The convenience store 7- Eleven just paid a $91 million settlement in a personal injury claim that many people (not including me) are calling “ridiculous”. A customer was walking from his car into the store when he was struck by another customer who was driving into the parking lot and hit the gas rather than the brake and jumped the curb in front of the store. The pedestrian sustained massive leg injuries that required a double amputation. 

The attorney for the accident victim sued 7-Eleven claiming negligence in failing to take reasonable safety precautions in the design of the store, which would have protected his client from injury. Specifically, 7-Eleven has over 8000 stores and was aware from prior incidents occurring at other stores that there was a significant danger presented to pedestrians entering and exiting the stores by motorists driving in the parking lot. Numerous other accidents had happened in which pedestrians were struck and injured.

In response to the previous injuries, 7-Eleven could have implemented safety precautions in the form of barriers called “bollards” that are installed between the parking lot at the sidewalk to prevent vehicles from entering the sidewalk and injuring pedestrians. 

How/Why was 7-Eleven Responsible for the Accident Cause by a Car Driver’s Negligence?

Many people are wondering how 7-Eleven can be held liable when it did not cause the injuries, the driver did, and some are even calling the settlement “ridiculous”. 

Under the laws of every state, store owners have a legal obligation to take reasonable precautions to protect the safety of their customers. This legal duty requires a store to anticipate mistakes which could be made by others and could lead to accidents and injuries. This law exists because stores make money from their visitors, so the stores should have a reasonable safe property for the customers.

In this case, 7-Eleven had a responsibility to use reasonable safety precautions in designing and constructing their stores, sidewalks and parking lots. This includes thinking about installing appropriate safety barriers. In this case, there was critical evidence that 7-Eleven knew from prior accidents that car drivers entering and exiting their parking lots sometimes make mistakes while driving, which led to them jumping the curb and striking the store building or its customers. Despite having this knowledge and despite the fact that safety barriers called “bollards” could have been installed at relatively low cost, 7-Eleven ignored the potential danger to its customers and did not install appropriate safety precautions at the store where this tragic accident occurred. 

Why is the Driver not Held Liable?

Many people are also wondering why the driver would not be held liable for his mistake rather than the store. The reality is, the driver is certainly liable for his negligent conduct in hitting the gas rather than the brake and causing the accident. However, just because the driver was negligent, that does not relieve the store of its negligence in failing to take appropriate safety precautions to prevent its customers from foreseeable accidents and serious injuries. The store has an independent legal duty to look out for the safety of its customers in exchange for the money that it obtains through selling things to its customers. In this case, 7-Eleven could have prevented the accident from happening by installing safety barriers. If that had been done, then even though the driver made a mistake, the customer never would have been injured. 

What happens in a case like this where there are multiple parties potentially responsible for an accident, is that claims can be brought against all of them. Then, it is up to the jury to decide who was negligent and if more than one defendant was negligent, to assign percentages of responsibility.  Finally, depending on how much insurance each defendant has, the responsibility for payment will be divided up according to the percentages of fault.

However, if a particularly defendant does not have enough insurance to cover his percentage, then rather than have the innocent victim go uncompensated, the other defendants who were found jointly responsible can be compelled to pay more than their percentage of fault. This concept is called Joint and Several Liability and the reasoning behind it that rule is that it’s more fair for a negligent defendant to have to pay more than his assigned proportion of liability then it would be to allow an innocent victim to go uncompensated because he was injured by another defendant without enough insurance or assets to pay for the damage.

We can debate the “fairness” of the settlement, as well has who should have been held liable, but it’s not up for debate that that it certainly was a tragedy for this man to lose both legs because of a preventable accident.

Tim Rayne is a Pennsylvania Personal Injury Lawyer with the Chester County law firm MacElree Harvey. Tim help accident victims understand their legal rights and receive fair compensation from insurance companies. Contact Tim Rayne for a Free Consultation at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or check out his website www.TimRayneLaw.com.

On February 15, 2023, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its decision in Erie Insurance Exchange v. Mione siding with an insurance company against a motorcycle rider after interpreting that a Household Exclusion precluded recovery of Underinsurance Benefits.

Facts of the Case

In 2018, Albert Mione was injured in a collision while operating his motorcycle that was insured by Progressive and did not include Underinsurance Coverage (UIM). UIM coverage is an optional benefit that you can purchase on your own insurance policy that provides extra compensation if you are injured in an accident caused by someone else who does not have enough coverage to pay for all of your damages.

Albert and his wife owned a car that was insured by Erie on a single-vehicle policy with “stacking.” Stacking permits an insured to combine UIM limits from multiple policies.

Mione’s adult daughter lived with them and had her own single vehicle policy with Erie which also included UIM benefits.

Both Erie policies contained identical Household Vehicle Exclusions stating: Coverage does not apply to damages sustained by anyone we protect while occupying or being struck by a motor vehicle owned or leased by you or a relative, but not insured for Uninsured or Underinsured Coverage under this Policy.

Mione recovered full policy limits from the driver responsible for causing the crash and then, because he did not have UIM coverage on his motorcycle policy with Progressive, he made UIM claims under both Erie Car Insurance Policies, his policy and his daughter’s policy.

Erie denied UIM coverage and filed suit against Mione so that the PA courts could interpret the Household Vehicle Exclusion.

What Did Each Side Argue?

Erie asserted that the Household Vehicle Exclusions were unambiguous and clearly precluded recovery. Mione was hurt while riding a motorcycle that he owned and insured with Progressive, not Erie. Accordingly, the Household Vehicle Exclusion precluded coverage from Erie.

Mione’s lawyer argued that Stacking of UIM benefits is something allowed by PA law and that if a stacking waiver is not signed, Stacking is mandatory so an insurance company cannot deny UIM coverage.

Erie countered Mione by stating that since he did not have UIM on his motorcycle policy, nothing was being stacked. Instead, Mione was seeking UIM coverage in the first instance from the Erie policies. So, the mandatory nature of stacking was not a factor in this case.

The Supreme Court Decision

Ultimately, the PA Supreme Court sided with Erie and found that the Household Vehicle Exclusion was enforceable. It held that each case must be analyzed based upon its own facts and that since Mione did not carry UIM benefits on his motorcycle, the mandatory nature of UIM benefits absent a stacking waiver was not implicated.

Further, the Court found that part of the intent behind PA Car Insurance Law was to try to stop spiraling cost of car insurance in Pennsylvania. The Court stated that if Mione’s position was accepted, it would allow an entire family living in a single household to obtain UIM coverage through a single insurance policy which would increase costs. The Court further reasoned that its decision was fair because it held Mione to “his voluntary choice of not purchasing UIM coverage on his Progressive Motorcycle Policy.”

Long Term Impact of the Erie v. Mione Decision

In practical terms, this Decision settles this fact pattern but does not provide comprehensive guidance on the tension between UIM Stacking and insurance policy exclusions. The Court’s Decision specifically states that each of these cases must be decided based upon its own unique facts. So, stay tuned because the Court will continue to decide these cases….

Bonus Advice – Purchase UIM on Your Motorcycle Policy

The result of the Mione case makes it even more important that Motorcycle riders purchase Uninsured/Underinsured coverage on their Motorcycle Policies.

Motorcycle Accidents often result in serious, if not catastrophic, injuries or death for the motorcycle rider.

In addition, it’s a sad fact that many car drivers have no liability insurance or state minimum $15,000 liability policies. If a motorcycle rider is hurt in an accident cause by an Uninsured or Underinsured driver, the only way to make sure that his/her damages will be fully covered is to purchase large amounts of Uninsured/Underinsured coverage. Such coverage allows you to look to your own insurance company for compensation above and beyond the limits of the responsible driver.

Please make sure that you have at least $100,000 of UM/UIM coverage on your motorcycle insurance policy and preferably $250,000, $500,000, $1 Million or more. You and your family deserve to be fully protected!!!

Tim Rayne is a Car, Truck and Motorcycle Accident lawyer who practices with the full-service Pennsylvania and Delaware law firm MacElree Harvey. Contact Tim with any questions or for a Free Consultation regarding your Accident Case at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or visit his website www.TimRayneLaw.com.

The day after the Eagles lost the Super Bowl, a Philadelphia Jury awarded a massive $43.5 million Medical Malpractice Verdict to former Philadelphia Eagles player Chris Maragos, who had sued his doctors over a career-ending knee injury. 

What Was the Medical Malpractice That Maragos Claimed?

 In the Medical Malpractice Complaint against surgeon, James, Bradley, his medical practice, and Rothman Orthopedics, Maragos alleged that he received negligent care that ultimately resulted in the progression of his knee injury and the end of his NFL football career with the Philadelphia Eagles. Maragos specifically claims that after a 2017 knee injury, Dr. Bradley performed knee surgery and that about six months post-surgery, he had an MRI which revealed persistent injuries that required a second surgery.  The Complaint states that even though the MRI revealed persistent injuries requiring a second surgery, Dr. Bradley did not perform a second surgery but, instead, released Maragos to rigorous rehabilitation that caused further damage to the knee and ended his football career.

What Was Maragos Suing For?

The money damages sought in the lawsuit he included about $8 million in lost future earnings based upon his forced early retirement, as well as medical costs and compensation for his pain and suffering, and his past and future disability. 

What Was the Defense of the Medical Professionals?

The medical professionals defended the case by indicating that Maragos’ care was appropriate, his knee was stable, and that a second surgery would have caused more harm than good. They also claimed that Maragos was healing well from his surgery and that the further damage to his knee was caused by a separate incident in the weight room months after the surgery. The defense also argued that Maragos had an a lengthy eight year run in the NFL, which was more than double the average career of 3.3 years, and that at age 31, his arthritis and the initial injury led to his retirement, not any Medical Malpractice.

The Trial and Verdict

 This Medical Malpractice lawsuit was filed and tried in Philadelphia County. Witnesses in the two week trial included famous former Eagles players including Nick Foles, Trey Burton, and Jordan Hicks. 

Maragos and his wife also testified concerning life following his retirement, his chronic knee pain, and the negative impact that the injuries have had on his life, activities and relationships with his children. 

It took the Jury less than the length of a football game – just under three hours- to render its massive $43.5 million verdict.

Maragos’ and his legal team were pleased with the verdict, claiming that they “had truth on [their] side and the jury saw it.” They also commented that the Verdict might force team doctors and trainers to “stop worrying about when a player might return to play and start thinking about the next 50 years of a player’s life.”

The defense lawyers commented after the verdict that they believed that the star-studded witness list, as well as the timing of the Trial between the Eagles’ NFC championship win and the Super Bowl loss, had an “enormous impact” on the Trial.

It remains to be seen as to whether the defendants will pay the verdict, settle the case or file an appeal of the jury verdict. 

Insurance and Collection Issues – A High Stakes Game!

It’s unknown how much insurance is available to cover the Jury Verdict.

Court rules prohibit the Jury from knowing anything about the amount of insurance a medical provider carries. In Pennsylvania, it’s common for doctors to have just $1 Million of liability insurance and it’s unknown as to how much insurance coverage Dr. Bradley’s practice and/or Rothman Orthopedics carries.

The verdict breakdown requires Bradley and his practice to pay $29.2 million and Rothman to pay about $14.3 million.

If there is not enough insurance to cover the verdict, the Defendants could face claims for collection against their assets.

Trials like this are high stake affairs. Although the medical providers probably felt as if they had meritorious defenses, a case involving a quasi-celebrity like a former Philadelphia Eagles player who was claiming astronomical lost wages always poses a risk of a huge verdict.

It’ll be interesting to follow this case to its conclusion….