My wife Debra and I were treated in an expedient and personal manner. Mr. Grossman and his staff took care of everything and kept me aware of the status of my case every step of the way. We will definitely be using Grossman Law Offices for all of our future legal matters and I recommend them to anyone who needs a good attorney on their side.
-
P. Hogan
Automobile Accident Case
PIP Insurance Attorney
Should I File a Personal Injury Protection Claim? Attorney Michael Grossman Discusses
If you have been hurt in a car accident, you may be wondering if you should file a claim using your own Personal Injury Protection (PIP) insurance. In short, yes, you should. PIP is a no-fault insurance claim, which means that it is not relevant who was at fault in an auto accident. Regardless of whether or not you were responsible, you can make a PIP claim.
PIP insurance covers medical expenses and lost wages for you and any passengers in your vehicle. The best part about PIP coverage is that you are not penalized in any subsequent claims. This means that, even if your medical expenses are covered by your health insurance and you receive compensation for your medical bills and lost wages from the defendant’s insurance company through a lawsuit, you can still file a PIP claim.
People are often reluctant to file PIP claims for fear that their insurance rates will go up or their insurance company will terminate their policy. But since PIP insurance is a no-fault claim, it is illegal for insurance companies to either raise rates or terminate your coverage based on a PIP claim. So if you have been hurt in a Texas car accident, you absolutely should file a Personal Injury Protection claim. If you wish to file a lawsuit or simply would like more advice on how to handle your car accident, contact the Dallas car wreck lawyers at Grossman Law Offices and let us make sure you get the compensation you deserve.
Related articles:
Questions answered by this article:
Will my rates increase if I file a PIP claim?When am I allowed to file a PIP claim?
Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$350,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Back Injury Requiring Surgery)
Our client, a middle-aged woman, was injured when an 18-wheeler rear-ended her vehicle. As a consequence of the wreck, she sustained a back injury which required surgery to remedy. Naturally, the defendants denied liability and argued that the accident was unavoidable. Our attorneys filed suit. The defendant driver initially claimed that our client suddenly changed lanes in front of his tractor-trailer and then inexplicably slammed onto her brakes. When confronted with eye-witness testimony and other physical evidence that reflected an entirely different scenario, the truck driver ultimately recanted. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
Our client, a middle-aged woman, was injured when an 18-wheeler rear-ended her vehicle. As a consequence of the wreck, she sustained a back injury which required surgery to remedy. Naturally, the defendants denied liability and argued that the accident was unavoidable. Our attorneys filed suit. The defendant driver initially claimed that our client suddenly changed lanes in front of his tractor-trailer and then inexplicably slammed onto her brakes. When confronted with eye-witness testimony and other physical evidence that reflected an entirely different scenario, the truck driver ultimately recanted. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$350,000.00
$350,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$140,000.00
$140,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$8,188.00
$8,188.00
$75,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries)
Recovery for worker who suffered soft tissue injuries when his fork lift was struck by a delivery truck.
Recovery for worker who suffered soft tissue injuries when his fork lift was struck by a delivery truck.
Total Recovery:
$75,000.00
$75,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$350.00
$350.00
$1,000,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) A husband and father of three was killed when the driver of an 18-wheeler veered into oncoming traffic, striking the young man's vehicle and several others. The defendant was employed by a small construction company that operated only a single 18-wheeler. As such, the defendants were largely underinsured and were not financially solvent.
Furthermore, the defendants had an eroding insurance policy and numerous other parties were intent upon filing claims of their own since the 18-wheeler struck multiple other vehicles. This created the need for an aggressive and rapid response before the other claimants could erode the policy.
Defense counsel made it clear that they wished to litigate the case despite the insurmountable liability arguments that our attorneys presented. They intended to designate a third party as a responsible defendant since the accident happened in a construction zone, even though it was abundantly clear that the construction zone played no role in the crash.
Additonally, the defendants made it clear that they wished to downplay the extent of the damages by virtue of a character assasination on the decedent. Fortunately for our clients, our firm has successfully litigated against the defendant's insurer in nearly a dozen cases, so the carrier was quite aware of our courtroom capabilities. We presented a sample lawsuit to the defendant's insurance carrier and informed them that the lawsuit was to be filed the moment that they refused to settle.
Additionally, our attorneys submitted a Stowers' Demand with a brief window of time for the defendants to respond. We made it abundantly clear that we intended to seek punitive damages and that we would assert the full limits of the carrier's exposure under the Stowers' Demand should the carrier not offer policy limits.
The defendant's attorney adamantly persuaded the carrier to litigate, however, our attorney's threats of litigation, past track record, and incredibly aggressive pre-litigation actions convinced the insurance carrier to disregard their own attorney's advice and to settle the case, lest they face our attorneys in court.
Had our clients been represented by virtually any other firm who did not have our specific track record or who would have not recognized that this case required special and immediate attention coupled with an abnormally aggressive stance, the client's would have certainly been tied up in litigation for years, with the limited supply of funds rapidly depleting since the other claimants who did not need to litigate would have essentially had right of first refusal.
(policy limits) A husband and father of three was killed when the driver of an 18-wheeler veered into oncoming traffic, striking the young man's vehicle and several others. The defendant was employed by a small construction company that operated only a single 18-wheeler. As such, the defendants were largely underinsured and were not financially solvent.
Furthermore, the defendants had an eroding insurance policy and numerous other parties were intent upon filing claims of their own since the 18-wheeler struck multiple other vehicles. This created the need for an aggressive and rapid response before the other claimants could erode the policy.
Defense counsel made it clear that they wished to litigate the case despite the insurmountable liability arguments that our attorneys presented. They intended to designate a third party as a responsible defendant since the accident happened in a construction zone, even though it was abundantly clear that the construction zone played no role in the crash.
Additonally, the defendants made it clear that they wished to downplay the extent of the damages by virtue of a character assasination on the decedent. Fortunately for our clients, our firm has successfully litigated against the defendant's insurer in nearly a dozen cases, so the carrier was quite aware of our courtroom capabilities. We presented a sample lawsuit to the defendant's insurance carrier and informed them that the lawsuit was to be filed the moment that they refused to settle.
Additionally, our attorneys submitted a Stowers' Demand with a brief window of time for the defendants to respond. We made it abundantly clear that we intended to seek punitive damages and that we would assert the full limits of the carrier's exposure under the Stowers' Demand should the carrier not offer policy limits.
The defendant's attorney adamantly persuaded the carrier to litigate, however, our attorney's threats of litigation, past track record, and incredibly aggressive pre-litigation actions convinced the insurance carrier to disregard their own attorney's advice and to settle the case, lest they face our attorneys in court.
Had our clients been represented by virtually any other firm who did not have our specific track record or who would have not recognized that this case required special and immediate attention coupled with an abnormally aggressive stance, the client's would have certainly been tied up in litigation for years, with the limited supply of funds rapidly depleting since the other claimants who did not need to litigate would have essentially had right of first refusal.
Total Recovery:
$1,000,000.00
$1,000,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$333,333.00
$333,333.00
Litigation Expenses:
$0
$0
$80,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Closed-Head Injury)
Recovered for client who suffered a closed-head injury in a car accident.
Recovered for client who suffered a closed-head injury in a car accident.
Total Recovery:
$80,000.00
$80,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$26,666.00
$26,666.00
Litigation Expenses:
$200.00
$200.00
$109,500.00 Recovery - Third-Party Dram Shop Accident (Broken Leg)
Recovery for passenger who suffered broken leg in a drunken driving accident.
Recovery for passenger who suffered broken leg in a drunken driving accident.
Total Recovery:
$109,500.00
$109,500.00
Attorney Fees:
$41,000.00
$41,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$30.00
$30.00
$41,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries)
Recovery for client who suffered soft tissue injuries when she was struck by an 18-wheeler.
Recovery for client who suffered soft tissue injuries when she was struck by an 18-wheeler.
Total Recovery:
$41,000.00
$41,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$13,666.00
$13,666.00
Litigation Expenses:
$135.00
$135.00
$350,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / First Party Dram Shop
Our firm was hired by the minor child and parents of a young man who was killed in a motorcycle accident after being over served alcohol at a South Padre Island bar. The plaintiffs hired our firm to investigate the claim on the basis that the decedent was over the legal limit at the time of his death. In initial attempts to settle the case out of court, the defendants denied liability. Suit was filed soon thereafter.
The defendants initially argued that the decedent never consumed alcohol on their premises. Through physical evidence and deposition testimony to the contrary, we were able to conclusively prove that the decedent had indeed been drinking at the establishment.
The defendants then asserted allegations that the decedent's minor child was not actually his biological child, which would bar his claim entirely. A DNA test was performed and this argument was defeated.
The defendants then asserted the safe harbor defense. Our attorneys argued that the defendants did not qualify for safe harbor protection due to the fact that their servers were not all licensed providers. However, while this element was being addressed, our attorneys focused their attention on addressing the second element of the safe harbor defense regarding the bar's encouragement of the over service of alcohol. The defendants claimed that they would never serve the double-shot Bacardi cocktails that witnesses claimed the decedent drank several of. We sent private investigators into the bar to order the same drinks that the decedent consumed on the night of his death and the very same bar tenders who over served the decedent, without hesitation, served copious amounts of alcohol to the investigators, all of which was captured on hidden camera.
Once the safe harbor defense was defeated, the defendants argued that the decedent's BAC was low enough at the time of his death (as recorded by the hospital) that he would not have necessarily appeared obviously intoxicated to the servers and therefore the bar should not be held liable even if he had been over served. Eyewitness testimony refuted this.
Additionally, our firm's testifying medical expert reviewed the medical records related to the emergency helicopter flight that transported the decedent to the hospital after his accident. She determined that the EMS technicians administered numerous blood transfusions while in flight. Armed with this newfound data, our medical expert reverse extrapolated and determined conclusively that the decedent's BAC was actually in the range of .19-.21 at the time of the accident, though it was drastically diluted by the time he arrived at the hospital, which accounted for the relatively low BAC found in the hospital's medical records. This testimony proved to be pivotal in the case, resulting in a successful recovery for our clients.
Our firm was hired by the minor child and parents of a young man who was killed in a motorcycle accident after being over served alcohol at a South Padre Island bar. The plaintiffs hired our firm to investigate the claim on the basis that the decedent was over the legal limit at the time of his death. In initial attempts to settle the case out of court, the defendants denied liability. Suit was filed soon thereafter.
The defendants initially argued that the decedent never consumed alcohol on their premises. Through physical evidence and deposition testimony to the contrary, we were able to conclusively prove that the decedent had indeed been drinking at the establishment.
The defendants then asserted allegations that the decedent's minor child was not actually his biological child, which would bar his claim entirely. A DNA test was performed and this argument was defeated.
The defendants then asserted the safe harbor defense. Our attorneys argued that the defendants did not qualify for safe harbor protection due to the fact that their servers were not all licensed providers. However, while this element was being addressed, our attorneys focused their attention on addressing the second element of the safe harbor defense regarding the bar's encouragement of the over service of alcohol. The defendants claimed that they would never serve the double-shot Bacardi cocktails that witnesses claimed the decedent drank several of. We sent private investigators into the bar to order the same drinks that the decedent consumed on the night of his death and the very same bar tenders who over served the decedent, without hesitation, served copious amounts of alcohol to the investigators, all of which was captured on hidden camera.
Once the safe harbor defense was defeated, the defendants argued that the decedent's BAC was low enough at the time of his death (as recorded by the hospital) that he would not have necessarily appeared obviously intoxicated to the servers and therefore the bar should not be held liable even if he had been over served. Eyewitness testimony refuted this.
Additionally, our firm's testifying medical expert reviewed the medical records related to the emergency helicopter flight that transported the decedent to the hospital after his accident. She determined that the EMS technicians administered numerous blood transfusions while in flight. Armed with this newfound data, our medical expert reverse extrapolated and determined conclusively that the decedent's BAC was actually in the range of .19-.21 at the time of the accident, though it was drastically diluted by the time he arrived at the hospital, which accounted for the relatively low BAC found in the hospital's medical records. This testimony proved to be pivotal in the case, resulting in a successful recovery for our clients.
Total Recovery:
$350,000.00
$350,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$140,000.00
$140,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
$100,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Back Injury Resulting in Surgery)
Recovery for car accident victim who suffered back injury resulting in surgery.
Recovery for car accident victim who suffered back injury resulting in surgery.
Total Recovery:
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$33,000.00
$33,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$100.00
$100.00
$71,197.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Soft-Tissue Neck Injury)
(policy limits + UIM claim) Recovery for client who sustained soft tissue injuries to neck which required steroid injections and chiropractic treatment.
(policy limits + UIM claim) Recovery for client who sustained soft tissue injuries to neck which required steroid injections and chiropractic treatment.
Total Recovery:
$71,197.00
$71,197.00
Attorney Fees:
$23,852.00
$23,852.00
Litigation Expenses:
$125.00
$125.00
$475,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident / Motorcycle Accident (Shoulder Injury Requiring Surgery)
An airline pilot suffered a shoulder injury resulting in surgery when he was sideswiped by an 18-wheeler. The case was resolved through litigation, as establishing liability was a contentious matter. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff made an illegal passing maneuver, but the evidence showed that the defendant made a sweeping turn and intruded upon our client's right of way.
An airline pilot suffered a shoulder injury resulting in surgery when he was sideswiped by an 18-wheeler. The case was resolved through litigation, as establishing liability was a contentious matter. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff made an illegal passing maneuver, but the evidence showed that the defendant made a sweeping turn and intruded upon our client's right of way.
Total Recovery:
$475,000.00
$475,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$158,333.00
$158,333.00
Litigation Expenses:
$5,000.00
$5,000.00