Hawaii Personal Injury Attorney - Cases- Decisions- Opinions
   

Hawaii Injury Lawyer
Personal Injury Cases

William Lawson- Accident Attorney Hawaii
 
Home
About Us
Initial Steps
Resources
Contact us


 

What is a personal injury claim? (basic)

Do I need an accident lawyer in Hawaii?

Finding an accident lawyer in Hawaii

Brain & Head Injuries

Car accidents

Spinal Cord Injuries (SCI)

Defective products liability

Catastrophic injury claims

Ocean, boating & maritime accidents

Wrongful death claims

Drunk driver accidents

Drowning and swimming pool accidents

Construction & equipment accidents

Broken bone injuries

Truck and bus accidents

Disc/disk injuries

Moped and pedestrian accidents

Recreational accidents

Electrical accidents

Elevator accidents

Explosion accidents

Fire & Chemical burn accidents

Medical & professional malpractice - Hawaii

Dog bites, animal attacks

Fall accidents- Trip, slip, etc.

Insurance claims and Bad Faith

Auto claims and insurance

Motorcycle claims & insurance

Insurance Coverage for Injuries (the Injured)

Maui, Kauai and other Outer Island claims





Recent Personal Injury and Car Accident News and Cases related to Hawaii


On June 29, 2015, the Hawaii Supreme Court rendered its decision in the case of St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, Hi. Sup. Ct. Case No SCCQ-14-0000727 (June 29, 2015). This case arose out of a wrongful death personal injury case handled by this office which resulted in a $4.1 million verdict in favor of our clients - even though Liberty Mutual, the primary liability insurer, never offered anything even close to its policy limits of $1 million. St. Paul - who had to pay our clients everything recovered in excess of the initial $1 million - claimed that Liberty Mutual committed bad faith towards it by failing to settle within its $1 million policy limits. The Hawaii Supreme Court agreed and found that an excess insurer has claims for bad faith against a primary insurer.

 

 

 

Personal Injury Cases - Hawaii

The following decisions are cases of interest in the personal injury field. Some may show similarity to your situation, but each opinion is individual and must be evaluated on its own facts. Please feel free to peruse these cases. These cases are published by the State of Hawaii and other jurisdictions and it is believed that they may be copied or distributed without further permissions.

AFL Hotel Restaurant Workers v Bosque, Civ No. 03-1-0264 (April 28, 2006) This recent decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court has helped to clarify Hawaii law on medical lien claims against personal injury recoveries. The case clearly indicates that without a separate reimbursement agreement, an ERISA plan that paid medical benefits is unable to enforce any lien claims at least in the Hawaii courts. Conversely, however, to the extent that a reimbursement agreement exists, the case appears to hold that that separate document creates a state law cause of action and this action can be brought in Hawaii state court. This makes little sense, however, since the action still seeks to enforce plan reimbursement provisions which are unique to ERISA and overreaching under Hawaii state law.

Dorn v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., March 30, 1999 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal recently reversed the decision of the Montana U.S. District Court excluding hedonic damages testimony from the defendant's damages expert in a wrongful death case. The admission of the testimony of the plaintiff's expert on hedonic damages as "reliable testimony" after a Daubert challenge to its admissability did not require a finding that the defense expert's testimony was "unreliable" - it should have been admitted and it was for the trier of fact to resolve the experts' differences.

In Dines v. Pacific Insurance Company, Ltd. , 78 Haw. 325, 893 P.2d 176 (1995), the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that a motorcyclist, who was involved in an accident with a phantom vehicle, was able to recover UM (uninsured motorists) coverage from an auto insurer on an automobile that he owned, even though his motorcycle insurance did not have UM coverage. The court found that UM coverage goes with the insured and not with the vehicle.

WEMPLE v. DAHMAN, JANUARY 30, 2004 The Hawaii Supreme Court holds that the test for determining a defendant's liability for dangerous conditions upon property is the degree of control exercised by the defendant over the property and not merely the ownership position of the same- and that the issue of control or amount of control over the premises is ordinarily a question of fact that should be left to the jury.

GARCIA v. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, JUNE 9, 1999 The Hawaii Supreme Court holds (1) that an employee's claims against a health care plan provided by his employer (Kaiser) for failure/refusal to provide timely treatment for hip necrosis and a herniated disk are are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and (2) that such claims against health care providers must go through the Medical Claims Conciliation Panel (MCCP) under HRS § 671-12 (1993) prior to the filing of the complaint or they are subject to dismissal.

GONZALES v. DAI-TOKYO, MARCH 7, 2005 The Hawaii Supreme Court holds that HRS § 431:10C-301.5 (the Covered Loss Deductible or CLD) is constitutional and that it applies to claims made by an insured against their own carrier for optional additional Underinsured Motorists (UIM) coverage benefits.

LEALAIMATAFAO v. WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS, February 11, 1994 The Hawaii Supreme Court holds that a significant other of 19 years and a hanai child can have wrongful death rights as one "dependent" upon the decedent- even if not legally related nor even receiving financial support- a "relational" basis of dependency is sufficient. Moreover, for those who qualify- loss of companionship, love and affection is recoverable as well as pecuniary loss.

DACANAY v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, FEBRUARY 9, 2005 Hawaii's Intermediate Court of Appeals holds that in a no-fault medical fee dispute before the insurance commissioner, a no-fault insurer can waive its insured's failure to join the medical care providers as the "real party-in-interest" and that when this occurs the commissioner may award attorneys fees and costs of the proceeding to the insured.

OZAKI v. AOAO DISCOVERY BAY, JANUARY 22, 1998 The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals holds (HRS) § 663-31 (1993), Hawai`i's modified comparative negligence statute, applies only to actions sounding wholly in negligence. Where negligence combines with other grounds of liability to cause injury, a plaintiff's negligence does not bar recovery but reduces the plaintiff's recovery by an amount equal to the degree to which the plaintiff is culpably negligent.

OZAKI v. AOAO DISCOVERY BAY, JANUARY 22, 1998 The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals holds that loss of enjoyment of life damages are recoverable in a wrongful death action in Hawaii.

GEICO v. DIZOL, en banc, January 13, 1997 [sic- actually 1998] The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals- En Banc- reverses the original 9th Circuit decision below and holds that the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii had no requirement to sua sponte consider if exercising jurisdiction over a Declaratory Judgment action on a UIM policy (which action would address novel issues of state law) was appropriate.

GEICO v. DIZOL, February 28, 1997 The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (later reversed) holds that the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii erred in exercising jurisdiction over a Declaratory Judgment action on a UIM policy issued by GEICO (relating to an underlying fatal car accident and dram shop action) and in relieving GEICO of responsibility under the policy. The appeals court remands for consideration by the trial court of whether or not it should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act or stay the Federal proceeding while the parties resolve the novel state law issues in state court.

HOOTERS v. AMERICAN GLOBAL INSURANCE, July 23, 2003 The United States District Court, S.D. Georgia finds that the liabilty and excess liability insurers for HOOTERS are required to indemnify Hooters for the breach of privacy and advertising injury inflicted when Hooters used co-defendant Value-Fax to send unsolicited fax advertisements to fax machines in Georgia. On March 21, 2001, a jury verdict had been returned against Hooters and the trial judge entered judgment against Hooters in the amount of $11,889,000

MONSTERHUT v. PAETEC , May 3, 2002 The NEW YORK Supreme Court, Appellate Division holds that an internet service provider could terminate service agreement in response to subscriber's sending of unsolicited, mass, commercial e-mail (spamming) in breach of the agreement

Schultz v. Wells, 13 P.3d 846 (Colo. App. 2000) abstract only The COLORADO Court of Appeals excludes proffered "bio-engineering" testimony about automobile collision experiments with human volunteers offered to "prove" that there is a threshold of force below which a person probably would not be injured.

KAHALE v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, May 12, 2004 Justice Acoba and Circuit Judge Chan's dissent to the majority opinion of the court below- which changed the existing period of limitations on claims against a County of the State of Hawaii

KAHALE v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, May 12, 2004 The Hawaii Supreme Court holds that the limitations period of 6 months (to file notice of claim?) found in HRS 46-72 applies to claims against the City and County of Honolulu and the other counties of Hawaii- overruling Salavea v. City and County of Honolulu 55 Haw. 216, 517 P.2d 51 (1973)- note also that the Supreme Court found that derivative claims of parents are generally not tolled by the infancy of a child- only the child's claims.

WALKER v. CAMPANELLI, October 12, 2004 The DELAWARE Supreme Court upholds a lower court exclusion of photographs showing substantial car damage in a car accident case- which led to a zero dollar jury verdict- on the basis that no expert opinions had been given that the extent of car damage was relevant to show the injuries or the severity of the injuries.

BYNUM v. MAGNO, November 18, 2004 The dissenting opinions of Justice Moon and Levinson objecting to the majority opinion (just below) which found that the full amount of medical bills can be claimed as damages in personal injury actions although Medicare/Medicaid pays only a substantially reduced amount.

BYNUM v. MAGNO, November 18, 2004 The Hawaii Supreme Court finds that the full amount of medical bills can be claimed as damages in personal injury actions although Medicare/Medicaid has paid only a substantially reduced amount to discharge those bills.

HASHIMOTO v. STATE OF HAWAI`I, January 21, 2005 The Hawaii Supreme Court's SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER- NOT FOR PUBLICATION - finding that the State of Hawai'i is not necessarily immune from suits under the discretionary function exception to the State Tort Liability Act for the failure to install a traffic control device such as a left-turn phase to the traffic lights at an interesection.

Wilson v. AIG Hawaii Insurance Co., October 26, 1999 The Hawaii Supreme Court takes away the rights of a purchaser of a PIP auto policy to enforce the payment of medical benefits under the policy to doctors, hospitals and the like. Instead of holding that the doctors, hospitals etc. are intended third-party beneficiaries of a contract of insurance purchased by the car owner (hornbook contract law which gives both insured and medical care provider a cause of action), the Supreme Court in an extremely poorly reasoned decision removes the ability of an injured party needing medical treatment to compel his/her insurer to keep current on his doctors' bills. Ever since, insurers have been in a position to disrupt the injured party's medical treatment without recourse to the policy holder and they do so. This decision should be reversed legislatively or otherwise as soon as possible. It has allowed and will continue to allow insurers to deny and delay medical treatment for their insureds and it gives doctors administrative and red tape hassels in this state which they don't face in other jurisdictions. The insurance company control without recourse given by this decision hands insurers unreasonable power over doctors and their practices and forces doctors to become "insurance company doctors" doing the will of the biggest and most powerful companies in the world if they want their bills paid - or to move away to places where their bills can get paid without a lawsuit against an insurance company.

Gamata v. Allstate, April 28, 1999 The Intermediate Court of Appeals holds (1) that no-fault benefits are expenses which are appropriate, reasonable and necessarily incurred and are not restricted to treatment characterized as "curative" as opposed to "palliative. and (2) that under Hawaii's no-fault laws, if medical care has been provided and statutory dollar threshold has been met, then the provider is the real party in interest to compel non-payment of any medical bills for that service and the medical provider must bring (or join in) any action for reimbursement of the treatment costs

OMORI v. JOWA HAWAII CO., MARCH 30, 1999 The Hawaii Supreme Court holds that an unborn child has rights and may bring a tort action against his mother's employer for in utero injuries he/she personally sustained as a result of the employer's wrongful conduct

DORRANCE v. LEE, APRIL 27, 1999 An unappealed decision in the CAAP program determining damages for certain personal injury claims and apportioning liability therefor between the various parties to a motor vehicle accident has collateral estoppel effect as to the apportionment of liability for the other personal injury claims which may arise out of the same accident.

NIELSEN v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR, July 31, 1998 A duly qualified auto mechanic expert is able to act as his own expert witness to establish that an airbag malfunctioned and that it was defective in a products liability case.

MENDES v. HAWAII INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, FEBRUARY 11, 1998 The tort of first-party bad faith does not exist against HIGA (the Hawaiian Insurance Guaranty Association)

FOOTE v. ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY, July 31, 1998 Intermediate Court of Appeals case- An auto policy issued to a small family-owned-and-operated corporation which provided coverage for "family members"? of the insured business was held not to be ambiguous enough to provide uninsured [or underinsured] motorist insurance for members of the business owner's family.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE v. MURATA, OCTOBER 29, 1998 A policyholder may effectively lodge a timely claim for UM benefits by supplying an insurer with all the information requisite to making a claim for UM benefits (even if a specific UM claim form has not been filled out).

DAI-TOKYO ROYAL STATE INSURANCE v. YOKOTE, OCTOBER 31, 2003 An insurer may not limit its liability for optional wage loss benefits (under a car insurance policy) by "excess coverage only" policy provisions that render the consumer’s choice of such coverage illusory.

ATAHAN v. MURAMOTO, JUNE 3, 1999 Pursuant to Hawaii's recreational use statute, as a matter of law, a beachfront property owner, who neither charges nor invites people to use his land, and who neither creates nor perpetuates the dangerous ocean conditions on an adjoining parcel, is not liable to a party who parks on his property and then walks to and is injured on the adjoining parcel.

GUMP v. WAL-MART STORES, July 27, 2000 The Hawaii Supreme Court affirms the Intermediate Court of Appeals' adoption of the "mode of operation" rule for premises liability cases.

LEONG v. SEARS ROEBUCK, DECEMBER 14, 1998 SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI`I holding that an escalator installed in a building may still constitute a product under Hawaii's product's liability law.

State of Hawaii v. Pacheco, April 11, 2002 Honolulu District Court (J. Leslie Hiyashi) decision holding that inference that registered owner was the driver under Hawaii's van-cam traffic surveillance law is unconstitutional.

BOWERS and STATE FARM v. ALAMO RENT-A-CAR - JUNE 17, 1998 - Hawaii Supreme Court (1) The escape clause contained in the Alamo rental agreement was void; (2) Alamo has the primary obligation to defend and indemnify Bowers against claims for personal injury and property damage incurred while driving an Alamo vehicle; and (3) State Farm's obligation was limited to providing excess liability coverage


Each case can be found in a reporter system for the State of Hawaii. Their link is found at:
http://www.state.hi.us/jud/ctops.htm
Please take advantage of this opportunity as you desire.

If you have suffered serious injuries as the result of an accident in Hawaii, please feel free to contact Hawaii Personal Injury Attorney now for a free evaluation of your case.

 

Hawaii Personal Injury Attorney

William Lawson, Esq.
Century Square
1188 Bishop St. Suite 2902
Honolulu, HI 96813

New client hotline:
(808) 524-5300

Main business phone:
(808) 528-2525

Directions to Hawaii Personal Injury Attorney


Accident Attorney Hawaii- Get a free consultation


Hawaii accident news
and articles

Court cases re: Hawaii accident law

Hawaii Medical Experts-
reviews and links



The Constitution Of The State Of Hawaii


Jones Act- maritime law and seaman cases




American Association for Justice
The American Association for Justice
formerly known as the

American Trial Lawyers Association
American Trial Lawyers Association

Consumer Lawyers Hawaii
Consumer Lawyers Hawaii

Stanford Law School
Stanford Law School

American Bar Association
American Bar Association

Marquis' Who's Who
Marquis' Who's Who
in the World,
Who's Who
in America and
Who's Who
in American Law


The information provided in these pages is intended to be preliminary and informational ONLY. It is not legal advice by Personal Injury Attorney Hawaii nor may it be relied upon as such. The use of these webpages does not establish an Attorney-client relationship. This page is copyright 1999-2017 by PersonalInjuryAttorneyHawaii.com Its contents are the property of PersonalInjuryAttorneyHawaii.com All rights reserved. Thank you for visiting our site!