Car Accidents and Daylight Savings Time

Daylight Savings Time has been found to increase car accidents throughout the country as people have increased sleep deprivation and a change in light conditions. While “falling back” does not show the same level of increase in accidents, it is important to be aware of the increased darkness in the evening as both cars and people become harder to see. Remember safe driving tips: get plenty of rest, don’t drive distracted, reduce speeds and following distances, watch for deer, use your headlights and remember to yield.

If you have any questions regarding your or your family’s car accident or treatment, please call us for a free consultation at 231-486-6556.

No-Fault Car Insurance Changes Begin July 1, 2021

As a result of a major car insurance overhaul enacted in 2019, Michigan now limits the amount of in-home attendant care that is covered by car insurance. This is a large reduction from the previous law that allows 24/7 care for persons injured in automobile, truck or motorcycle accidents. Medical providers will also be under a new fee-schedule that limits the amount doctors and other doctors can charge for medical care.

If you have any questions regarding your or your family’s car accident or treatment, please call us for a free consultation at 231-486-6556.

RHH Partner Named Super Lawyer Rising Start for 2020

Matthew T. Hanley has been named a Rising Star of the 2020 Super Lawyers in the field of Plaintiffs’ Personal Injury Law.

No more than 2.5 percent of lawyers are named to the Rising Stars List. Super Lawyers is a research-driven rating system of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.

Recently, in 2020, after oral argument by Mr. Hanley, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld an appellate court’s reversal of a trial court order defining the attorney-client relationship. This decision resulted in a favorable settlement to his clients.

Mr. Hanley is a partner at Ranieri, Hanley & Hodek, PLC, a Traverse City law firm experienced in personal injury litigation, trust and estate and appellate law.

 

Know Your Rights As A Beneficiary of an Estate or Trust

Have you received an Application for Informal Probate or other probate documents in the mail? Please be aware that you may have a limited time to reply or object to how property of an estate may be distributed. While people often expect a loved one’s wishes to be followed, the probate court documents will explain what is actually going to happen. Please contact RHH LAW, PLC at 231-486-6556 if you have any questions regarding a probate estate or trust administration.

RHH Law Victory at the Michigan Supreme Court

RHH Law partner Matt Hanley received an order affirming a Court of Appeals victory in favor of his clients, one of whom was brutally beaten by persons served at multiple dramshops. After oral argument in front of the full Michigan Supreme Court, the Court decided not to pursue further argument, leaving his clients victory at the Court of Appeals in place. RHH Law's team of appellate lawyers regularly practice in the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court and are an important part of the pursuit of justice for their clients.

http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov/sct/public/orders/158789_62_01.pdf

Automobile Insurance Changes Coming Soon

As you prepare to purchase auto insurance to protect you from injuries in a car crash, there will be several new options this July. Under the new No-Fault Act in Michigan, drivers will see that the amount of insurance coverage is changing.

While drivers used to be able to buy as little as $20,000 in liability insurance per injured person, now that limit has been set to a default of $250,000. While you can still choose to buy as little as $50,000 in liability insurance per person, you should be aware that you may now be responsible for reimbursing an injured person's medical bills in certain occasions. A short trip to the hospital after an accident may exceed your insurance limits very quickly.

If you or your family is injured in an automobile or motorcycle accident, please call use at 231-486-6556 for a free consultation.

Dog Bite Myths

When adults or children are seriously injured by a dog bite, they often have unfounded concerns that prevent them from receiving justice for their injury. There are several myths that have been perpetuated about dog bites that should be cleared up.

1. Truth. The dog is rarely killed. After decades of practice in northern Michigan, dogs are rarely euthanized despite having bitten a person once or more. Usually a dog is quarantined so that it can be determined whether the dog has rabies. If not, the dog will be returned to the owner. If the dog is considered a danger, the prosecutor can institute proceedings to remove the dog from the owner. Generally, every effort is made for the dog to be adopted by a sanctuary where it will not be able to bite humans.

2. Truth. Dogs bite without being provoked. Petting a dog, hugging a dog, or walking by a dog is not a reason for the dog to attack. This is not provocation and does not prevent recovery for your injury.

3. Truth. There Is No Free First Bite. Dogs are not allowed a free bite. A dog owner is liable for every unprovoked dog bite.

4.  Truth. Insurance Covers Dog Bites. Insurance policies cover injuries caused by dog bites. While not everyone is insured, for those that do, insurance companies pay for the damage caused by the dog.

5. Truth A dog bite is a serious injury. Dogs can often leave lasting physical and emotional injuries. The purpose of pursing these claims is to help injured people recover and move forward with their lives.

We have experience in personal injury and dog bite claims.  Please contact us for a free consultation with attorneys Matt Hanley or Heidi Hodek at 231-486-6556.

More Choices In Car Insurance in 2020

Some Michigan drivers are no longer required to purchase No-Fault Personal Injury Protection insurance. Insurance policies issued or renewed after July 1, 2020, drivers will have a choice of No-Fault benefits.

Drivers with Medicare may “elect to not maintain coverage” for No-Fault PIP medical benefits. Other drivers may be able to choose coverage levels of $50,000, $250,000, $500,000 or unlimited coverage for benefits.

Drivers should also be aware that they may be liable for excess medical benefits if they injure another driver. This means that drivers will need to review liability limits to protect themselves from potentially larger claims and judgments.

RHH Argues Before the Michigan Supreme Court

Partner Matthew Hanley recently argued before the Michigan Supreme Court regarding the important legal principle of whether an attorney-client relationship was formed between a potential client and a law firm.

The Michigan Supreme Court summarized as follows:

Plaintiff David Sanders was injured after being physically attacked by defendants Shawn Spohn and Zachary Pierce, both of whom were intoxicated after being served alcohol at the two defendant bars, Tumbleweed Saloon and Chauncey’s Pub.  Plaintiff and his companion that evening consulted with an attorney, who sent a letter to one of the defendant bars, stating that he was “represent[ing]” the injured plaintiff and requesting that the bar preserve any security videos.  The dramshop act provides that a retail alcohol licensee may not “sell, furnish, or give alcoholic liquor to a person who is visibly intoxicated.”  MCL 436.1801(2).  The notice provision of the dramshop act, MCL 436.1801(4), states that a plaintiff must “give written notice to all defendants within 120 days after entering an attorney-client relationship for the purpose of pursuing a claim under this section.”  The trial court granted summary disposition to the defendant bars, holding that, despite the initial lawyer’s affidavit to the contrary, plaintiffs and that attorney had an attorney-client relationship at the time of the letter and, therefore, the later notice by plaintiffs’ current counsel was untimely.  The Court of Appeals reversed in a split unpublished opinion.  The majority held that there was no “meeting of the minds” in support of the finding of an attorney-client relationship and that a genuine question of fact existed regarding the existence of such a relationship.  The dissent opined that there was no outstanding question of fact and that the trial court did not clearly err in concluding that an attorney-client relationship existed when the lawyer sent the letter.  The Supreme Court has directed oral argument on defendant bars’ application for leave to appeal to address whether the Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that there was a genuine question of fact as to whether there was an attorney-client relationship between plaintiffs and the attorney who sent the initial letter on their behalf to one of the defendants. ​ 

https://courts.michigan.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/oral-arguments/2019-2020/Pages/158789.aspx

CALL US NOW

231-486-6556