Not necessarily.  If the claim process is proceeding smoothly with open and productive communication between the claimant and the insurer, then the claimant may stay the course. But a qualified attorney can help when the claimant feels:

  • frustrated;
  • deadlocked with the insurer;
  • unfairly treated by the insurer; or
  • concerned about time passing and possibly losing her rights.

To assist the homeowner with the claim, the attorney will need a complete copy of the homeowner’s policy, including the "Declarations Page", and all "Endorsements" and "Riders".  Generally, the Declarations Page is the first or second page of the policy which states the dollar limits for each category of coverage and lists the "extras" known as endorsements and riders. The endorsements and riders will be listed by a code number or letter, or combination thereof. 

The attorney will also need a complete copy of the homeowner’s personal claim file, including all communications the homeowner has had with the insurer and any of its representatives. 

If you’re not sure that you are being treated fairly and would like an attorney’s input, give us a call or send us an email.

Unintended or sudden acceleration problems have been around for years. From the beginning, car manufacturers have always wanted to blame the driver.  As long ago as the late 1980"s, manufacturers reported that "Startled and confused drivers hit the wrong pedal.” 

It’s no real surprise, then, that Toyota blames “driver error” for the recent spate of reported unintended acceleration cases involving its vehicles. It relies on preliminary findings from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration that unintended acceleration cases may be due to what NHTSA calls “pedal misapplication”.

The problem with NHTSA’s findings are that they rely on data from a car’s “EDR”, or event data recorder. An EDR is a device similar to the “black box” found on airplanes. But while the black box on an airplane is highly accurate, the EDRs installed in cars are not. They simply can’t be relied on, especially when it comes to unintended acceleration cases.

Here’s why relying on EDR data would give a false picture of what’s behind cases of unintended acceleration:

  • Before 2007, EDRs did not capture pre-crash data. Since unintended acceleration is always a pre-crash event, the EDR is worthless for unintended acceleration cases in cars older than three years.
  • 95% of unintended acceleration cases are low speed events . Even the new EDRs, however, are not activated in low speed accidents.
  • In the rare high-speed unintended acceleration case, the entire power reserve in the air bag control module capacitor may be called upon to deploy the air bags, leaving none for the recorder and no data is stored.  Instead, the data is lost.
  • Unlike the aircraft Black Box data, EDR data has not been scientifically validated.

Toyota has admitted in other cases that the data from its EDRs are not reliable and should be kept out of court. If Toyota doesn’t trust the data from its own EDRs, why should we?
 

Most victims of the Glenview explosion can’t afford to pay attorneys an hourly rate to investigate the cause of the accident or to take a potential lawsuit to trial.  For these people, the doors of the courthouse would be essentially closed were it not for the contingency fee agreement.  The contingency fee agreement places the victim on a level playing field with PG&E and any others who may responsible for the explosion.  Under a contingency fee agreement, the client pays nothing to the attorney for his work unless the attorney obtains for the client monetary compensation.  All consultations with the attorney are free. The contingency fee agreement allows any victim access to the legal system, regardless of the victim’s financial circumstances.

Selecting an Attorney

Corporations such as PG&E seldom pay a fair settlement to a victim with an attorney who has not proven he can win against them at trial. The lack of a trial record is a weakness that a corporation such as PG&E or its insurance company will always exploit. Ask the attorney you are considering what results he has obtained for his clients against PG&E in cases like this.

Next, ask the the attorney if they are prepared to fund the case.  Can the attorney afford to invest up to a million dollars for such costs as expert fees?  Has he or she ever done so in the past? Or is the attorney likely to fold as trial approaches because he has run out of money or can’t afford to risk his “investment” at trial?

Your rights as a client

You have a right to be represented by the lawyer of your choosing, one with a proven track record against PG&E.  You have a right to negotiate the terms of your agreement with your attorney.  You have a right to fire your lawyer at any time for any reason.   The State Bar of California provides more helpful tips here.

Finding a Lawyer

“Second Impact Syndrome” refers to mild brain injuries suffered repeatedly within a short period (hours, days, or weeks). Although all brain injuries are serious, second impacts can be catastrophic or even fatal. The American Academy of Neurology has developed guidelines  for deciding when it is safe to return to play after a first injury. The Academy recommends that, to reduce the risk of the second impact syndrome, an athlete who suffers a head injury resulting in temporary confusion, amnesia, or other alteration of mental status should not return to play until examined by a health-care provider familiar with these guidelines. Sport oversight committees such as California Interscholastic Federation, have begun to adopt these recommendations.

The guidelines rely in part on self-reporting by student athletes or close observation by coaches and other players. Unfortunately, athletes are often reluctant to admit their injury. To prevent their child athlete from suffering a second impact catastrophe, parents should do the following:

  • Know and recognize the symptoms of a brain injury. As described here.
  • Learn what the coaches know about brain injuries.
  • Find out whether the school has policy for handling brain injuries.
  • Educate your child about the catastrophic risks of a second impact and
  • Emphasize to your child the danger of hiding even the seemingly minor symptoms of brain injury.

NBC in San Francisco interviewed me in July Time Bombs2009 about PG&E’s underground systems. I warned then that PG&E’s whole underground infrastructure was collapsing and that, unless PG&E did something right away, people would be hurt.

They’re just time bombs under the street and PG&E has done nothing, nothing that makes a difference, to stop them from exploding.

I urged PG&E to begin monitoring its systems in some meaningful way.  But PG&E just didn’t do anything.

When another accident happens, well perhaps they’ll say ‘We feel bad’ . . .[but] they should be doing something right now before someone gets hurt or killed.

That interview was 14 months ago. After it aired, PG&E spent almost $50 million pushing prop 16 in a failed attempt to protect its monopoly.  Perhaps it would have been better if PG&E spent some of that money on safety. The San Bruno gas explosion might have been avoided.

The video is no longer on the internet. But you can read the transcript of the piece, "PG&E’s Aging Underground Problem," here. 

Many of the San Bruno residents evacuated on September 9th may be categorized as “survivors,” having escaped the Glenview fire without being burned.  But even though they suffer no physical injuries, the gas explosion will leave dozens with emotional injuries that will persist for a long time to come.

Generally the law does not require a wrongdoer to compensate the victim for the emotional distress it has caused a victim unless it has also caused the victim to suffer some sort of physical injury.  And certainly PG&E will argue that the general rule should apply here — that unless a victim suffered physical injury, PG&E shouldn’t be required to compensate him for any emotional injury that it may have inflicted.

But in a special situation like this one, everyone who suffered serious emotional injuries should be entitled to compensation, regardless of whether they suffered any physical injuries.   That’s because PG&E knew that if its negligence led to a gas line explosion, people would fear for their lives and for those of their loved ones.   PG&E’s behavior was morally wrong and the laws are designed to hold wrongdoers accountable for all the harm they cause, even if that harm is "only" emotional distress.

Seeking compensation for emotional distress (or "post traumatic stress disorder") does not mean you are weak or can’t handle a stressful situation. Nor does it mean you are piling on or taking advantage of the system.   People who suffer from emotional distress suffer real losses.   Often because they can’t concentrate, they lose their jobs or do poorly in school.  Their family situations may deteriorate because they begin to snap at those they love.  They suffer from anxiety – feel constantly "on edge" — and that can lead to depression.  

Lawyers experienced in PG&E explosion cases can assist the San Bruno residents who are suffering emotionally from this haunting catastrophe.

What is the biggest challenge facing doctors in the first days after a burn injury?  Fluid loss.  

When a victim suffers severe burns, much of his skin may be gone and to put it very simply, his capillaries begin to leak. Instead of sticking together, keeping blood inside of the vessel, the tissue cells separate and become very porous. Huge amounts of fluid pour out into the tissue. In small burns this fluid accumulates only in the burned areas but in very large burns fluid can accumulate everywhere in the body. A burn patient can develop a significant amount of swelling at the expense of blood flow. The blood volume goes down as the patient becomes more swollen.  Because his heart is unable to pump enough blood to the body, he develops shock.  This shock may cause other organs to stop working.  Doctors will combat these effects by providing the patient with fluids, electrolytes, antibiotics, pain medication, tetanus vaccination and often by inserting a catheter.  The catheter is needed to measure urine output and monitor fluid levels. 

Also, with the infusion of fluids the doctors must constantly monitor the patient’s circulation in his arms and legs.  A condition called compartment syndrome can arise in a burn patient when

  • stiff scars wrap around the limb and the tissue in that limb causing fluid loss; and/or,
  • swelling results from all the fluid administered to combat the losses fluid in the blood vessels and tissues. 

Compartment syndrome can even occur in the chest/abdomen if the patient’s trunk is badly burned and the skin cannot handle the swelling.  When necessary doctors will relieve the compartment syndrome by performing an escharotomy or fasciotomy. 

Approximately 50% of all deaths that occur within first 10 days following burn injury are due to inadequate fluid resuscitation necessitated by the burn. 

PG&E warned its shareholders that deficiencies in its leak detection procedures could rPG&E 2009 Annual Report, page 45esult in a major catastrophe.  It further warned that the economic cost of the catastrophe could jeopardize the utility’s financial condition. But it didn’t warn its customers.

According to its 2009 Annual Report, PG&E reviewed its own gas leak survey practices in 2008 and found that "improvements needed to be made." 

It further acknowledged that its practices were under investigation by outside agencies and that, in the event of a "hazard or liability" (corporate speak for "explosion"),

the Utility’s insurance may not be sufficient or effective to provide recovery.

Neither PG&E nor its shareholders can say the situation leading to the San Bruno explosion caught them by surprise.

Not so for the people of San Bruno.

Thanks to a reader for sending this along.

PG&E 2009 Annual Report (pdf 124 pages)

TV reporter Jean Elle interviewed me in my office, noting that the San Bruno blast is "eerily similar" to the Santa Rosa explosion and fire that I handled some years ago.  She then put some hard questions to PG&E and got nothing back but double-talk.

 

View more news videos at: http://www.nbcbayarea.com/video.

Political leaders are calling for PG&E to install on its gas lines automatic shut-off valves to prevent or mitigate future gas line disasters.

Sounds like a good idea. Here’s an interesting snippet from a report of the NTSB, the agency that is investigating the San Bruno gas explosion:

The Safety Board believes that had an EFV been installed . . .  the valve would have promptly closed . . . . This closure would have likely prevented the release of gas sufficient to form an explosive mixture . . .. Additionally, an EFV would have prevented the continued release of gas during the emergency response activities and endangerment to firefighters and other emergency personnel.

The NTSB’s recommendation makes good sense.  What’s most interesting, however. is that the NTSB’s recommendation wasn’t issued as a result of the San Bruno Fire.  Rather, it was issued after the Santa Rosa fire.  In 1992.

Why hasn’t NTSB’s recommendation been implemented in the 18 years since the last fatal gas explosion?

As I wrote here, the NTSB has no power to require PG&E to do anything.  It can only recommend.  And, of course, PG&E is free to ignore those recommendations.

Santa Rosa Gas Explosion Safety Recommendation