Oh ANNNDDD Opposing counsel tries to cross-examine my client with a for-sale ad from like cars.com of a different year truck being for sale for a lesser amount than we're claiming. I object. How the fuck is that admissible? Judge says, "Well, your client testified to his lost value so it's only fair that I allow the defendant to cross-examine him on it." Yeah, sure. With admissible fucking evidence maybe.
just finished a knock down drag out depo of treating neuro who i designated as one of my experts in a med mal death case. flew to dallas for it. they tried to put all of us in this tiny ass doc office -we were like not gonna happen. it was 3 lawyers one of which is 6'6 and videographer and a court reporter. we just went into the waiting area and put all our documents on the floor and made it work. was only 2.5 hrs so i guess could've been worse. had a drink as soon as i walked in to my hotel.
one thing i didn't understand-we all agreed that since this was a trial/evidence depo we'd make objections on the record and try not to just make them to form. so after my direct the doctors lawyer goes into cross. He asks a question which i thought was very objectionable so i objected and stated why which took me a minute then he gets mad and says something along the lines of "you designated this guy as your expert and i'm on cross so if you have an objection make it quick and short." i responded with basically "no if i want to make an objection i'm going to object for as long as it takes for me to state the objection" -I'm not really sure where he was going with that.
yes in dallas-actually richardson at the neurological disorder center for texas across the highway from methodist hospital if you know where all of that is. all the lawyers from MS. treating neuro was originally in meridian and moved to dallas so we all had to fly out here and take his depo.
everything in dallas seems nice and new compared to metro areas in the southeast. i'm suprised by the lack of crime and lack of generally shitiness. but it also feels relatively souless and cookie cutter. can't have your cake and eat it too i suppose
Small world; I grew up there. I was asking if there was a Texas lawyer involved because there is a strong movement away from the speaking objections you referenced. So your agreement notwithstanding, I could see opposing counsel feeling as though you were coaching the witness with your objection. But I am ignorant of the rules in MS w/r/t deposition objections, so that may not apply.
usually we do objections to form and stray away from speaking objections but i feel like if its an evidence deposition-so basically a deposition that is going to be played for the jury that its best practice to state your objections to substance and not form otherwise i guess you'll be telling a judge later why you objected to form and having to guess in retrospect. treat it like its live testimony in front of a jury imo. he's going to be unavailable for trial purposes.
Yeah, I track all that. My only guess is that he may have felt you stated the basis of your objection too thoroughly for his tastes. I think when in doubt (and considering your circumstances), probably best to do as you did and ask forgiveness later, if necessary.
i wasn't going to let him boss me around. that has been a theme in this case. older more experienced lawyers trying to boss me around and me being dog headed and refusing to let that happen.
how early would you get to DWF airport? thinking maybe an hour and 15 minutes to check in and get through security and get to gate
That should be fine. I tend to give myself 1.5 hours, and its always more than I've ever needed flying out of DFW. Don't discount traffic to the airport though depending on whether you're leaving during rush hour and how far you're staying from the airport. If you're in Richardson or North Dallas, I'd budget 45 minutes for the drive, maybe an hour if it's during morning rush.
We're helping defend a case next week, and Plaintiff's counsel five days before jury selection is trying to throw new witnesses on his witness list that he's never listed previously (when case was set on a prior occasion), and that he specifically stated he would not be calling. (No depositions taken because of his insistence). Says he just inadvertently left them off.
show cause hearing against defendant in a collections case at 9am then depo of my client in workers comp case at 2pm
I can see how you could let in the fact that he had the opportunity to get a loaner truck but refused as a mitigation defense. And, I can see how other content of the letters could come in (not otherwise barred by 408), because previous counsel is still speaking on behalf of the plaintiff. But, as you have laid it out, there's no reason the letters themselves should come in.
So the issue was previous lost wages. Their offer was a month after the collision and did not include any lost wages over the previous month. My client's bank account records clearly showed he did not have the money to make minimal repairs (~$13,000) in the interim. He declined the settlement offer because it did not include the previous lost wages. IMO, the opportunity to get a loaner truck doesn't really matter. He would have had to sign a release, giving up all his past lost wages, in order to "mitigate" his future damages. I don't think it's a valid argument to say, "He could have mitigated his damages by accepting our offer which he did not deem appropriate." Maybe if he had demanded some wild amount, but he didn't. His lost wages were clearly calculable and included in his original demand.
That's a weight argument. If I were you, I'd let it in and argue exactly what you have here. Their "take it or leave it" would have taken him and left him far, far from whole.
I have a really difficult time imagining a scenario when I, as a defense lawyer, would want settlement negotiations to come in. You almost guarantee that the jury will bring back more than your last offer.
I've got UM in a death case where the tortfeasor left the roadway and smashed a woman standing in her yard into her own vehicle parked in the yard. We have a minimum policy, as does the tortfeasor. There's some dispute as to whether there was a phantom vehicle who caused her to leave the roadway, whether she "dozed off" due to prescription drugs, or if she just drove off the road for some other reason. None of these scenarios would absolve us, so I've offered my money to get the fuck out. The tortfeasor's counsel has also offered a defense that the house was actually built in the state's right-of-way, so the defendant assumed the risk. The defense is literally that she should not have been standing there. I still get the filings because we have not yet gotten our release or dismissed it, and the plaintiff's counsel and tortfeasor's counsel have gone off the rails over the plaintiff filing a motion for qualified protective (it's a generic HIPAA Order). Yesterday, each side filed a reply and response debating the relevance of the tortfeasor's medical records, etc. The judge entered a HIPAA Order followed by this: Hilarious.
how easy is it for an auto insurer to void coverage for lack of cooperation with their insured? i was at motion hearing this morning and one of my plaintiffs friends was doing a motion to compel and the insurer was saying we've been trying to contact insured but they wont answer. sounded to me like they were heading towards voiding coverage. would think they'd have to be extra careful from a bad faith perspective though
Depends on the policy. If you're representing the insured, you have to be super fucking careful to avoid that situation because you don't want to hang your client out to dry. I always send a letter to the carrier demanding that they allow me to hire an investigator to find the insured before it gets to that point. I've only had it happen once that I got really close and was able to settle it before they pulled coverage.
Some highlights from trial. My client killed it on direct and cross. The pro se opposing party has so far argued (without the slightest exaggeration) Massachusetts does not have jurisdiction in his case, only the Vatican has jurisdiction over divorce in the Catholic Church. They were not married in the Catholic Church, they only had a second ceremony there. The legal marriage was by a JP in Jamaica. Because of this, the Court cannot order child support. As such he does not have to pay. He's a scholar who is above working retail, food service, factory jobs (because he doesn't own his own factory), or farm work. His highest level of education is high school. He's essentially asserted he's a real life Good Will Hunting. His previous attorneys conspired with the judge against him. Not just the current judge, but the previous now retired judge. To which I'll admit the retired judge allowed a motion to withdraw without proper notice to the client. He can't work because he needs to work on his appeal (that the Appellate Court has ruled on, twice). He turned down a court appointed attorney because he refused to submit to an impounded psych evaluation. If he did work, he'd make at least $1000 a week. The judge basically said she'd impune that as his income. With him being pro se, the Judge can ask questions of both parties. It was almost like she had my trial notebook in front of her. She asked my client numerous direct questions that violated the hearsay rule. But it made my life easier, so go judge. Now I do feel bad because this man is mentally ill. But I feel worse for my client who is supposed to share legal custody with this person.
that's what we were saying. all they've done is called the client and tried to reach out to some other family members but no investigator has been hired. the defense lawyer said something along the lines of "well if we still can't find them i guess we'll have to move on to damages" and I'm not sure if he was truthfully saying they'd just pay it out or if he still plans to void coverage and all of this is a set up for same.
If it's the defense lawyer for the insured, he can't void coverage. That's malpractice and bad faith.
I always thought defense alwyer could go to the carrier and say listen this guy isn't complying with the policy he wont answer any communications from us , lets just void coverage and he is on his own. I mean that does sound like it is setting up for a bad faith claim and i can see where you are saying malpractice, but i've heard of it happening and as a plaintiff lawyer when you get in situations where the insured isn't complying and not answering subpoenas to depositions or wont comply in discovery, you start to worry that they will attempt to void coverage because doesn't the insured have a contractual duty to comply with discovery and communicate with the carrier?
You can say that they aren't cooperating, sure, but if you're defending the insured you are defending the insured. Asking the carrier to void coverage is acting against his best interest. It's a huge no-no. Anytime there's a coverage issue, the carrier needs to hire a separate coverage counsel.
and why would wes tegg want them to void coverage? guessing he wants to bill hours on the case not have the case go poof and disappear
Yeah, the lawyer represents the insured. The carrier can void coverage and the defense lawyer still represents the insured.
Got one currently with some folks out of Virginia. Complicated property situation arguing over hundreds of thousands of dollars of severed timber, whether there was authority to cut it, etc. About once a month, I get a 30-40 page filing with some of the most ridiculous things imaginable. They have the money to hire an attorney, but adamantly refuse, because one would probably try to make them settle. There actually are some pretty strong arguments against our position, but we're running roughshod over them. I guess even though it can be frustrating, I'm glad they haven't hired anyone. We're coming up for trial pretty soon.
Yeah, there's a separate duty to defend and duty to indemnify. I often defend cases where there's a reservation of rights.
Sounds similar to a custody case I had against a pro se party a few months back. He was into some sovereign citizen bullshit. It didn't go well for him. Judges can always ask questions of any witnesses too.
does that even answer the question? hypothetically the lawyer could keep defending him and the insurance company could potentially issue a reservation of rights letter and not indemnify. and the reason for that could be because the carrier finds that insured isn't complying with contractual duty insurance defense lawyers typically have more work than they need. at least the decent ones. its a misnomer that they are running up the bills on cases cause they need the hours. most of the decent firms have tons of cases and hours they could work.
While the lawyer may be defending the insured under the insurer's reservation of rights, he always has the duty to defend the insured. The duty of loyalty only runs one way - to the client. The lawyer, as an individual, does not have any duty to indemnify. That's the insurer's duty. This is why the insurer always has a different lawyer in a dec action over coverage issues than the lawyer who is defending the insured. One lawyer can't represent both because the duties conflict. If the lawyer defending the insured takes actions adverse to the insured but helpful to the insurer, then that's malpractice. Because that's not THAT lawyer's ethical obligation. The lawyer representing the insured should never argue that there's no coverage.
Speaking about defense attorneys trying to get their clients popped for noncompliance. I don't many who dick around and bill a dickload of unnecessary hours because those will be cut
The incentive is really more about keeping your law license than the revenue stream. There's not much you can do without meeting your client, but you can get killed if you get them in a non coverage position.
was in the office for a few hours yesterday as well. depo of treating neuro at 8am this morning in car wreck trial that starts next month