How Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Works

How personal injury protection insurance works, and whether to file a claim or not.

Personal Injury Protection (known as PIP) is a form of optional insurance that you may elect to purchase on your own insurance policy.

Do you have a legal question?
Enter your phone number below and let's talk.
--

The primary benefit of this coverage is that it makes available to you some quantity of money (usually around $5,000) that can be paid to you during a pending investigation of claims process.


But Won't That Raise my Insurance Rate?

Most people are opposed to the idea of tapping into their own insurance policy. It is important to know that State Law requires that insurance companies follow certain procedures with regard to the disbursement of PIP money. Fortunately, one of these rules enables our experienced personal injury attorneys of Houston to follow a particular procedure in filing this type of claim which will result in no negative impact or increase of your insurance premium (monthly payment).

However, there is a right way and wrong way to approach a PIP claim. Our experienced Houston personal injury protection attorneys at Grossman Law Offices can help you recover this money without you having to worry about a rate increase.


Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$200,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Back Injury Requiring Surgery)
Recovery for motorcyclist who suffered a back injury in an 18-wheeler accident.
Total Recovery:
$200,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$80,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$5,709.00
$350,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / First Party Dram Shop
Our firm was hired by the minor child and parents of a young man who was killed in a motorcycle accident after being over served alcohol at a South Padre Island bar. The plaintiffs hired our firm to investigate the claim on the basis that the decedent was over the legal limit at the time of his death. In initial attempts to settle the case out of court, the defendants denied liability. Suit was filed soon thereafter.

The defendants initially argued that the decedent never consumed alcohol on their premises. Through physical evidence and deposition testimony to the contrary, we were able to conclusively prove that the decedent had indeed been drinking at the establishment.

The defendants then asserted allegations that the decedent's minor child was not actually his biological child, which would bar his claim entirely. A DNA test was performed and this argument was defeated.

The defendants then asserted the safe harbor defense. Our attorneys argued that the defendants did not qualify for safe harbor protection due to the fact that their servers were not all licensed providers. However, while this element was being addressed, our attorneys focused their attention on addressing the second element of the safe harbor defense regarding the bar's encouragement of the over service of alcohol. The defendants claimed that they would never serve the double-shot Bacardi cocktails that witnesses claimed the decedent drank several of. We sent private investigators into the bar to order the same drinks that the decedent consumed on the night of his death and the very same bar tenders who over served the decedent, without hesitation, served copious amounts of alcohol to the investigators, all of which was captured on hidden camera.

Once the safe harbor defense was defeated, the defendants argued that the decedent's BAC was low enough at the time of his death (as recorded by the hospital) that he would not have necessarily appeared obviously intoxicated to the servers and therefore the bar should not be held liable even if he had been over served. Eyewitness testimony refuted this.

Additionally, our firm's testifying medical expert reviewed the medical records related to the emergency helicopter flight that transported the decedent to the hospital after his accident. She determined that the EMS technicians administered numerous blood transfusions while in flight. Armed with this newfound data, our medical expert reverse extrapolated and determined conclusively that the decedent's BAC was actually in the range of .19-.21 at the time of the accident, though it was drastically diluted by the time he arrived at the hospital, which accounted for the relatively low BAC found in the hospital's medical records. This testimony proved to be pivotal in the case, resulting in a successful recovery for our clients.
Total Recovery:
$350,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$140,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$40,000.00
$65,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries)
Recovered for client who suffered soft-tissue injuries in an automobile accident.
Total Recovery:
$65,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$26,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$1,500.00
$70,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries to Neck, Back, and Knee)
Recovered for car accident victim who suffered soft-tissue injuries to knee, neck, and back.
Total Recovery:
$70,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$23,100.00
Litigation Expenses:
$600.00
$70,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Soft-Tissue Neck & Back Injury)
(policy limits) Recovered for client who suffered soft-tissue back and neck injuries in a motor-vehicle accident.
Total Recovery:
$70,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$23,333.00
Litigation Expenses:
$656.00
$93,000.00 Recovery - Motorcycle Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries and Abrasions)
Recovered for victim of motorcycle accident who suffered soft tissue injuries and abrasions.
Total Recovery:
$93,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$31,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$181.00
$95,035.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Automobile Accident
Recovery for the father of a young man who was killed in a car accident.
Total Recovery:
$95,035.00
Attorney Fees:
$31,678.00
Litigation Expenses:
$25.00
$1,000,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) A husband and father of three was killed when the driver of an 18-wheeler veered into oncoming traffic, striking the young man's vehicle and several others. The defendant was employed by a small construction company that operated only a single 18-wheeler. As such, the defendants were largely underinsured and were not financially solvent.

Furthermore, the defendants had an eroding insurance policy and numerous other parties were intent upon filing claims of their own since the 18-wheeler struck multiple other vehicles. This created the need for an aggressive and rapid response before the other claimants could erode the policy.

Defense counsel made it clear that they wished to litigate the case despite the insurmountable liability arguments that our attorneys presented. They intended to designate a third party as a responsible defendant since the accident happened in a construction zone, even though it was abundantly clear that the construction zone played no role in the crash.

Additonally, the defendants made it clear that they wished to downplay the extent of the damages by virtue of a character assasination on the decedent. Fortunately for our clients, our firm has successfully litigated against the defendant's insurer in nearly a dozen cases, so the carrier was quite aware of our courtroom capabilities. We presented a sample lawsuit to the defendant's insurance carrier and informed them that the lawsuit was to be filed the moment that they refused to settle.

Additionally, our attorneys submitted a Stowers' Demand with a brief window of time for the defendants to respond. We made it abundantly clear that we intended to seek punitive damages and that we would assert the full limits of the carrier's exposure under the Stowers' Demand should the carrier not offer policy limits.

The defendant's attorney adamantly persuaded the carrier to litigate, however, our attorney's threats of litigation, past track record, and incredibly aggressive pre-litigation actions convinced the insurance carrier to disregard their own attorney's advice and to settle the case, lest they face our attorneys in court.

Had our clients been represented by virtually any other firm who did not have our specific track record or who would have not recognized that this case required special and immediate attention coupled with an abnormally aggressive stance, the client's would have certainly been tied up in litigation for years, with the limited supply of funds rapidly depleting since the other claimants who did not need to litigate would have essentially had right of first refusal.
Total Recovery:
$1,000,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$333,333.00
Litigation Expenses:
$0.00
$71,197.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Soft-Tissue Neck Injury)
(policy limits + UIM claim) Recovery for client who sustained soft tissue injuries to neck which required steroid injections and chiropractic treatment.
Total Recovery:
$71,197.00
Attorney Fees:
$23,852.00
Litigation Expenses:
$125.00
$60,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries & Chiropractic Treatment)
Recovered for client who was rear-ended by an 18-wheeler resulting in soft tissue injuries and chiropractic treatment.
Total Recovery:
$60,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$20,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$1,050.00

"When I Lost My Father..."

Get Adobe Flash player

Our Cases in the News

Get Adobe Flash player

Contact Us

Full Name:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Comments or Questions:

Related Articles

Click to Call

--
Enter your phone number above and
click "Call Me" to talk to one of our
lawyers about your potential case.

What Our Clients Say

Successes