Settlement reached in 2007 traffic accident

Two insurance companies have agreed to pay a total of $450,000 to settle claims stemming from a 2007 traffic accident that left a 19-year-old Lawrence Park Township woman disabled.Lauren E. Voltz, now 21, suffered a moderate brain injury on May 14, 2007, when a minivan in which she was a passenger collided with a tractor-trailer at the intersection of Nagle Road and Iroquois Avenue in Harborcreek Township.

Under the terms of the settlement, Allstate, the insurer of the driver of the minivan, William C. Morris, will pay policy limits of $15,000.

Carolina Casualty, the insurer for David Mulligan, the driver of the tractor-trailer, agreed to pay $435,000 from a policy that had a limit of $1 million. With the settlement, neither Morris nor Mulligan admit any wrongdoing.

Voltz's lawyer, Alan Natalie, will receive $150,000 to cover his costs and a 33 percent fee.

Out of the remaining proceeds, $10,000 will be placed in a special needs trust for Voltz to support her vocational training, according to court records.

An additional $290,000 will be placed in a structured settlement that will provide monthly payments of $1,307 to support Voltz.

The settlement agreement bars all parties from commenting on the case.

Voltz's family, however, blogged online for several months about her long recovery efforts. Hundreds followed their reports of her long stay in the intensive care unit and her success at recovering movement and speech through rehabilitation.

The family stopped posting updates in 2008.

Voltz lives with her parents and relies on them for economic support and some physical support, according to court records.

The accident happened about 1:43 a.m.

State police at Lawrence Park said Voltz was one of two passengers in a 1999 Dodge Caravan that hit a tractor-trailer. Voltz was not wearing a seat belt, police said.

The collision caused her to be ejected from the van's sliding rear door.

The two other people in the minivan suffered minor injuries, police said. The driver, Morris, then 18, and another passenger, Anastasia N. Burchick, then 19, were wearing seat belts, police said.

The truck driver, Mulligan, then 47, was also wearing a seat belt and was not injured. Mulligan had the right-of-way in the intersection, according to court records.

Police said the minivan was northbound on Nagle Road when it hit the rig, which was eastbound on Iroquois Avenue.

Source

DoJ Says Google Settlement Must Be Changed

In a highly anticipated brief, the Department of Justice on September 18 said the Google Book Search Settlement as currently structured should be rejected by the court overseeing its approval. “As presently drafted the proposed settlement does not meet the legal standards this court must apply,” the DoJ report concluded. "This court should reject the proposed settlement and encourage the parties to continue negotiations to comply with Rule 23 and the copyright and antitrust laws.” 

In a silver lining, the DoJ recognized the potential value of a deal to facilitate book digitization, and officials urged the settlement parties to head back to the negotiating table. "A properly structured settlement agreement in this case offers the potential for important societal benefits," reads the DoJ statement. "The United States does not want the opportunity or momentum to be lost." 

In a brief statement, Google, the AAP and the Authors Guild, said they will address the concerns of the DoJ. “We are considering the points raised by the Department and look forward to addressing them as the court proceedings continue,” the statement read. 

The DoJ's opposition makes it increasingly likely that the October 7 fairness hearing, or at least its outcome, will be delayed. While the DoJ was upbeat about the settlement's potential, suggesting that the parties address DoJ concerns and make the settlement viable, the issues outlined in its brief nevertheless strike deeply at the heart of the deal, and it remains to be seen how quickly these thorny issues, the subject of years of tense negotations, can be resolved, if they can be at all. Without modifications, the DoJ indicated there was "a significant potential" that the Department would conclude that the settlement "violates the Sherman Act."

Source