, injuries, and the loss of income on your own.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Huge Verdict In Trucking Accident Involving Texting Truck-Driver

A 21 year old college student was awarded $49 million in damages to a Santa Clara verdict for brain injuries he suffered in an auto accident. Drew Bianchi was traveling with friends on a camping trip when two trucks collided on the center line sending one of the trucks careening into the rear of Bianchi's vehicle.

As is the case in many trucking related accidents, Drew suffered very serious injuries including severe and permanent brain injury. He now lives full time in the treatment facility unable to care for himself. It is expected that he will remain in care facilities for the rest of his life.

Bianchi sued both trucking companies and the truckers individually for reckless driving. It was alleged that while one trucker veered recklessly across the center line, the other driver was recklessly texting and inattentive.

The case suggests a trend likely trend in car and automobile accidents. Texting is increasingly common throughout society. Unfortunately, many find the urge to text even while they are driving. Driver inattentiveness is a leading cause of car accidents. This is especially true among younger drivers. The lure of texting to teenagers is not surprising. The lure of texting for truck drivers is both surprising and frightening.

Trucking accidents typically involve far greater injuries, often death, than run of the mill automobile accidents. The physics are clear. Trucks are huge, they are heavy, they are often moving rapidly, and do not easily come to a stop. Driver inattentiveness is a serious concern for all drivers with the incidence of car accidents involving mobile phones and texting rising rapidly. The fact that truck drivers are texting while driving creates a new level of concern. After all, if they are texting, they are also talking on their phones.

The trend in texting and mobile phone use while driving is clear. The case of Drew Bianchi suggests that car accident lawsuits will reflect the trend with increasing numbers of lawsuits filed for recklessness. It is common to allege recklessness in cases involving mobile phone use and now texting. Juries will likely begin to routinely accept these arguments as the accident statistics related to mobile phone use and texting continue to mount.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The Insurance Research Council (IRC) has found that New Mexico leads the nation in uninsured motorist. Twenty-nine percent of New Mexico Motorists have no insurance. This does not reflect the true scope of the problem as many more are underinsured.

The IRC predicts that by the year 2010, 16.7% of drivers nationally will be uninsured. In 2007, the percent stood at 13.8%. This is a disturbing trend. The IRC suggest that the economic downturn has led to the rise in uninsured motorists. As the economy continues to falter, the situation is likely only to get worse. This is particularly true in New Mexico which is a relatively poor state. Continued problems with the economy will undoubtedly lead to not only an increase in uninsured New Mexico motorists, but also to an increase in underinsured motorists.

According to the report, there is a strong correlation between the number of uninsured motorists and unemployment. With every one point percentage increase in unemployment, there is a rise of 3/4 percentage point in uninsured motorists, almost 1 to 1 ration. With national unemployment hitting 10%, the number of uninsured motorists is likely to continue to climb dramatically.

Again these numbers do not ever begin to address the equally if not more significant issue of underinsured motorists. In New Mexico, if you are in an accident, you have a 29% chance that the other party has no insurance. The chance that the other party has only minimal insurance policy limits of $25,000 is significantly higher.

In a serious accident, even $25,000 will not come close to covering your injuries and other damages. It is important in New Mexico to carry high underinsured coverage limits. This may be the only coverage available for you and your loved ones in a serious accident.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The Obama administration has issued a report indicating that almost 60,000 people were killed and 515,000 were injured in 2008 in auto accidents as a result of driver distraction. Driver inattention was involved in 16% of all fatal crashes in 2008.

The largest percentage of those accidents involved drivers under the age of 20. The Insurance Journal suggests that many of these accidents were the result of mobile phones and texting. Remarkably, 18% of those surveyed for the study admitted to having texted while driving in the month prior to their survey.

In response to the growing problem, and the apparent irresistible urge to text, 18 states and the District of Columbia have made the practice of texting while driving illegal. Seven other states have outlawed cell phone use completely while driving. Numerous highway safety groups haves urged a nationwide ban on cell phone use and texting while driving.

The greatest concern for public safety is in the area of texting. Texting popularity is explosive growing form 10 billion messages a month to 110 billion per month in the three year period December 2005 to December 2008.

Like many areas of public safety, the change will come in the courts through lawsuits. The persuasive power of the personal injury lawsuits persuades like no other argument can. As punitive damages claims continue to climb and meet with growing success, the legislation will follow.

In the meantime, watch out for anyone staring at their lap and load up on uninsured and underinsured coverage. Rest assured in New Mexico, with the highest rate of uninsured motorists in the country, the kid that just barreled into while texting his girlfriend is either uninsured or severely underinsured.


www.CollinsAttorneys.com