A plaintiff in an automotive products liability action is generally required to prove that a motor vehicle as sold contained a defect in its design, in the way in which it was manufactured or assembled, or in the failure to warn of a risk inherent in its operation that created an unreasonable risk of death, personal injury, or property damage when the vehicle was used for its intended purpose and that the defect caused an accident or similar incident, such as a vehicle fire, that resulted in the loss or damage for which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages. Because proof of the existence of such conditions does not involve passing judgment on the conduct of the manufacturer, but merely on the status of the vehicle as sold, the plaintiff in such a case can ordinarily recover only his or her actual damages, which can include economic losses and damages for non-economic losses based on the jury's determination of the dollar value of the pain and suffering resulting from the accident. Sometimes, though, the manufacturer's conduct in dealing with the alleged vehicle defect becomes an issue in the case, and the plaintiff may then attempt to recover punitive damages in addition to the actual damages suffered.
The massive collapse of an interstate highway bridge in Minnesota in 2007 has served as a stark reminder of the problems created by the aging infrastructure in the United States. Numerous less dramatic examples of the consequences of failure to properly maintain and repair highways and associated structures such as bridges and tunnels have led to the bringing of legal actions claiming damages for deaths, personal injuries, or property damage caused by such occurrences. Such actions can involve both governmental units and contractors who perform highway repair and maintenance work on behalf of those governmental units.
When an insured files a lawsuit against an insurance company, the insurance company can file a counter claim against the insured to reduce the amount of the insured's claim by an amount that the insurance company claims that the insured owes to it. The amount owed can be unpaid premiums or funds received by the insured from other sources that would exceed the amount of the insured's loss. This is called a setoff, an offset provision, or a benefit-set off provision. In the case of no-fault insurance, setoffs exist for a number of benefits that an insured could obtain due to an automobile accident.
The costs incidental to motor vehicle accidents, thefts of cars and trucks, and similar vehicle-related occurrences in the United States are immense. In addition to the human costs, consisting of some 40,000 fatalities and hundreds of thousands of injuries annually, the yearly economic cost of such incidents is extremely high. The understandable governmental response to this situation has been the widespread enactment of legislative provisions which, in an attempt to assure that at least some reimbursement is made available to persons who suffer injuries from vehicle-related causes, make it compulsory for the owners and operators of motor vehicles to acquire and maintain insurance on their vehicles in order to be allowed to operate those vehicles on the public streets and highways.
Underinsured motorist and uninsured motorist provisions in many auto insurance policies contain clauses that exclude coverage if the insured, without the consent of the insurer, makes a settlement with or obtains a judgment against an uninsured or underinsured motorist who is liable for the damages caused by an accident. These clauses, which are called consent to settle, consent to settlement, or consent to action clauses, are included in the policy because the interests of an insured, who may hope to obtain a quick settlement with an uninsured or underinsured motorist and may be less concerned about the size of the settlement, often differ from the interests of his or her insurer, which hopes to recover from the liable party every possible dollar of the amounts it is required to pay out under its policy.
Ski and Recreation Law
