Unfair Business Practices

Smooth Away Product Not All It’s Purported to Be

Published on: May 9, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

Infomercials, commonplace in the wee nights for insomniacs, often push the envelope of how groundbreaking and innovative their products are. Using notions of mystery and incredible results, these product “debuts” draw the viewer in by promising results, and features, that commonplace items cannot. While most people would take these promises with a grain of salt, the notion that the product may not even resemble the claims presented is something that seems improbable. In the case of “As Seen on TV” product Smooth Away, this actually is the case as plaintiffs have begun to voice their displeasure of the false reality surrounding this hair removal item.

Smooth Away is a hair removal product that is pitched through the premise that it is a pain-free solution for hygiene purposes. Advertised as an instant and painless manner to tackle shaving needs, Smooth Away has had a very solid sales cycle due to these very attractive promises. The truth, however, behind the New Jersey-based corporation’s product is not so simple. While their claims are smooth, the truth is much more rough and cloudy.

Marketed online and in local stores like Walgreens and others, it is without question that Smooth Away has found a niche in the marketplace. What’s more, sales appear to be solid as buyers, mostly women, are looking for what is being promised: a simple, painless and easy way towards hair removal. The cost of trusting this product, though, is enough to be concerned with.

Sony Network Shutdown Caused by Data/Personal Information Leak

Published on: May 2, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

The video game world was rocked recently by the shutdown of the Sony Playstation 3 Gaming Network. While a free service, the fact that gamers were unable to connect to the network and play their favorite games against both friends and strangers added a wrinkle to an already complex competition between the electronics giant and Microsoft’s X-Box system and network. However, a more significant wrinkle much less publicized exists: Sony was forced to shut down their network due to a breach by external individuals that exposed their personal data.

Most likely ending as a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) situation wherein the litigation will be handled in one court and affect the rulings and settlement opportunities of people across the country, this situation affects hundreds, if not millions, of Americans. Headquartered in California, Sony still does not have a definitive answer for its customers regarding this situation. Yesterday’s news that 10 million credit card numbers may have been exposed in a data breach that involved a known vulnerability is all the more staggering.

When someone puts their faith, and personal information, in the hands of a company, let alone a giant like Sony, they believe this data will be kept secure. However, for this breach to occur, and for the company to admit it was a known issue, provides the legal basis for judicial recovery. Only time will tell what becomes of this privacy and information issue but the protection of secure data is paramount. What Sony will do to reassure its customers that they can continue to trust them remains to be seen.

Uninsured Drivers Can Affect Payouts in Car Accidents

Published on: April 20, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

If hit by an uninsured or underinsured motorist while at work, an employer’s insurance may not cover the damage. While everyone in Louisiana who has a liability policy is required to have uninsured motorists coverage, they can receive an exception by signing a waiver. This can leave accident victims in the dust with tons of heavy medical bills and debt for making a decision they may not have fully understood. Ecolab, Inc. employee Lyndon Doyle found himself in this situation not this lucky.

On January of 2008, Doyle was injured in a car accident while driving a vehicle owned by Ecolab. His injuries resulted in medical bills totaling over $25,000. The woman who hit him, Aniece Smith, did not have enough insurance to cover all of Doyle’s injuries. Because Doyle’s employer Ecolab had a liability insurance policy issued by National Union, Doyle sought the full policy limit from National Union under the uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) liability provision.

While National Union admitted that a policy covering Doyle existed, they denied that UM coverage was available because Ecolab signed waivers of that coverage on February 4, 2003, and December 18, 2003. Because of the company’s prior decision, Doyle had to argue that both waivers were invalid or not executed in accordance with the law. While originally arguing that the February 4th waiver was invalid because it did not contain a policy number nor the company name in the designated place, the plaintiff chose to concede that the waiver was valid, placing all emphasis on the second argument.

In order to win, Doyle had to argue that the second, December 18 waiver was invalid and that it superseded the properly executed February 4th waiver. To argue that it superseded the first, Doyle had to show that it was signed during the original policy term and not in conjunction with a renewal nor change in coverage. National Union admitted that the December 18 waiver was invalid but asserted that it was signed pursuant to a renewal, and thus did not supersede the first, valid waiver. The court finally decided that the second waiver was simply a renewal, and did not supersede the first because the signed waiver forms were identical and the Ecolab representative who signed both, assumed he had signed the second pursuant to a renewal.

Because the second improper waiver was simply a renewal, it did not supersede the first, properly executed waiver. Thus the UM waiver was in effect at the time of Doyle’s accident, and National Union did not have to pay him anything to help with his medical debt resulting from the accident.

This case illustrates an unfortunate reality: the decisions of your employer can gravely affect your ability to recover from an accident. By hiring the best available attorney, you can make sure that no possible avenue of recovery is missed. This may be the only way to get help with the massive amount of medical debt that may result from an accident while working.

La. 4th Cir. Reverses Plaintiff’s Award of Penalties from Alleged Failure to Pay Settlement Agreement Within Statutory Period

Published on: April 18, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

La. R.S. 22:1973B(2) assesses penalties to an insurance company who fails to pay a settlement within 30 days after an agreement is written. In a recent case, Smith v. Bambino, the Fourth Circuit discussed when and under what circumstances will commence the 30-day period.

Th defendant, Bambino, who was driving in New Orleans with the plaintiff, Smith, crashed with another vehicle on January 13, 2007. Smith sued Bambino, his insurer, Erie Insurance Company, and her UM carrier for the injuries she allegedly suffered from the accident. The parties attended mediation, where they executed a “Memorandum of Settlement Agreement” (“memorandum”) on October 19, 2009. Bambino and Erie paid Smith $85,000 approximately 50 days later. After receiving the settlement funds, Smith executed a “Receipt, Release and Agreement to Indemnify,” which released Bambino and Erie from liability. Consequently, the trial court granted Smith’s motion to dismiss with prejudice plaintiff’s claims against Bambino and Erie.

Subsequently, however, Smith filed a motion to assess penalties for late payment of settlement funds. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Smith, awarding her the $5,000 in penalties she sought. The defendants appealed the judgment to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit (“Court”). On appeal, the Court vacated the lower court’s judgment and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for penalties with prejudice.

Hurricane Katrina Case Allowed to Move Forward

Published on: April 17, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastate much of the Gulf Coast, prompting the Louisiana Legislature to enact Acts 2006, which extended the prescriptive period within which insured’s were allowed an additional year to file certain claims under their insurance policies for losses incurred by the storms. Despite many insurance contracts granting only one year for insured’s to file claims, this prescriptive period extension allowed many residents more time to file as a result of the difficult circumstances caused by the storm. The Louisiana Supreme Court recently were asked to determine whether the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, seeking damages from the Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (LCPIC), filed nearly three years after Hurricane Katrina had prescribed. In an earlier decision made by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, the prescriptive period was held to be interrupted by a timely filing of a class action petition against the insurer, which included the Plaintiffs as putative class members. Time is of the essence when filing lawsuits, here, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs were timely and permitted to continue their lawsuit against LCPIC.

The plaintiffs, like so many other Gulf Coast residents, suffered extensive property damage as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Maneuvering through the insurance filing process became tedious and very difficult, the plaintiff’s constantly received refusals by the insurance company to make any payments on their policy limits. Thus, the plaintiff’s turned to legal help in order to obtain help to rebuild their homes and their lives. On June 27, 2008, the Plaintiffs filed a petition against their insurer, LCPIC, seeking payment of their policy limits and damages, including damages for emotional distress and mental anguish. The allegations included: The plaintiff’s property was completely destroyed during the storm, the properties in question were covered by a policy of insurance issued by the defendant LCPIC, yet, the company refused to pay the policy limits. In response, LCPIC filed an Exception of Prescription, arguing that the suit was not filed within one year of loss and that the extended period of prescription provided by legislation had also expired. The trial court initially granted the defendant’s exception of prescription and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim with prejudice, finding that they had failed to file their claim timely. However, on appeal the trial court’s decision was reversed, the prescriptive period had been interrupted by the timely filing of a class action against the defendant insurer in which the Plaintiff’s were putative class members.

Prescription, as defined by Louisiana’s civilian tradition, is defined as a means of acquiring real rights or of losing certain rights as a result of the passage of time. In the case of Cichirillo v. Avondale Industries, Inc, the court reasoned that prescription is designed to “afford a defendant economic and psychological security if no claim is made timely and to protect the defendant from stale claims and from the loss or non-preservation of relevant proof.” Prescription itself is a safety measure that was created in order to prevent defendants from the constant fear of a lawsuit twenty or more years after the fact. Conversely, the other type of period that exists in Louisiana, is liberative prescription. This is a period of time fixed by law for the exercise of a right, yet, a contractual limitation period is not a period of time fixed by law, it is a fixed agreement between the parties. Time is of the essence, yet, there are exceptions to the rule, this is exemplified by the fact that Louisiana extended the initial one year prescriptive period for property damage claims against insurers, for one additional year, allowing victims fo Hurricane Katrina more time to organize the various aspects of their lives that were devastated by the storm.

The primary issue in this recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision, was whether or not the class action suit in which the plaintiff’s were putative class members, interrupted prescription, thus, allowing them continued access to their legal claim against the insurance company. Louisiana civil code article 1793 states, “Any act that interrupts prescription for one of the solidary obligees benefits all the others.” Thus, by becoming putative class members in the initial lawsuit against the insurance company, the plaintiff’s maintained their legal claims against the defendants, allowing them to pursue further legal action against the company despite the passage of time. The court of appeal held that the filing of the class action suits against LCPIC suspended or interrupted the running of prescription against the plaintiff’s property damage claims since they were found to be putative class members when the original class action petitions were filed.

The defendant insurer argued that the contract, which provided one year from the date of the property damage, was the governing time period, even over the statutory extension provided by the Louisiana Legislature. The defendants supported this assertion by declaring that the public interest is served by permitting the insurer to limit the time of its exposure, as Louisiana Civil Code 802 states, “any suit not instituted within the specified time and any claims relating thereto, shall be forever barred unless a contract or the parties thereto provide for a later time.” However, even though the plaintiff’s did not unilaterally file a claim against the insurer within the one year contractual time period, they did enter into the class action against the insurer within the aforesaid time period. Upon the filing of the class action, liberative prescription on the claims arising out of the transaction or occurrences described in the petition were suspended as to all members of the class. The insurance contract provided a contractual time period, not a prescriptive time period, as a result, the additional one year time period afforded to Gulf Coast residents affected by the storm governs. The insurance company attempted to assert the contractual nature of its agreement to circumvent the application of the general codal and statutory rules of prescription is adverse to Louisiana civil Code Article 3471, which clearly circumscribes the limits of any contractual agreement attempting to incorporate a limitation period different from that established by law. Specifically, Louisiana Civil Code Article 3471 states:

A juridical act purporting to exclude prescrption, to specify a longer period than that established by law, or to make the requirements of prescription onerous, is null.

Thus, parties cannot “opt out” of prescriptive periods created by general codal and statutory rules. The plaintiff’s entered into a class action within the prescriptive time period, this interrupted the passage of time that would have taken away their legal rights to sue the insurer. Thus, the subsequent suit against the defendants was timely, and despite the contractual language that attempted to circumvent the Louisiana Legislature, the plaintiff’s filing was timely.

Chemical Release Ruling a Helpful Guide for Recent Spills/Leaks

Published on: April 1, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

In Oakdale, Louisiana, on March 8th, 2000, a pressurized tank owned by Arizona Chemical Co., Inc., containing a heat transfer fluid over-heated. The tank had a safety shut off valve which failed, resulting in the short-term release of chemical vapor into the air. The vapor, containing biphenyl and phenyl oxide, drifted toward the home of a nearby resident, Ms. Edna Miller. The release was short lived and was contained within 30 minutes but caused very real damages. Edna and Bruce Miller sued Arizona Chemical Co, Inc., for personal injuries following the chemical release. As a result, Edna Miler was awarded $12,5000 in damages. However, Bruce Miller’s claim was denied as a verdict in favor of Arizona Chemical was issued.

Both parties appealed the decisions in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed Edna Miller’s award for $12,500 and refused to award her additional damages. Bruce Miller’s claim on appeal was also denied, and he was awarded no damages. Edna Miller was awarded damages while her son Bruce was not because he could not meet his burden of proof to show that the chemical release caused him any harm.
At the time of the exposure Edna was inside her home. Her son Bruce was at work, as a groundskeeper at a nearby high school. Mr. Miller left work to check on his mother when he heard about the chemical release. He found Edna outside on the lawn, nauseous, and about to leave the area. He helped her into her car and she drove away. Bruce Miler stayed on the property for several minutes, went in the house, had a glass of water and washed his face. He said his eyes and throat were burning and he felt shortness of breath.

Later that day Mrs. Miller visited the emergency room with heart palpitations, shortness of breath and nausea. She was released when she no longer had symptoms from the chemical release. Arizona Chemical company paid her medical bill and the bills of four other people that day who complained of symptoms related to the chemical release. Mr. Miller did not seek medical attention that day. He stated that five hours after the exposure he developed a rash on his hands. This rash was later found to be caused by his taking Celebrex and by his long time smoking habit, not from the chemical release. He has suffered skin rashes many times before in his life.

In order to recover damages for personal injury the injured party must prove that the other party was the primary, if not only, cause of the injury. Mr. Miller’s treating family practitioner testified that his breathing problems, rashes, and other symptoms were related to the chemical exposure. However, the physician did not know until the day of trial what chemical the Millers were exposed to, nor the type of ailments that particular substance could cause. The doctor said that the timing of the chemical release and Mr. Miller’s symptoms were what led him to that conclusion. The Defendant presented opinions of expert toxicologists who testified that Mr. Miller’s continuing symptoms could not have been caused by the brief transient exposure to the chemical vapor on March 8, 2000. Because Mr. Miller could not show that the cause of his symptoms was due to the chemical release, the Court of Appeals affirmed that he was not entitled to damages from Arizona Chemical Co., Inc.

Showing that an action by one party caused injury to someone can be complicated. The inured party must prove that their injury was caused by the other party and that the injury caused them some harm. In this case Mrs. Miller suffered some harm, but not harm requiring compensation more than the $12,500 the court said. Mr. Miller was not able to meet his burden of proof showing that the chemical release was the cause of his injuries and thus failed at his claim.

If you have suffered an injury due to chemical release or some other action of another party, you may be entitled to damages if you can meet the proper burden of proof. Whether or not a party has met their burden of proof is a question for the judge or jury and is essential to receiving compensation for personal injury. If you or someone you know has suffered an injury due to another party, an experienced attorney can help you determine if you may be able to meet the burden of proof to be awarded damages by the court.

DePuy Settlements May Offer Spectrum of Opportunities for Recovery

Published on: March 27, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

Nearly ten years ago, consumers sued Sulzer Medica for producing defective hip and knee implants. The company ultimately settled with the affected parties. Although the underlying facts of the Sulzer Medica litigation are technically different from those of DePuy, the Sulzer Medica outcome is nevertheless instructive. If anything, the outcome of the Sulzer Medica recall may reflect the outcomes that will emerge in forthcoming DePuy litigation.

For those unfamiliar with the Sulzer Medica situation, here is a brief synopsis:

Sulzer Medica is a Swiss company that produces artificial joint replacements. It has since changed its name to Centerpulse. In December 2000, the company discovered that machinery oil had contaminated some of its knee and hip implant parts. Consequently, affected joint replacement units failed to adhere to the bone of recipients. Sometime in 2000, the company recalled the defective units. affecting approximately 32,000 people in the United States. Many had to undergo revision surgeries to remedy the problem.

Chinese Drywall Claims Continue as Thousands Still Face Problems

Published on: March 25, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

In a recent decision, a Palm Beach County, Florida, judge ruled that because homebuilders did not manufacture the defective drywall that eventually caused damage to homes, and because they were not within the “chain of distribution,” they could not be held strictly liable for the alleged defects. Strict liability would make it easier for a potential victim to recover money from the homebuilder because the victim would not have to prove that the homebuilder had been negligent in any way. The victim would merely have to show that a product standard was not met along the supply line that led to their injury.

In this case, the homeowner, Marlene Bennett, sued the homebuilder under several theories: 1) breach of contract, 2) tort law, and 3) private nuisance law. The plaintiff asserted damages against the homebuilder, installer, supplier, and manufacturer of the drywall for installing faulty materials, economic losses for declines in home values, and personal losses for the alleged nuisance caused by the drywall emitting fumes. All of these claims, and defendants, are designed to cover the wide spectrum of expenses and responsibilities that can develop as a result of this caustic material being installed and slowly ruining a family home.

Upon going to trial, the case hit its first roadbump when the judge did not let the private nuisance claim go forward. Usually, nuisance law claims are used when someone is unreasonably interfering with the private property rights of another. The judge analyzed Florida law and decided that nuisance law usually had to do with things tied to the land itself, not parts of the house like drywall. The plaintiff may still be able to claim under a breach of contract claim (for breach of implied warranty or other claim) but because there are so many parties involved from the manufacture of the drywall to its installation, it is difficult for plaintiffs to recover damages.

It is important, however, to note that this is only one case, and was in a Florida court, not a Louisiana court. It has not yet been adopted by other judges or upheld by higher courts, and the case law is still developing in this area. It is possible that a Louisiana court could decide the case completely differently. The proper attorney with the most thorough understanding of product liability and insurance dispute (like those at our firm) will use legal theories and tools like this to navigate the judicial process.

In addition to this case, there are a number of ongoing legal efforts in the courts right now in Louisiana, Virginia, California, and Florida dealing with the issue of whether builders can be held liable for defective drywall. Much of the drywall involved in the litigation was manufactured during a specific period of time in China and believed to cause damage to electrical wiring and fire safety equipment.There has been a settlement in federal court involving Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin, which produced one-fifth of the defective drywall, recently settled in federal court to help pay to fix the damage their defective drywall caused. Homeowners may choose to have their homes repaired or to sue for money damages and do the work themselves.

Our firm has made steady progress within the courts and continues to take on clients looking to receive the damages they deserve due to this defective wallboard. If you are a homeowner with defective drywall that is emitting fumes, lowering your home value, or other damage, we may be able to help you.

Court of Appeals Affirms Policyholder’s Rejection of UMBI Coverage

Published on: March 23, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

The Second Circuit Court of Appeal recently affirmed the rejection of Uninsured Motorist coverage from his mother’s automobile insurance, effectively denying him that kind of coverage for an accident where he was hit by another driver.
21-year-old Michael Tillman was driving his 1995 Dodge Ram pickup truck when he was struck from behind by Tommy Pritchard in 2008. Prichtard’s insurance company paid its policy limits to Tillman, who then sought more recovery from his mother’s insurance company, USAgencies. Paris carter, Tillman’s mother, had a policy in effect at the time of the accident and added the Dodge Ram to the policy shortly before Tillman’s accident.

However, before Carter added the Dodge Ram to her policy, she had rejected Uninsured Motorist Bodily Injury (“UMBI”) coverage when she completed an application for the policy. The policy to which she sought to add her son’s pickup truck did not include UMBI coverage and the truck would also not include that coverage. Tillman, however, argued that the insurance agent should have issued a new policy covering his truck because the agent was given the pickup’s title, which listed Tillman as the owner, and that she knew he did not live with his mother; he also argued that Carter could not effectively reject UMBI coverage for him without his written consent.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case summarily because there was no factual issue as to whether Carter rejected UMBI coverage for the Dodge Ram in her policy with USAgencies. The policy document, which Carter signed to reject UMBI coverage, explained that her choice to do so applied both to vehicles described in the policy at that time and to “. . .all reinstatement or substitute policies until [she] make[s] a written request for a change in [her] Bodily Injury Liability Coverage or UMBI Coverage.”

Moreover, the Louisiana legislature has passed statutes which announce that “[a]ny changes to an existing policy, regardless of whether these changes create new coverage, except changes in the limits of liability, do not create a new policy and do not require the completion of new uninsured motorist selection forms.” The Court rejected Tillman’s argument that Carter’s rejection of UMBI coverage might be invalid, citing the rebuttable presumption that Carter’s signed completion of the insurance form means that she knowingly rejected it. The Court reasons that the law is clear: one who signs a document is presumed to have done so with knowledge of its contents, regardless of whether they actually read it.

Further, the Court holds that the insurance agent had no onus to write a separate policy for the Dodge Ram when Carter did not request or direct the agent to obtain. The Court cites the principle that it is the client’s duty to determine the coverage needed, advise the agent of those needs, and to review the policy to determine whether it meets their needs. Lastly, the Court rejects Tillman’s argument that his mother, Paris Carter, could not reject UMBI coverage for him without his written consent. In addressing the authority he cites, the Court clarifies that the rejection requires only the written consent of the policyholder when such a rejection is executed on his behalf.

Though it’s a tough rule, it is important to read the documents you sign, especially when it comes to insurance coverage. Like many people, Ms. Carter might have signed rejection of the UMBI coverage in order to lower her insurance premium. In doing so, she allowed USAgencies to disclaim coverage for injuries sustained by uninsured motorists. However, if you’ve been injured in an automobile accident, you should seek out legal representation to fish out your best interest from these often complicated insurance provisions.

LA Supreme Court Disregards Exclusion for Automobile Business in Liability Policy

Published on: March 21, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

The Louisiana Supreme Court decided a case recently which undercuts a major exclusion of many automobile insurance policies because it conflicts with what the State Legislature announced was in the best interest of the public. Many such policies contain various exclusions from coverage, including the one litigated over here: automobile business.

Sensebe v. Canal involved an auto accident where Sensebe was injured when her vehicle was rear ended by a pickup truck on the I-10 twin span bridge in St. Tammany Parish. Deborah Boudreaux was driving the pickup to her employer, an auto shop named Top Hatch, to have the seat covers replaced with leather. Gregory Hyneman was the owner the truck and had it insured with Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company.

Hyneman’s policy with Farm Bureau contained an “automobile business” exclusion, which Farm Bureau argued applied here and excluded coverage on the pickup during the accident. They reasoned that Ms. Boudreaux was driving the pickup while employed by Top Hatch and as such, the pickup was not covered at the time of the accident.

The District Court agreed with Farm Bureau and dismissed them from the case, but the Court of Appeals reversed that decision by interpreting the insurance policy so as to not exclude the installation of upholstery as automobile business, but rather an after-market upgrade and not an automobile repair or service.
The Louisiana Supreme Court, however, considered the “automobile exclusion” as violating Louisiana Public Policy, which the State Legislature announced requires coverage for permissive drivers – those drivers who operate the covered vehicle with the permission of the policyholder. Because this is Louisiana’s highest court, it sets an important precedent for providing coverage for those injured by vehicles driven by permissive drivers. The Court reasoned that such exclusions, including their broader category of “business exclusion”, violate the legislature’s goal to create a comprehensive scheme to protect injured victims of careless drivers. The Court cautioned that the enforcement of such exclusions would result in motorists being allowed to drive in and out of coverage, depending on the purpose of a particular excursion.
The legislature also included some exceptions to “omnibus coverage”, the required coverage for all vehicles. The owner, they write, may exclude a person if the owner obtains and maintains another policy which provides coverage for the excluded person. Also allowed for exclusion are spouse and other household residents of the policyholder. The LA Supreme Court read these as being the only allowed exclusions from omnibus coverage because the legislature would have included others if it had wanted to allow others. The automobile business exclusion, therefore, was not allowed by the legislature and the fact that it conflicts with the omnibus public policy means it cannot be enforced. The Court sent the matter back down for litigation to continue, denying Farm Bureau’s request to be summarily dismissed from the case on the basis of that exclusion.

The legislature passed the Louisiana Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Security Law to pronounce its goals and requirements for automobile insurance, implicitly noting the high cost of automobile-related injuries. Thankfully, the scheme they have passed requires coverage for all drivers except for those noted allowable-exclusions (those otherwise covered by the owner and members of the same household). The idea is to require liability coverage for every vehicle that, by the very nature of driving, might injure someone else. In this case, the Louisiana Supreme Court has signed on to this goal and is enforcing this idea. Those injured in automobile accidents can now worry less about falling through a loophole in the insurance policy of the person who injured them.