Articles Posted in Legal Updates


All I want or expect from any court or judge is a fair chance. I want an unbiased judge to look at the facts and the law and call it the way they see it. However, there appears to be a disturbing trend…

In John Grisham’s novel “The Appeal” a dastardly corporation works behind the scene (secretly donates large sums of money) to get a state supreme court Justice elected. It turns out that the corporation had a case working its way up to the very same supreme court. To no ones shock the justice then votes in favor of the corporation.

Toyota Settles with family killed in car crash.

All of us have seen the news about the problems Toyota was having with their cars last year. According to reports, acceleration would start and the consumer would not be able to stop the car. This led to massive recalls and many lawsuits against Toyota. In particular, many brought product liability cases against Toyota claiming that they made faulty products that caused injury or death.

One of these cases has finally come to a close. According to newspaper reports, Mark Saylor, a California Highway Patrol Officer’s 2009 Lexus ES350 accelerated out of control reaching speeds of 120 mph, when it crashed and crashed into a riverbed. Killed in the accident were Saylor; his wife, Cleofe; their 13-year-old daughter, Mahala; and Saylor’s brother-in-law, Christopher Lastrella. All of them lived together in Chula Vista. Saylor was a seasoned officer with years of experience patrolling from behind a wheel.

On Friday, September 17th, Toyota Motor Corp. settled with the family of Mark Saylor, a California Highway Patrol Officer who was killed in an accident that involved unintended acceleration. Mark Saylor’s wife, 13-year-old daughter and his brother-in-law were also killed in the accident. It was this car accident that put the Toyota recalls into the public sphere. The family and Toyota Motor Corp. have not disclosed how much the settlement amount was for.
Continue reading

In 2006 the Michigan Supreme Court changed the law to limit children and incompent people (like someone in a coma) from collecting No-Fault benefits from their own insurance company in the case of Cameron v Auto Club.

In a 4-3 ruling just issued by the Michigan Supreme Court, the Cameron decision was reversed. The Court found in Regents of the University of Michigan v Titan that the one-year-back rule for insurance claims has taken on new meaning for incompetents and minors. The one-year-back rule in MCL 500.3145(1) states that a claim for personal protection insurance must be brought within one year of an accident. The July 31, 2010 opinion in Regents of University of Michigan v. Titan Ins Co explains that the one-year-back rule in does not prevent a minor or incompetent from bringing suit when they reach the age of responsibility or become competent.
Continue reading