|
|
|
Court: $1M coverage for Conn. fire victim families
Headline Legal News |
2013/06/11 09:00
|
Families suing the operator of a Hartford nursing home where 16 patients died in a 2003 fire suffered a setback Monday, when the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the home's insurance coverage was $1 million instead of the $10 million claimed by the victims' relatives.
The justices' 3-2 decision reversed a lower court judge's interpretation of Greenwood Health Center's insurance policy in favor of the families. The high court instead found in favor of Boston-based Lexington Insurance Co., a subsidiary of American International Group Inc.
"It just seems completely inadequate," Van Starkweather, an attorney for one victim's family, said about the lower coverage figure. "I'm disappointed. It was a close decision. Three justices went with AIG. Two justices went with the victims."
A lawyer for Lexington Insurance declined to comment Monday.
The fire at Greenwood Health Center on Feb. 26, 2003, broke out after psychiatric patient Leslie Andino set her bed on fire while flicking a cigarette lighter. Officials at the time said it was the 10th deadliest nursing home fire in U.S. history. Andino was charged with 16 counts of arson murder, but was found incompetent to stand trial and committed to a psychiatric hospital.
Relatives of 13 of the 16 victims sued the nursing home's operator for cash damages, saying it failed to adequately supervise Andino. Hartford Superior Court Judge Marshall K. Berger Jr. ruled in 2009 that Greenwood's insurance policy with Lexington provided $250,000 in coverage for each plaintiff and the policy's maximum coverage was $10 million.
But Lexington Insurance appealed Berger's decision, saying that the $10 million was the total coverage for all seven nursing homes run by Greenwood's operator and that each home was insured up to $1 million.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maryland DWI (driving while impaired) as Maryland DUI
Headline Legal News |
2013/06/10 10:17
|
Charges made against an individual for drinking and driving in Maryland have two common names: Maryland DUI and Maryland DWI. To be considered for a DUI charge, your blood alcohol level minimum is .08 or higher. All other alcohol levels, such as .07, could get you arrested for a DWI. These arrests are made depending on how impaired your driving abilities are due to alcohol consumption.
There are many consequences in getting charged with a DUI. These include but are not limited to 45 days of a suspended license, and a fine of up to $1,000.00 in addition to one year in jail for a first DUI conviction, and $2,000.00 and two years in jail for a second offense DUI. It is also extremely severe for your driving record because a DUI conviction will result in 12 points for the state of Maryland.
Maryland DWI (driving while impaired) is the lesser offense in comparison with a DUI; however, it still has very harsh punishments, including a driver's license suspension of up to 60 days, 8 points on the Maryland Driver's License record, up to $500 and two months in jail for a first offense, and up to $500.00 and one year in jail for a second offense.
It is crucial to act upon your DUI or DWI arrest in Maryland and to be sure a MVA administrative hearing is requested in writing within 10 days. The driving privileges are automatically suspended unless the hearing is requested. A refusal to take the breathalyzer test is admissible in court as evidence of guilt and also may result in 120 days of driving privileges being suspended.
With the help of a Maryland DUI/DWI attorney, you can outset to scrutinize the legality of the arrest, validity of the charges, and to assert all viable defenses in court. Our Maryland Criminal Lawyers have an extensive experience and expertise in litigating successfully a Maryland DUI or a Maryland DWI charge obtaining dismissals, diversions or probation before Judgment when appropriate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intel chair says NSA court order is renewal
Headline Legal News |
2013/06/06 21:43
|
The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence committee says the top secret court order for telephone records of millions of U.S. customers of Verizon is a three-month renewal of an ongoing practice.
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California spoke to reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference on Thursday after the Obama administration defended the National Security Agency's need to collect the records.
Other lawmakers have said previously that the practice is legal under the Patriot Act although civil libertarians have complained about U.S. snooping on American citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court strikes down Arizona 20-week abortion ban
Headline Legal News |
2013/05/23 10:59
|
A federal court in San Francisco Tuesday struck down Arizona's ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law violates a string of U.S. Supreme Court rulings starting with Roe v. Wade that guarantees a woman's right to an abortion before a fetus is able to survive outside the womb. That's generally considered to be about 24 weeks. Normal pregnancies run about 40 weeks
Several states have enacted similar bans starting at 20 weeks. But the 9th Circuit's ruling is binding only in the nine Western states under the court's jurisdiction. Idaho is the only other state in the region covered by the 9th Circuit with a similar ban.
A trial judge had ruled that the ban could take effect. U.S. District Judge James Teilborg ruled it was constitutional, partly because of concerns about the health of women and possible pain for fetuses.
But abortion-rights groups appealed that decision, saying the 20-week ban would not give some women time to carefully decide whether to abort problem pregnancies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge OKs class-action settlement over Skechers
Headline Legal News |
2013/05/23 10:51
|
A federal judge approved a $40 million class-action settlement Monday between Skechers USA Inc. and consumers who bought toning shoes after ads made unfounded claims that the footwear would help people lose weight and strengthen muscles.
U.S. District Judge Thomas B. Russell in Louisville approved the deal, which covers more than 520,000 claims. About 1,000 people eligible for coverage by the settlement opted not to take part.
Those with approved claims will be able to get a maximum repayment for their purchase _ up to $80 per pair of Shape-Ups; $84 per pair of Resistance Runner shoes; up to $54 per pair of Podded Sole Shoes; and $40 per pair of Tone-Ups.
Russell also awarded $5 million for the attorneys in the case to split. Russell ordered that the money cannot come from the $40 million settlement fund set aside for consumers.
Two people that served as the lead plaintiffs in the case will receive payments of $2,500 each.
Russell considered multiple factors in deciding to approve the settlement and found it provides just compensation to the plaintiffs. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
