Car Accident Attorney Hawaii

Car Accident Cases

General Info

Motor Vehicle Accidents

Other Accidents

Types of Injury

Motor Vehicle Accident Cases - Hawaii court opinions

The following cases are cases of interest to those dealing with the effects of a motor vehicle accident (an MVA). Some may show similarity to your situation, but each case 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.

Cases related to Car, Truck, Pedestrian, Auto, Bus and Motorcycle Accidents and Motor Vehicle Insurance

Savini v. University of Hawaii 113 Hawaii 459 (3/19/07) This recent decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court has helped to clarify Hawaii law on automobile accident claims against the State of Hawaii. The conflict between (1) the general two year (from date of occurence) deadline for filing claims against the State and (2) the general auto accident deadline of two years from the date of the accident or the last payment of no fault (PIP) benefits, whichever is later, was resolved wisely by the Hawaii Supreme Court. The Court held that because the claims against the State are not actionable until the threshold of $5,000.00 in medical expenses has been met, in the typical case an action can be filed against the State for two years after the date on which the threshold is met. under Hawaii state law.

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.

Allstate Insurance V. Kaneshiro, May 4, 2000 The Hawaii Supreme Court holds that when a material change is made to an automobile insurance policy (such as the named insured changing from a policyholder to his spouse alone and an additional vehicle being added to the policy), the insurer is required to obtain a new written rejection of UM and UIM coverage to the new named insured pursuant to HRS § 431:10C-301 or such coverages are automatically included in the policy by operation of law.

Bowers and State Farm v. Alamo Rent-A-Car - June 17, 1998- The Hawaii Supreme Court decides: (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) The obligations of State Farm (the renter's insurance company) were limited to providing excess liability coverage

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 even though Medicare or Medicaid has paid only a substantially reduced amount to discharge those bills.

Bynum v. Magno, November 18, 2004 The dissenting opinions of Justice Moon and Levinson objecting to the majority opinion (see link above) and arguing that the full amount of medical bills should not be recoverable as damages when Medicare/Medicaid has paid only a substantially reduced amount.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Estate of Cabral v AIG Hawaii Insurance Co., February 11, 1998 The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals holds that HRS §§ 431:10C-304 and 431:10C-103(10) confer upon an insured a survivors' loss benefit equivalent to the aggregate limits of no-fault benefits less any no-fault benefits paid or payable under the policy.

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.

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

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.

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.

Hashimoto v. State Of Hawaii, 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 intersection.

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.

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 above- which changed the existing period of limitations on claims against a County of the State of Hawaii

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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