Lawsuit Finance Blog

An important issue comes up in my office, now and again, and it is worth sharing with those who utilize, or may utilize, legal funding services. The issue is: Can one enter into a lawsuit financial contract with an incapacitated client?

Mentally incapacitated, minors, or wrongful death victims whose rights are being pursued by estate representatives can be funded, in some circumstances, but, both the lawsuit financing company and the attorney must be very careful. In a wrongful death action, for example, an attorney should advise a lawsuit funding company the names of the heirs and likely distributions. Is the recovery to go to one person or split among several? If split, what is the case's projected value and likely percentage splits? Case funding can only be provided against the share of proceeds that belong to the heir seeking funding; a legal finance company cannot fund one heir on the larger case value. If an inexperienced or uneducated litigation finance company attempts to do that, the attorney should point out and prevent the mistake, because the case will be difficult to resolve with a lopsided legal cash advance standing in the way. The legal finance company may be able to provide funding to several heirs, but only to each against each heir's potential share.

As to the minor or incapacitated plaintiff, lawsuit funding should not be provided in most instances. If a lawsuit finance company is willing to do such a transaction for a minor or incapacitated person the attorney should usually step in and stop it. A lawsuit funding company (or any vendor) must contract only with someone who has the requisite capacity. On the other hand, if a lawsuit cash advance is absolutely necessary for plaintiff's sustenance or medical treatment, the attorney might consider taking a proposed legal finance contract to the handling judge and get a transaction approved on a ‘best interests of the client’ basis, with the personal representative signing off on an agreement. This should only be done upon a showing of absolute need.

If the representative person is responsible for medical care or is receiving a portion of the proceeds for the recovery of money he/she has provided for medical care, household help, nursing services, etc., it is possible to provide lawsuit financial services to the representative against his/her own share of the recovery. There are no capacity issues there. The attorney must deal with the legal funding company in a fair and ethical manner. An attorney who directs funds to one plaintiff or another to avoid the legal finance company's lien could face a lawsuit or a bar complaint for ethical violations.

If you are presented with a situation where a client is seeking legal finance services under any of the scenarios presented herein, I advise caution. Call me at Lawsuit Financial, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848), even if you are pursuing pre-settlement funding with a competitor. I am happy to provide practical advice and assistance to lawyers, their clients and, even to competitor litigation funding companies, so that clients receive the legal financial help they need in an ethical and sensible manner.

Farmington Hills, MI personal injury attorney, Arnold Reed, is a friend of mine and a fine lawyer. Recently, he filed a $20,000,000 lawsuit on behalf of the family of a man who, allegedly, was abused by Allen Park and Dearborn (suburban Detroit, MI cities) police.

But, this is not your average police misconduct/abuse case. I am writing about it, as a public service, to alert law enforcement officials and the public. The victim in this case was an insulin dependent diabetic who wore an insulin pump on his waistband (police,apparently, mistook this for a weapon) and who suffered from hypoglycemic episodes. He was, apparently, followed by the police for several miles and was pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving. Police allege that he resisted them and they subdued him by wrestling him to the ground and spraying him with pepper spray and tear gas.

After he was subdued, officers noticed that what they thought was a weapon was, in fact, an insulin pump; they administered a breath test which showed no alcohol consumption. The victim was taken to a nearby hospital where his blood sugar level was found to be 20 (normal, according to the article, is between 70 an 110). Subsequently, after receiving treatment at several hospitals, he died, presumably from injuries relating to this incident.

This case is the aftermath of a tragic lack of awareness of a relatively common condition. Police officers need to exercise better judgment; they must ask questions of the people they apprehend before jumping to the conclusion that they are criminals, uncooperative subjects, or arrest resistors. Members of the public need to immediately advise an officer who pulls them over of any conditions that they might have that would cause them to behave in a way that makes them look or seem suspicious. Basic education, on both sides of an event like this, could have prevented this tragedy. If you are reading this and know a police officer, or a person whose condition could be misinterpreted by a police officer, share this blog and the attached article with them. Perhaps you and I, together, can prevent another tragedy like this one.

Lawsuit Financial provides legal finance services to injured and disabled people involved in pending lawsuits. Please, if you are injured or disabled, have a lawyer handling your case, are having financial difficulties, and are considering a settlement (because of those financial difficulties) that your lawyer says is too low, call Lawsuit Financial, now. The toll free, no obligation lawsuit funding help line number is 1-877-377-SUIT (7848). One of our friendly legal funding paralegals will analyze you situation for free. We finance police misconduct cases, auto accident cases, and all other personal injury litigation. Call Lawsuit Financial, or visit our website, today.

This video was sent to Lawsuit Financial by one of my Detroit legal colleagues, Joel Alpert. We all watch the news, scan the internet or read the papers about unemployment statistics. Sometimes we forget that behind those "statistics", there are real people with real jobs and real families to support. This video is a touching reminder of that sobering fact. Here's to our country factory workers; may you find better days ahead.

Lawsuit Financial is committed to providing legal funding services to injured people who are unable to work, involved in a personal injury lawsuit, and who may be considering settling their lawsuit for pennies on the dollar because they cannot afford to house or feed their families. Call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) for a free analysis of your legal and legal financial situation. Or, visit us on the world wide web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com.

The family of a child killed by a falling gate has settled their lawsuit against the municipality responsible for the tragedy. The settlement? $600,000, the maximum allowed by law.

Readers of this web log are well aware of my position on tort reform ("deform"). Here is a terrific and tragic example of the inequity that results when the legislature attempts to assist big business, big insurance and big government on the backs and wallets of the injured, disabled, and, in this case, the dead.

In this case, the city involved had previously admitted liability. It left and unsecured iron gate in a child-accessible area; the result? The gate fell on young eleven year old Tim DiLeo, crushing him to death in the late summer of 2007.

Methuen, MA (the municipality responsible for the accident) Mayor William Manzi, is quoted as saying that 'no amount of money can replace a child'. Mr. Mayor, you are absolutely correct. However, in our system of justice, we have, historically, required that a jury of our peers gets to decide what a child's life is worth. The framers of our judicial system knew that each life was precious, but each life was different; damages could vary dramatically depending upon the particular situation. What tort deform does is take these decisions away from the jury. Big business, big insurance, big government and your elected officials are saying to our peers, our jury pools, our citizens: "We don't trust your judgment. We trust you to elect our public servants and pay your taxes; we require you to volunteer for jury duty, but we are going to tell you what you can award because you are too stupid to decide things like this for yourself." Maybe they are correct. After all, you elected the legislators that keep taking away your precious rights in favor of big business, big insurance and big government. Shame on them; shame on you.

Lawsuit Financial is a pro-justice lawsuit funding company that provides strategic legal finance assistance to individuals involved in pending lawsuits. To find out if you qualify for a lawsuit cash advance, please contact Lawsuit Financial, toll free, at 877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit our website at www.lawsuitfinancial.com

Maritime injuries are injuries that occur at sea and are governed by "the law of the sea" or Maritime law. The main body of law that governs these injuries is a 1920 federal law known in legal circles, simply, as the Jones Act. The Jones Act has been amended countless times, since 1920, but it, essentially, seeks to provide protection to seamen who risk their lives at sea. It provides a remedy for maritime workers who sustain an injury while in service to a vessel on navigable waters as a result of employer or fellow crew-member negligence, or for the unseaworthiness of the vessel.

When a seaman is injured on the job, he may be entitled to recover certain benefits. Attached to this post is an article that reports a $1.8 Million verdict in Minnesota for an Escanaba, MI man who was seriously injured in a fall on a ship.

The injured man, Daniel L. Willis slipped and fell and injured his knee while performing his job on the vessel. He was treated at a nearby hospital and was then left to transport himself back to Escanaba on an 18-hour bus ride. Apparently, the long bus ride and the knee immobilizer combined to cause the development of a deep vein thrombosis that led to other complications.
The lawsuit alleged that his injuries were the result of “the unseaworthiness of the vessel and insufficient manpower, equipment, direction, supervision, maintenance, and other incidents of defendants’ malfeasance, negligence, and failure to provide a safe place to work.’’ As previously indicated, these are core allegations needed to pursue Maritime damages.

Willis was expertly represented by Wayzata, Minn., attorney Stephen Eckman, who also claimed that the defendants failed to attend appropriately to his client's medical needs. I congratulate Mr. Willis and Mr. Eckman on their hard-earned victory.

Lawsuit Financial provides Maritime legal finance services to people injured at sea and who have to pursue Maritime litigation to get the compensation they deserve. These cases can take a long time to resolve and families are often without wages or other compensation during that time. In this case, the accident happened in August 2004 and the verdict was announced in May 2009. Legal funding from Lawsuit Financial can provide a legal non-recourse cash advance for mortgage payments, rent, food, clothing, transportation, medicine or medical care while the injured plaintiff recovers from his injuries and pursues his lawsuit. With a lawsuit cash advance, there is no credit check and no credit hit; the only collateral necessary for litigation funding is a pending lawsuit.

If you or someone you love has been injured in any kind of accident, has hired an attorney and filed a lawsuit, and needs fast lawsuit cash call Lawsuit Financial, today, toll free, at 877-377-SUIT (7848) or, visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com.

It looks like another round of "tort reform" is about to be passed, this time, in Oklahoma. News wires report that Republican legislative leaders describe this "as a historic agreement that will help block frivolous lawsuits". I, and most quality attorneys, support reductions in "frivolous lawsuits". What disgusts me and most of my colleagues, is that "tort reform" is a big lie; it is almost never about "frivolous lawsuits"! It is, in the Oklahoma example and, in almost every other example I have seen, always about capping serious lawsuits.

Here is a question for you: Why would a "frivolous lawsuit", which by definition, is not serious and not worth much money (because, after all, it is 'frivolous'), need a cap, at all? Pro-business legislators, insurance companies and chambers of commerce use buzz words like 'tort reform', 'frivolous', and 'lawsuit abuse" to cover-up their real agenda which is: To enrich big business and big insurance on the backs of the one of the weakest segments of our society: the seriously injured and/or disabled. The only people standing in the way of this assault on civil justice in America are a few sensible legislators who know a wolf in sheep's clothing when they see one, you, the citizens, who can vote any bum who supports (or votes for) this type of anti-consumer legislation out of office, and the trial lawyers who work their individual and collective asses off to help achieve justice against a tidal wave of anti-trial lawyer rhetoric and hatred spun by the pro-insurance media machine.

Oklahoma citizens: Contact your state senator, state representative, and the governor and tell them that there is no need for another type of corporate bailout. Tell them that injured and disabled citizens need a bailout from this type of deceitful legislation. This law proposes to cap non-economic damages, also known as pain and suffering, at $400,000. I ask you: what "frivolous" case could possibly be worth that kind of money?! This is not about stopping the frivolous; it is about capping the serious. Don't let these people make a mockery of justice in Oklahoma.

For more information about how you can protect your rights, contact your state trial lawyers association, the Oklahoma Association for Justice, the national trial lawyers association, the American Association for Justice, or Lawsuit Financial, toll free, at 877-377-SUIT.

I have spent considerable time at this location advising all U.S. citizens about the anti-justice legislative and judicial screwing Michigan citizens have received from their elected Republican representatives, their former Republican Governor (John Engler), and his judicial appointees. An excellent example of their anti-justice agenda is the current status of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. In its original form, the Act banned 29 deceptive business practices involving sales of goods and services and granted authority to the state's attorney general to sue to stop such conduct. However, since 1999, the Engler 'pro-business' appointees on the state Supreme Court have issued ruling after ruling denying justice to the average consumer, in favor of corporate interests and profits, contrary to the protections afforded in the Act.

One such example is currently being litigated in a Detroit area courtroom. In 2004, Paulette and James Day bought a GM certified and inspected used 2004 Chevrolet, for $20,350. It was "nearly new", right? Wrong! Later, the Day's were surprised to discover that the car was actually was two wrecks (the front of one and the rear of the other) that a dealer had welded together and sold to a broker, which then sold it to the dealer that sold it to the Day's. Are you following this?! They became suspicious when they found a spot of blue paint in the gas tank of their red Chevy. They tried to return the car for a refund and the dealer refused. The Day's hired a terrific consumer protection, lemon law, attorney, Dani Liblang, in Birmingham, MI, who had the car examined by an expert. The expert determined that the car was actually two damaged cars that had been pieced together, a process common enough that the auto industry even has a name for it: It is called "clipping". General Motors, supposedly, disapproves of this practice.

"No consumer would ever expect that two vehicles welded together make a GM-certified used car," says Liblang. She has a tough row to hoe in this lawsuit. As previously indicated, in 1999, the conservative majority of the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that as long as a business engaged in conduct that was specifically authorized by state law, it is exempt from the act, even if its conduct is deceptive. The court reaffirmed this principle in 2007, which effectively exempts any state or federally regulated business from non-compliance penalties. "If we had a strong Consumer Protection Act, this case would have been a slam dunk," Liblang said. Because of the current status of the Act, she must rely on other laws to make her case.

The opinions were written by current Michigan Supreme Court Justice Robert Young Jr., who is up for re-election next year. His opponent in next year's election has not yet been named, but I strongly urge all Michigan citizens to vote for his unnamed pro-justice opponent. Young has a long, ill-reputed record of anti-consumer, anti-justice, pro-business/corporate opinions .

Efforts to amend the decimated law have been blocked by powerful business interests led by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Another local attorney, Adam Taub, indicates that clients who seek his counsel in such matter are "shocked to discover that Michigan no longer has an effective Consumer Protection Act. ... It's Michigan's dirty little secret." Hopefully, with the attached article, this post, and others like it, it will not be a secret any longer. Hopefully, Michigan citizens will react, as they did last November, when they defeated incumbent Michigan Supreme Court Justice Clifford Taylor (the infamous "Sleeping Judge"). Hopefully, they will vote to defeat (anti) Justice Robert Young in next year's election and return some measure of sanity and justice to Michigan law.

Lawsuit Financial is committed to exposing all anti-justice myths involving our civil justice system. We advocate is a level playing field for the injured and disabled. Lawsuit Financial is please to provide legal cash advances to personal injury plaintiffs who are suffering physically and financially following an accidental injury.