Blog

Very significant common pleas level case that addresses the issues that are so problematic in these cases. Interesting discussion about the payment of medical bills by the carrier and admissibility. In Mortiz v. Horace Mann Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co, No. 13 CV 544 (Lack Co. Nov. 10, 2014) involving motions in limine and jury instructions in an underinsured motorist Koken trial. The actual instructions are outlined below. Also, Judge Nealon finds that Horace Mann needs to be named in the case and that it does not violate the Pa. Rule of Evidence. Also, he finds that the payment of first party medical benefits is not admissible. Consequently, the jury In this case will be instructed that: (1) plaintiffs have brought this action against their own insurance company under coverage known as underinsured motorist coverage, which serves to provide compensation to a plaintiff for damages that would have been recoverable If the underinsured motorist had maintained an Insurance policy which adequately covered the plaintiff’s damages from an accident; (2) to recover against the defendant, the plaintiffs must prove that the other driver was negligent, that the negligence caused harm to the plaintiffs, and that the other driver did not have adequate liability Insurance; (3) the defendant has stipulated that the plaintiffs’ Insurance policy provides underinsured motorist coverage and that the policy was in effect at the time of the accident, such that the jurors need not concern themselves with the specifics of the policy; (4) the defendant has also agreed that the other driver was negligent and caused the accident, such that the jury need only determine whether the plaintiffs suffered harm as a result of the accident and, if so, what amount of money damages will fairly and adequately compensate the plaintiffs; (5) the fact that the plaintiffs are suing the defendant for underinsured motorist benefits suggests that the other driver had some insurance which was recovered by the plaintiffs; (6) the plaintiffs will not receive compensation twice for the same damages since any jury award of damages in this case will be reduced by any amount that the plaintiffs have already received from the other driver and her insurer; and (7) the jury should determine an amount of money damages that will fairly and adequately compensate the plaintiffs for all the physical and financial injuries they have sustained as a result of the accident, without consideration of any amount that the plaintiffs may have received from the other driver or her Insurer, since any such amount will be deducted by the court from the total sum that the jury may award. The Instructions to be provided to the jury in this case will Include the following: Members of the jury, this case arises from an automobile accident that occurred on August 26, 2010, at approximately 8:54 AM on Sturges Road In Blakely Borough. At that time, the Plaintiff, Cynthia Moritz, was operating her automobile when another vehicle being driving by Cynthia Parlanti crossed into Cynthia Moritz’s lane of travel and collided with Cynthia Moritz’s vehicle. It is undisputed that the other driver, Cynthia Parlanti, was negligent and that her negligence was the sole cause of this automobile accident. Therefore, you need not concern yourself with the question of fault in causing the accident since the parties agree that the accident was caused by Cynthia Parlanti’s negligence. ‘ You will note that the only parties in this case are the plaintiffs, Cynthia Moritz and her husband, George Moritz, and the defendant, Horace Mann Property & Casualty Insurance Company. The plaintiffs have brought this action against their own Insurance company, Horace Mann Property & Casualty , Insurance Company under coverage which is commonly referred to as underinsured motorist coverage. The purpose of such Insurance coverage is to provide compensation to a plaintiff for damages that would have been recoverable if the underinsured motorist had maintained an Insurance policy which adequately covered the plaintiff’s damages from a motor vehicle accident. To recover damages from the defendant, Horace Mann Property & Casualty Insurance Company, the plaintiff must show by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the other driver was negligent, that the other driver’s negligence caused Injury to the plaintiffs, and that the other driver did not have adequate insurance; to fairly and adequately compensate the plaintiffs for their damages caused by the accident. As already mentioned, the plaintiffs and the defendant agree that the other driver, Cynthia Parlant, was negligent and caused the accident, such that you need not consider or decide who was at fault in causing the accident. The parties have also stipulated that the plaintiffs’ insurance policy with the defendant provides underinsured motorist coverage, and that the insurance policy was in full force and effect at the time of the accident on August 26, 2010. Therefore, you need not concern yourself with the specifics of that policy. Your only task is to determine whether the plaintiff, Cynthia Moritz, suffered injuries as a result of the accident, and, If so, what amount of money damages will fairly .and adequately compensate the plaintiffs for their losses. The fact that the plaintiffs are suing the defendant, Horace Mann Property & Casualty Insurance Company, for underinsured motorist benefits suggests that the other driver, Cynthia Parlant, had some insurance which was paid to the plaintiffs. If you award damages to the plaintiffs, they will not receive compensation twice for the same Injuries or losses. Any award of damages in this case will be reduced by any amount that the plaintiffs have already received from the other driver or her insurance company: Thus, you should determine an amount of money damages that you believe will fairly and adequately compensate the plaintiffs for all the physical and financial injuries they have sustained as a result of the accident, without consideration of any amount that the plaintiffs may have received from another source, since any such amount will be deducted by me from the total sum that you may award in this case.