Dalton & Associates, P.A.

Bart Dalton At The Trial Advocacy Seminar In Cape Town

2026-05-22T16:14:18Z

Attorney Bart Dalton was part of the faculty for the American College of Trial Lawyers Trial Advocacy Seminar in Cape Town, South Africa. The seminar was from March 30- April 2, 2026. This is the second time Mr. Dalton has traveled to South Africa to teach African lawyers trial advocacy. Mr. Dalton taught closing argument strategies among other classes. The students were practicing South African and surrounding countries barristers who came to learn from experienced American trial lawyers. “It is a wonderful event, and I was happy to be part of a distinguished faculty and to be able to interact with African barristers.” Mr. Dalton is a frequent lecturer on Trial Advocacy both nationally and internationally.

How Rehabilitation And Legal Relief Can Reshape A Person’s Future

2026-04-07T15:15:21Z

James Elliott, one of our litigation assistants, dramatically turned his life around after committing a violent home invasion as a young man. About 15 years ago, he took part in an armed robbery that led to serious consequences and ultimately landed him in prison.

Elliott served nearly six years behind bars. During that time, he began to rethink his life and choices. After his release, he committed himself to improving his future—focusing on education, personal growth, and staying out of trouble. Despite rebuilding his life, his felony conviction continued to limit his opportunities—especially his goal of becoming a lawyer. That changed when he was granted a pardon, which removed a major barrier to his legal career aspirations. Now a law student, Elliott is using his past as motivation. He hopes to become an attorney and advocate for others, particularly people impacted by the criminal justice system. His story, as featured in Delaware Online, highlights themes of accountability, second chances, and how rehabilitation and legal relief (like pardons) can reshape someone’s future.

Bart Dalton Inducts 90 New Fellows at American College of Trial Lawyers Annual Meeting in Washington

2026-05-22T16:16:44Z

Attorney Bart Dalton, Past President of the American College of Trial Lawyers, gave the induction speech to 90 new Fellows of the American College and their spouses, partners and special friends at the annual meeting of the ACTL. The event was held in Washington DC and the speech was a celebratory message to the new inductees and their families. Read more

U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Whether State Affidavit of Merit Statutes Apply in Federal Medical Malpractice Actions

2025-11-04T14:53:38Z

Berk v. Choy, 2024 WL 3534482 (3d Cir. July 25, 2024), cert. granted, 145 S.Ct. 1328 (2025) (Mem.) Most medical malpractice actions are litigated in state court. Patients typically seek medical care near their residence, which usually means the patient and medical provider are based in the same state. However, when a patient seeks medical care in a different state and returns home, only to later allege medical malpractice on the part of the medical provider, the patient may be entitled to file in federal court. “Diversity” jurisdiction, such as the situation where the plaintiff and defendant are based in two different states, permits the filing of the medical malpractice case in federal district court so long as the amount in controversy (“damages”) exceeds $75,000. When a medical malpractice lawsuit is filed in Delaware state court, the plaintiff must file an Affidavit of Merit. 18 Del. C. § 6853(a). The Affidavit is filed under seal with the complaint. It must contain a sworn statement of a qualified medical expert that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that there has been health-care medical negligence committed” by the defendant. § 6853(a)(1). The defendant may (and usually does) challenge the Affidavit by motion after the complaint is filed. The judge then reviews the Affidavit in camera (confidentially, without the parties) to determine if it complies with the statute. The failure to file an Affidavit or a compliant one may lead to the outright dismissal of the lawsuit. There is no such statute in federal court. Does the plaintiff who files in Delaware federal court need to file an Affidavit to maintain a medical malpractice claim? This is the question the United States Supreme Court has taken up for its 2025 term. Procedural Versus Substantive Law The answer is far from clear. The issue invokes what is known as the Erie Doctrine. Under the Erie Doctrine, “a federal court sitting in diversity must apply substantive state law and federal procedural law.” If a state statute conflicts with federal procedural rules, the court must apply the federal rule to the exclusion of the state statute, absent various constitutional exceptions beyond the scope of this article. If the state statute does not conflict with the federal rules, the court then considers “whether (1) the state statute is outcome determinative, and (2) applying it would frustrate” the Erie Doctrine’s goal of preventing different outcomes in state and federal courts. If the state statute and federal rule can exist side-by-side, then there is no conflict. The Third Circuit, the federal appellate court that covers Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, has determined that state Affidavit of Merit statutes for medical malpractice claims do not conflict with the federal rules. In other words, in the Third Circuit, a plaintiff in federal court must file an Affidavit of Merit if the state statute would require one (as all three states do). In the Sixth (Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee) and Ninth (California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, Hawaii, and Alaska) Circuit Courts of Appeal, the courts have determined that Affidavit of Merit statutes do conflict with federal rules. In other words, a plaintiff in a federal court covering these states is not required to file an Affidavit even if it were required in state court. The difference on these decisions comes down to how courts treat the term “pleading” and federal rules regarding what is contained in a “pleading.” A “pleading” is a “formal document in which a party to a legal proceeding . . . sets forth or responds to allegations, claims, denials, or defenses.” Black’s Law Dictionary, “Pleading” (12th ed. 2024). The “main pleadings” of a case are typically those that start the case: i.e., the plaintiff’s complaint stating allegations of medical negligence and the defendant’s answer denying the allegations. See id. The Third Circuit views an Affidavit as something other than a “pleading.” For instance, in Delaware, the Affidavit usually accompanies the complaint, but it does not plead allegations as a complaint does. The Affidavit is under seal, meaning the defendant is not informed what is contained in the Affidavit. And the Affidavit may follow the filing of a complaint under limited circumstances. § 6853(a)(2) (allowing plaintiff to move for 60-day extension). This “temporal” separation is important to the Third Circuit in holding the Affidavit is not a “pleading.” Berk, 2024 WL 3534482, at *3 n.10 (citation omitted). The Sixth and Ninth Circuits view the Affidavit as a “pleading;” indeed, without the Affidavit in states that have such statutes, the case cannot proceed, rendering the Affidavit as important as the complaint itself. By interfering with how the lawsuit begins in court, these courts view additional requirements to filing as conflicting with Rule 3 of the federal procedural rules that requires only a complaint be filed to begin a case. See Martin v. Pierce Cnty., 34 F.4th 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2022). The United States Supreme Court tends to take up issues that involve Circuit splits: disagreement on similar issues by multiple Courts of Appeals. The Supreme Court is set to weigh in on this issue and determine whether a plaintiff must follow a state’s Affidavit of Merit statute when filing in federal court. A slight majority of states currently have such statutes, making the High Court’s decision consequential to a great many potential medical malpractice plaintiffs. Dalton & Associates Dalton & Associates litigates medical malpractice claims involving serious bodily injury or death in Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. We never file cases without rigorous evaluation and supporting opinions from highly qualified medical experts. An Affidavit of Merit is only the entrance ticket to litigation (pending the Supreme Court’s decision for federal actions). Medical malpractice claims are expensive and difficult matters to prosecute. They frequently require more than one medical expert to evaluate, opine, and testify in support of a plaintiff’s claim. Our clients never pay for such experts, and never pay us anything, unless we successfully resolve their claims. Contact us by phone or email to begin your free case assessment with one of our excellent paralegals. The above article is meant for general information purposes only. Any statements contained herein are meant only for such purposes and not as legal advice. If you have questions about this article or Medical Malpractice, please contact Michael Dalton at mdalton@dalton.law.

Contract Exception to Venue in Philadelphia Upheld in Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

2025-11-04T14:25:53Z

Somerlot v. Jung, 2025 WL 2157391 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 30, 2025) When parties enter arms-length negotiations to form a contract, drafts are exchanged to settle on a final agreement. But when a patient signs a consent form for a surgery or medical procedure, does the patient have the right (or foresight) to negotiate provisions of the consent form? An appellate court in Pennsylvania recently upheld a consent for surgery form that restricted the county in which the patient may bring any future lawsuit. The decision likely portends an expanded use of venue-selection clauses in consent forms in Pennsylvania considering recent changes to venue for medical malpractice claims in the Commonwealth. Venue in Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Actions “Venue,” as used in the law, refers to the proper place for a lawsuit to proceed. Often, the proper venue for the case to proceed is the place where the events giving rise to the lawsuit occurred. See Black’s Law Dictionary, “Venue” (12th ed. 2024). Since the early 2000s, a lawsuit for medical malpractice in Pennsylvania had to be filed in the county in which the action arose. In other words, where the allegedly negligent treatment or procedure occurred. In 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated this rule. No.-Cent. Pa. Trial Lawyers Ass’n v. Weaver, 827 A.2d 550 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003). Now, for venue to be proper, all that must be shown is that the defendant “regularly conducts business” in the county. See Hangey v. Husqvarna Prof’l Prods., Inc, 304 A.3d 1120 (Pa. 2023). A flood of medical malpractice claims arrived in Philadelphia County because of this rule change, though overall personal injury filings are down. See A. Gutman, The Philadelphia Inquirer, “Why are there so many billboards for personal-injury lawyers in the Philly area,” (July 16, 2025) (noting 15,698 filed personal injury cases in 2017 and 13,028 in 2024; 50% increase in medical malpractice lawsuits over same period). The reason for filing in Philadelphia County over the suburban counties of Philadelphia? Philadelphia County has been home to some of the largest verdicts in the country for personal injury and products liability over the past several years. Juries in Philadelphia County are more likely to award “nuclear” verdicts: verdicts more than $10 million. Consent Forms for Medical Treatment Since the 1960s, Pennsylvania law has allowed the use of venue provisions between private parties so long as the agreement is “not unreasonable at the time of litigation.” To be unreasonable, the venue restriction must “seriously impair plaintiff’s ability to pursue his cause of action. Mere inconvenience or additional expense is not the test. . . .” Cent. Contracting Co. v. C.E. Youngdahl & Co., 209 A.2d 810, 816 (Pa. 1965). Recently in the Somerlot case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court (the intermediate appellate court of the Commonwealth) saw nothing unreasonable in a surgeon and patient agreeing—through a consent for surgery form—to file any lawsuit related to the surgery in Bucks County to the exclusion of other counties. The consent form, in relevant part, appears below. In the original form, the language was in 10-point font and single-spaced: 6. I . . . hereby authorize all doctors, pharmacists, hospitals, [Pain Management,] or other institutions rendering care and treatment to furnish the responsible parties and/or insurance companies with full information regarding treatment rendered, including copies of my records. [] 7. NOTICE: Any legal claims or civil actions, including, but not limited to, a claim for medical malpractice in any way related to this admission/procedure, and medical services provided by [Pain Management] or its employees, shall be brought solely in the Courts of Bucks County, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. If patient . . . does not agree to this paragraph number 6, then he/she will initial here. __________ Initials The patient in Somerlot signed and dated the form without initialing the section that rejected the venue-selection clause. The Somerlot Court upheld the venue-selection clause after the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in Philadelphia County. The Court viewed the issue as no different than freely contracting parties agreeing ahead of time to a venue in which they litigate their disputes. “It is hornbook law that, to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and consideration. . . . When Dr. Jung and Pain Management presented Ms. Somerlot with the form containing the venue-selection clause, they made her an offer. . . . If Ms. Somerlot did not wish to accept the offer with the venue-selection clause, the law of contracts allowed her to reject that clause.” The Court upheld the venue-selection clause as reasonable even though the consent form contained a typo—referring to “paragraph number 6” when the venue restriction was found in paragraph number 7. And it rejected the contention that the new rule of venue for medical malpractice actions rendered the venue-selection clause unreasonable in application according to longstanding Pennsylvania law. Future Developments in Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Actions If Somerlot is upheld on appeal, the significance of the decision likely presages a greater use of venue-selection clauses in consent for treatment forms. The patient, therefore, must read and scrutinize the consent form for any such venue-selection clause. As a private party, the patient is entitled to strike the provision, but the real-world implications of striking such a provision may mean the physician declines to proceed with the procedure. Plus, it is very likely that future disputes about the propriety of including such clauses in a consent form will appear in the courts. Dalton & Associates Dalton & Associates litigates medical malpractice claims involving serious bodily injury or death in Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Medical malpractice claims are expensive and difficult matters to prosecute. Dalton and Associates has the experience and expertise to competently and successfully evaluate and prosecute such claims. Contact us by phone or email to begin your free case assessment with one of our excellent paralegals. The above article is meant for general information purposes only. Any statements contained herein are meant only for such purposes and not as legal advice. If you have questions about this article or Medical Malpractice, please contact Michael Dalton at mdalton@dalton.law.

Will Your Car Insurance Rates Increase if You Are Not at Fault in an Accident in Delaware?

2025-11-04T14:25:59Z

Car insurance companies occasionally adjust their premium rates, considering different factors that demonstrate your overall risk as a driver. Two significant factors insurers assess are your past loss experience and prospective loss experience, both within and outside of Delaware. When evaluating past loss experience, insurers review your claims history. Filing multiple claims may lead insurers to view you as a higher risk, regardless of fault. Alternatively, prospective loss experience looks at the likelihood of future claims based on your history. If your level of risk is deemed to be high, your rates may be adjusted accordingly. While your insurance premium may increase due to a higher risk level, Delaware law does provide some protection. Specifically, 18 Del. Admin. Code 609-5.1.1 prohibits insurers from raising your premium solely because you were involved in an accident for which you were not at fault. However, insurers can still consider your overall claims history and the probability of future claims when adjusting rates. Ultimately, while your previous accidents and potential future claims may influence your premium, your rates cannot increase merely because of an accident you are not responsible for. 18 Del. C. § 3708 18 Del. C. § 2503 For more information about this article or to speak to someone about a motor vehicle accident or worker's compensation, please contact Laura Simon at lsimon@dalton.law.

What’s the Difference Between Worker’s Compensation and Personal Injury Cases?

2025-11-04T14:25:03Z

If you are injured at work, you should know what avenues are available for seeking compensation. Delaware’s workers’ compensation law provides swift relief for workplace injuries without the need to prove fault.If you are injured while performing your job, you are generally entitled to benefits, regardless of negligence.To file a workers’ compensation claim, you must immediately notify your employer, in writing, of the injury and request medical services.If you fail to notify or accept medical services, you may not be entitled to compensation. Workers’ compensation law prevents you from suing your employer for additional damages, even when there is negligence.[6] However, if a third party (someone other than your employer) is responsible for your injury, you may file a workers’ compensation claim against your employer and a personal injury claim against the third party. For example, if a defective product from a third-party manufacturer causes your injury while working, you may pursue both claims. The Delaware Industrial Accident Board (IAB) resolves disputes, and awards compensation for lost wages and medical expenses.The Board also provides medical, permanent impairment, temporary total disability, temporary partial, disfigurement, and death benefits. In contrast, personal injury cases are handled in civil court, where plaintiffs must prove negligence. If successful, they may receive broader compensation, including pain and suffering, which is not covered under workers’ compensation. In short, workers’ compensation claims differ from personal injury claims in key ways. Workers’ compensation claims are made against the employer and handled by the IAB, whereas personal injury claims are filed in civil court and require proof of negligence. Moreover, workers’ compensation typically covers about 66% of lost wages and all necessary medical expenses, while personal injury claims can provide broader compensation, like pain and suffering. If you are uncertain about which path to pursue, consulting with an attorney can help you determine the best cause of action for your case. [1] Messick v. Star Enter., 655 A.2d 1209, 1212 (Del. 1995) (citing Frank C. Sparks Co. v. Huber Baking Co., 96 A.2d 456, 461 (Del. 1953)). [2] Noel-Liszkiewicz v. La-Z-Boy, Inc., No. 12A-01-012-RRC, LEXIS 451, at *11 (Del. Super. Ct. 2012). [3] Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. McDougall, 877 A.2d 969, 973 (Del. 2005). [4] https://labor.delaware.gov/divisions/industrial-affairs/workers-comp/faqs/ [5] https://labor.delaware.gov/divisions/industrial-affairs/workers-comp/faqs/ [6] Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. McDougall, 877 A.2d 969, 973 (Del. 2005). [7] 19 Del. C. § 2301A. [8] Campos v. Daisy Constr. Co., 107 A.3d 570, 576–77 (Del. 2014). [9] https://labor.delaware.gov/divisions/industrial-affairs/workers-comp/faqs/ 1 Damages in Tort Actions § 3.03 (2024). [11] 19 Del. C. § 2324 [12] https://labor.delaware.gov/divisions/industrial-affairs/workers-comp/faqs/ For more information about this article or to speak to someone about a motor vehicle accident or worker's compensation, please contact Laura Simon at lsimon@dalton.law.

“Newborn Leaves Hospital Over Birth Mother’s Objection: Texas Appellate Court Considers Use of Non-Medical Expert in Medical Malpractice Claim”

2025-11-04T14:25:15Z

Houston Methodist St. John Hospital v. Cagle, 2025 WL 2077081 (Tex. Ct. App. July 24, 2025) In many states, including Delaware, a medical expert is nearly always required to certify a medical malpractice case before or shortly after it is filed. States refer to this requirement in varying ways. In Delaware, a confidential “Affidavit of Merit” must accompany the filing of a lawsuit for medical malpractice. 18 Del. C. § 6853(a). The expert must swear under oath that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that there has been health-care medical negligence committed” by the defendant. § 6853(a)(1). The expert must be licensed to practice medicine in the same or similar field as the defendant and have practiced or taught in that field for the past three years. § 6853(c). Failure to file an Affidavit (or a compliant one) can lead to the outright dismissal of the lawsuit. But is a medical expert required if the claim takes place in a hospital and involves the patient’s legal rights of possession to her newborn? A “Vanishing Rare” Case A Texas Appellate Court, in Cagle, recently wrestled with this question when it considered whether the plaintiff, the birth mother to a newborn, needed a medical expert where she alleged the birth hospital negligently allowed her newborn to leave the hospital with the child’s new adoptive parents. Cagle, the birth mother, gave birth with an adoption plan for the newborn. She changed her mind immediately after the birth. The hospital, however, released the newborn to the adoptive parents over her objection. Cagle sued the hospital alleging it ignored her change of mind and allowed her child to be taken from her legal possession. To support her lawsuit, she named a former family law judge and practicing lawyer who provided an expert report as required under Texas law. Cagle sought compensatory damages for the pain and suffering caused by her losing her newborn. In a separate action, Cagle regained custody of the newborn after eighteen months when she defeated the adoptive parents’ attempt to terminate her parental rights. The hospital moved to dismiss the claims based on the absence of an appropriate medical expert report. It argued that Cagle alleged the hospital failed to exercise appropriate judgment in turning over her newborn, which involved numerous medical and administrative standards of health care. Cagle responded that her claim was not one for medical treatment or health care; but even if it were, Cagle maintained, her legal expert was appropriate since the claims involved a newborn mother’s legal rights of possession after having initially signed away her rights to the newborn but then changed her mind after birth. The Texas Court sided with the hospital, holding the claims invoked several Texas statutes and regulations on what the hospital was supposed to do under the situation. For instance, Texas requires hospitals to implement policies and exercise competent judgment to control access to hospital nurseries to prevent abduction. Ultimately, the Texas Court had no problem determining the claims were properly considered medical malpractice claims implicating the judgment of hospital staff and the adequacy of the hospital’s adherence to licensing standards. However, the Texas Court determined that the legal expert could, in this “vanishingly rare case,” serve as an expert if the plaintiff obtained a new medical expert within thirty days. The Texas Court explained that it is unlikely a medical expert “would be qualified to opine about Cagle’s parental rights.” A family lawyer, it reasoned, was best suited to “connect the dots” between the medical decision-making and the legal rights of the birth mother and adoptive parents. The Texas Court remanded the case for the plaintiff to produce a new medical expert on her claims, though an appeal by Cagle is possible. Delaware Parallels In Delaware, the test for whether a claim involves medical treatment or “health care” is known as the “garden-variety tort” test. Greenwald v. Caballero-Goehringer, M.D., 2014 WL 7008959 (Del. Super. Nov. 25, 2014). If the tort (i.e., a civil, as opposed to a criminal, wrong) is one where the jury could find the defendant breached an ordinary standard of care and the failure was the cause of the injury without the assistance of an expert, the claim does not require an Affidavit of Merit. Id. at *3 (quoting Phipps v. St. Francis Hospital, Inc., 2011 WL 5570141, at *2 (D. Del. Nov. 16, 2011)). Situations found not to involve medical treatment are: (i) an injury involving the operation of a wheelchair by a hospital employee; (ii) an injury due to the transfer of the patient from a gurney to a hospital bed; and (iii) an injury from falling off a medical examination table. See id. at *2-*4. The idea is that an expert is not needed to tell the jury that the hospital worker pushed a wheelchair inappropriately or the doctor was inattentive in making sure the patient did not fall from the exam room table: anyone could evaluate and determine whether the conduct of the health care provider was appropriate. As in Texas, it is the rare situation in Delaware when a medical expert is not required. Most allegations involving a health care provider or health care facility will involve some degree of professional judgment, requiring a medical expert in the same or similar field. The situations when an expert is not required tend to be limited to “patient handling” type claims, such as injuries resulting from a slip-and-fall or patient transfer. The significance of requiring an expert is initially the cost of obtaining the expert’s opinion: medical experts frequently charge several thousand dollars to review and evaluate medical records, meaning the claim must have a potential recovery that greatly exceeds the costs of prosecuting it through to a verdict. Often, however, there is a need to retain multiple experts in multiple fields over the life of a case to review, opine, and testify at deposition and trial to support a meritorious claim. Dalton & Associates Dalton & Associates handles medical malpractice claims involving serious bodily injury or death in Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. We evaluate medical malpractice claims daily. When we consult with medical experts, we seek out the best medical experts nationally. Medical malpractice claims are expensive and difficult matters to prosecute. Dalton and Associates has the experience and expertise to competently and successfully evaluate and prosecute such claims. Contact us by phone or email to begin your free case assessment with one of our excellent paralegals. The above article is meant for general information purposes only. Any statements contained herein are meant only for such purposes and not as legal advice. For more information about this article or to speak to someone about a motor vehicle accident or worker's compensation, please contact Laura Simon at lsimon@dalton.law. If you have questions about this article or Medical Malpractice, please contact Michael Dalton at mdalton@dalton.law.

Obligation for Auto Insurers to Provide Policy Coverage Information Before the Filing of a Lawsuit

2025-11-04T14:25:21Z

Last week, the Delaware Superior Court confirmed that auto insurance providers are obligated to provide documentation of applicable motor vehicle policy limits to those injured in automobile accidents, before the injured party files a lawsuit.[1] Therefore, under 21 Del. C. § 2907, despite no express statement in the code’s language, an implied right of action exists against insurance companies who fail to provide the relevant policy documentation after a motor vehicle accident.[2] This decision was a matter of first impression for the Court, meaning whether a private right of action exists under Section 2907 had not previously been ruled on in Delaware. In making the determination that an implied right of action does exist under Section 2907, the Court reviewed the history and implementation of Delaware’s motor vehicle laws. Delaware’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act was established to protect and compensate people injured in automobile accidents.[3] Section 2907 was drafted in accordance with the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act, and follows the legislature’s desire to reduce the volume of lawsuits filed with the court by effectively communicating coverage information to injured individuals.[4] Before the implementation of Section 2907, auto insurers were not obligated to disclose policy limits, and thus providers were only legally required to provide policy coverage information after an injured party filed a lawsuit against a tortfeasor (the party allegedly at fault in the auto accident). Now, upon receiving a valid written request from a person injured in a motor vehicle accident, Section 2907 obligates auto insurers to provide the applicable motor vehicle policy limits if the “total of the medical bills and wage losses submitted equals or exceeds $12,500.”[5] Written requests from the injured individual must comply with the statutory requirements under Section 2907 (b) and (c), which require providing necessary details such as the date of the accident, names and addresses of the involved parties, and if available, claim numbers, police reports, medical records, medical bills, lost wages documentation, etc.[6] By requiring the disclosure of liability coverage prior to the filing of any lawsuit, individuals can obtain policy coverage information without court involvement. Not only does this obligation on auto insurers lessen the burden on the judicial system, but it provides benefits for individuals to potentially settle their claims pre-suit, thereby avoiding court filing fees and expediting the recovery for their medical expenses and lost wages. Without this implied right under Section 2907, individuals have no other option to obtain policy documentation aside from filing a lawsuit against the tortfeasor, which is the exact recourse the legislature aimed to avoid by passing Section 2907.[7] Holding auto insurers accountable if they fail to provide policy information in response to a formal request, promotes the policy rationales behind enacting Section 2907 and ensures providers comply with the statutory requirements. [1] Thompson v. Lewis, No. N23C-08-039 PAW, 2024 WL 4357792, (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 30, 2024). [2] Id.; 21 Del. C. § 2907 (2023). [3] H.B. 413, 149th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Del. 2018); Hudson v. State Farm, 569 A.2d 1168, 1172 (Del. Super. Jan. 18, 1990). [4] H.B. 413, 149th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Del. 2018); Thompson v. Lewis, No. N23C-08-039 PAW, 2024 WL 4357792, (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 30, 2024). [5] The obligation is only triggered if the injured party’s total medical bills and wage losses are equal to or exceed $12,500. 21 Del. C. § 2907(d). [6] 21 Del. C. §§ 2907(b) and (c). [7] Thompson v. Lewis, No. N23C-08-039 PAW, 2024 WL 4357792, (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 30, 2024). For more information about this article or to speak to someone about a motor vehicle accident, please contact Laura Simon at lsimon@dalton.law.

Protecting Your Personal Injury Claim: The Pitfalls of Sharing Personal Information on Social Media

2025-11-04T14:24:19Z

In the age of social media, the impact of personal online activity on legal matters cannot be overstated. Individuals pursuing personal injury claims must be acutely aware of the potential consequences of posting personal information on social media platforms. Here’s why exercising caution is crucial: 1. **Evidence in Disguise:** What may seem like harmless posts can turn into crucial evidence in a personal injury case. Insurance companies and opposing parties often scour social media for any information that contradicts or undermines the severity of the claimed injuries. A seemingly innocuous photo or status update could be misinterpreted and used against the claimant. 2. **Inconsistent Narratives:** Posting on social media may inadvertently create inconsistencies in the narrative of the injury. A claimant may describe limitations or pain in court, only to have social media posts portraying a different, more active lifestyle. Such inconsistencies can cast doubt on the credibility of the claim and hinder its success. 3. **Privacy Erosion:** Sharing personal information on social media opens the door to a loss of privacy. Insurance adjusters and defense attorneys may use this information to build a case against the claimant. Protecting the privacy of personal details, medical conditions, and daily activities is vital for maintaining the integrity of the personal injury claim. 4. **Surveillance and Monitoring:** Insurance companies often employ surveillance tactics to monitor claimants. Social media provides an easy avenue for this surveillance. Posting about activities, events, or even location check-ins can be used to challenge the severity of injuries and question the need for compensation. 5. **Preventing Unintentional Admissions:** Casual posts may inadvertently include details or admissions that can be detrimental to the personal injury case. It’s essential for claimants to be mindful of what they share, avoiding statements or content that could be misconstrued and used against them in legal proceedings. 6. **Impact on Damages Awarded:** A claimant’s social media presence can influence the damages awarded in a personal injury case. Opposing parties may argue that the claimant’s quality of life, as depicted on social media, contradicts the claimed damages. This can result in reduced compensation or the dismissal of certain claims. 7. **Legal Advice vs. Social Media Posts:** Instead of sharing details on social media, it’s advisable for individuals with personal injury claims to communicate exclusively with their legal counsel. Seeking legal advice ensures that information is shared strategically and with an understanding of its potential impact on the case. In conclusion, the wise approach for individuals involved in personal injury cases is to exercise extreme caution when it comes to sharing personal information on social media. Protecting the privacy of details related to the injury and case is paramount for ensuring the success of the claim and preventing unintended consequences in the legal process. Text generated by ChatGPT, OpenAI, January 9, 2024, https://chat.openai.com/chat.