Avera Law Firm

The Avera Law Firm Blog is designed to update clients, vendors, and other interested persons regarding law firm news, personnel, legal issues, and legislative issues. The firm management welcomes posts and questions to the blog as an interactive means to provide information to the public.

Thursday, July 15 2010

FORD 6.0 LITER POWER STROKE DIESEL
A SHORT HISTORY

Beginning with model year 2003, the 6.0 L (365 CID) Power Stroke replaced the very popular 7.3 L (444 CID) Diesel. The Power Stroke turbodiesel was on the Ward’s 10 Best Engines list for 2003. It is a 32-valve pushrod V8. Bore is 3.74 in (95 mm) and stroke is 4.13 in (105 mm). Output was 325 hp (242 kW) at 3300 rpm and 560 ft•lb (759 Nm) at 2000 rpm, but as of 2005 that was increased to 570 ft•lb at 2000 rpm. Thus, the engine was touted as giving some pickup models enough power to tow nearly seven tons, while meeting tougher federal emissions rules.  

This 6.0 L Power Stroke was built by Navistar in Indianapolis for Ford from 2002 until mid December 2006 (2007 model year), during which years it primarily appeared in the 2003 to 2007 F250 and F350 Ford Trucks. This engine was actually continued to be used in some E-series vans until the end of the 2009 calendar year. The engine in the E-series is the same configuration as the 2007 model year.
In early 2007, Ford introduced its redesigned 2008 Super Duty with the new 6.4 liter engine as an option. The 6.4 L Power Stroke replaced the 6.0 L due to new emission regulations for on-highway diesel engines built after January 1, 2007.

Since its introduction, there have been 77 technical service bulletins related to the 6.0 L Power Stroke engine. During the first two years after production, there were some 50,000,000 in warranty claims. At one point, the 6.0 L Power Stroke, which represented only 10% of Ford’s total engine volume, accounted for approximately 80% of all of Ford’s warranty spending on engines. Ford initially repurchased at least 500 trucks, but then claimed that the initial quality challenges which Ford and Navistar experienced were rectified.

Unfortunately, owners of 6.0 L Power Stroke engines have continued to incur exceedingly high repair bills related to the following conditions:

1. EGR cooler failure
2. oil cooler clogging, leaking, or failing,
3. oil filter screen failures,
4. fuel injector failure,
5. turbo failure,
6. high-pressure oil pump failure,
7. blown head gasket,
8. cracked head or block,
9. defective Exhaust Back Pressure (EBP) sensor/connector,
10. unreliable variable-vane turbocharger solenoid
11. numerous PCM (Powetrain Control Module) recalibrations,

 Most of these problems above have a common thread: the design of the oil cooler and EGR cooler assemblies. The failure of the EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) valve/cooler in the 6.0 L has proved extremely common. When the valve clogs, breaks, or the assembly becomes overheated, replacement is required. Replacement of the EGR assembly may be covered under the powertrain warranty; however, it is only a matter of time, depending on driving conditions, before the EGR valve will again fail and require replacement. When the valve fails, the "Check Engine" light comes on, and the idle may alter. In some cases when the EGR valve assembly fails, water can be introduced into the exhaust and circulated back to the air intake, resulting in hydrolock or, worse, a blown head gasket, or a cracked head or block.

Ford was slow to respond to continued complaints, and never has completely addressed these issues. There are a couple of aftermarket fixes for the EGR valve and oil cooling issues. One alternative is buying aftermarket EGR and oil cooling assemblies. These systems can cost more than $2500 installed. A second alternative that some have chosen is to remove the EGR assembly all together. Either one of these alternatives may void the Ford warranty. In addition, removal of the EGR assembly may be illegal in some jurisdictions.
Recently, Navistar and Ford have ceased working together in regard to the manufacturing of diesel engines. In addition, in 2007, Ford Motor Company filed a lawsuit against Navistar, in which it alleges defects with the 6.0 L Power Stroke engines. That lawsuit is pending in Oakland County Circuit Court in Michigan.

 

posted by Mark Avera at 7/15/2010 08:20:00 AM | 0 comments

 

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Georgia Court of Appeals Upholds $12 Million Verdict for Interstate Accident

Today, the Georgia Court of Appeals upheld an Atlanta jury verdict for $12 million on behalf of the Zegel family represented by Avera & Smith and Gorby Peters of Atlanta, GA. 

 On May 11th, 2007 Bill and Sonja Zegel, with their daughter Lillian, were traveling on Interstate 75 in a construction area near Tifton, GA when their Toyota Prius was violently struck from behind by a semi tractor trailer operated by PN Express of Illinois and driven by Mr. Surlina.  All three suffered very serious injuries with Sonja suffering the worst injuries of all.

Even though Surlina knew the manager of PN, Mr. Soldat, and testified that he had been hired by Soldat on May 1st to run cargo for PN under an oral leasing contract, PN and its insurance company tried to convince an Atlanta jury otherwise.  Evidence was produced at trial that PN Express provided Surlina with placards and its DOT number to run the routes, PN Express continued to deny that it was responsible for anything claiming that Surlina was not hired until May 18th.  At the time of the crash, Surlina, who owned the tractor but not the trailer, had PN’s name and DOT numbers painted on the truck.  PN and its insurance company continued at trial to deny that Surlina was driving even when cell phone records showed that between May 1st and 11th, Surlina and PN Express employees were in daily contact.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations require a company to be fully responsible for any negligence of a driver that it hires or leases.  Those regulations also require that each and every trucking company maintain a driver qualifications file for each driver that is employed by the company or works for the company as an independent owner operator, such as Surlina.

Although the driver qualification file of Surlina would have provided evidence of Surlina’s hire date, PN had lost the driver qualification file. 

The Zegel family retained Avera & Smith to assist them.  Mary Donne Peters and Mike Gorby, of Gorby Peters in Atlanta were called by Mark Avera and Rod Smith to  assist with the case as the trial would take place in Atlanta.  Ms. Peters and Mr Gorby handled the entire trial and succeeded in obtaining a $12 million dollar verdict on behalf of the family after a week long trial.  PN Express appealed the verdict to the Georgia Court of Appeals who, today, affirmed the verdict in favor of the Zegel family.

The Zegel family has been thru an ordeal beyond description.  Avera & Smith is proud to stand with them, together with Gorby Peters, to hold accountable those who break the rules and refuse to accept responsibility for their actions in the face of overwhelming evidence.

In trucking cases where innocent family members are horribly injured or killed by a driver or company’s refusal to follow the rules, this case is another reminder of the importance of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Rules.

posted by Mark Avera at 6/03/2010 08:07:00 PM | 0 comments

 

Monday, March 22, 2010

Caps on Pain and Suffering Damages: Do they work?

Laws that place an arbitrary cap on damages harm those that are severely injured and do nothing to those who may file a lawsuit without merit. Essentially, the legislatures of the various states that have passed such laws pass those laws without hearing any evidence in any particular case. So, in each case, the legislature has determined the maximum amount that a jury can award as opposed to the citizen jury that sits and hears all the evidence and determines the facts. Who do you want deciding your case; politicians or your peers?

The Georgia Supreme Court just determined that such a law is unconstitutional. See what happened to Betty Nestlehutt and why the Court overturned Georgia's law. (Florida has a similar law).

http://www.georgiawatch.org/

posted by Mark Avera at 3/22/2010 09:07:00 AM | 0 comments

Saturday, January 02, 2010

Alachua County Sheriff's Teen Driver Challenge

This past week, three wonderful girls from Levy County were in a terrible car crash when an oppusum crossed the road in front of their vehicle. Two girls were killed and one remains in serious condition in a Tampa Hospital.



As parents, our hearts go out to these families as we try to understand how such a horrible tragedy can happen. What can we do do prevent such a thing? Perhaps nothing. Perhaps something.



A few months ago, Alachua County Sheriff Sadie Darnell appeared on our show "Ask a Lawyer" and described her departments Teen Driving Challenge. The program takes teen drivers and arms them with information about all the dangers of driving and puts them through emergency driving on the department's driving course. The Teen Driving Challenge teaches kids emergency braking and evasive manuvers, off road recovery and skid control. Call the Sheriff's Office at 352-367-4099 to enroll your teen driver. The course is free.

posted by Mark Avera at 1/02/2010 06:59:00 PM | 1 comments

Friday, November 06, 2009

McDonalds...Hot Coffee...and the lies that followed

Remember Stella Liebeck? The lady that had the audacity to sue McDonalds for serving coffee that was so hot she had to have skin grafting? Watch the trailer of this movie currently in production....

www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/trailer

posted by Mark Avera at 11/06/2009 11:44:00 AM | 0 comments

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Changing the Mind of the Health Insurance Company

On September 25, 2009, a sixty-three (63) year old happily married man, father of four and grandfather to thirteen grandchildren, and senior pastor at a church, was referred to Avera & Smith because he was suffering from stage IIB malignant melanoma of the left cheek which subsequently developed into metastatic disease to the left upper lobe of his lung and he needed help. When our client appeared in our office he had been given a very short period of time to live if he did not receive treatment for the metastatic disease. His only course of treatment, at this time, was Cyberknife radiosurgical management of the two lesions; however, his health insurance provider, Blue Cross Blue Shield was denying the coverage necessary to pay for this procedure.
His coverage was denied because Blue Cross Blue Shield’s doctors believed the procedure was investigational. The company made this finding even after being advised by our client’s treating oncologists that the procedure was not investigational and was his only viable option because the client had already undergone a partial left lobectomy in April 2009 which revealed a 2-cm metastatic deposit of malignant melanoma, and he subsequently developed additional pulmonary nodules, one in the right middle lobe and an additional nodule in the left upper lobe, for which he was treated with three (3) cycles of chemotherapy. This treatment was ineffective and during a follow up evaluation of his response to this therapy, it was found that the right middle lobe nodule had increased from 8mm to 12 mm and there was an increase in the left upper lobe nodule from 6mm to 12 mm.
The procedure was also denied after Blue Cross Blue Shield approved and provided coverage for the placement of a fiducial marker in his right lung for purpose of performing the Cyberknife treatment.
Tina Seifert of Avera & Smith became involved in this matter and was able to successfully and quickly convince Blue Cross Blue Shield to re-evaluate the denial of this coverage and finally succeeded in getting the company to approve and pay for our client’s treatment. We are very proud of quickly convincing BCBS that they were wrong.
Indeed, regardless of where you are in the healthcare debate, you should know that “bureaucratic” decisions are arbitrarily made everyday that affect the lives of hard working Americans. Whether made by a corporation or government, it’s wrong and should never be tolerated in our healthcare system.

posted by Mark Avera at 10/13/2009 10:55:00 AM | 0 comments

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Wrong choice to Regulate Truck Safety?

ARLINGTON, VA (October 5, 2009) – Families of truck crash victims and a coalition of safety advocacy groups today sent a letter to the Senate Commerce Committee asking them to reject the nomination of Anne Ferro, currently the president of the Maryland Motor Truck Association. The letter comes on the heels of a New York Times editorial on September 23rd stating, “Ms. Ferro’s record, we believe, is disqualifying … Americans cannot afford conflicts of interest in the running of their truck safety agency.”
“Today, approximately 15 people will die in truck crashes. Yet this nominee is a trucking industry insider and lobbyist,” said Jennifer Tierney of North Carolina. “The New York Times got it right when they said she would regulate the very industry she has advocated for. This is the perfect example of the fox guarding the hen house.”
The letter, signed by thirteen safety groups and family members of truck crash victims, said “in addition to our initial serious misgivings about a trucking industry official leading the federal agency responsible for regulating the safety of the motor carrier industry, Ms. Ferro’s refusal to commit to the implementation of proven, effective safety policies and regulations, both during our meeting and in response to questions at the hearing, have led us to request your opposition to the nomination of Ms. Ferro as FMCSA Administrator.”
P.A.T.T. Founder Daphne Izer of Maine said, “Safety has been on the back burner for too many years, resulting in thousands upon thousands of needless deaths and injuries. I want safety put before profits. Even the Bush Administration wouldn’t have had the gall to make this move.”
“Ms. Ferro’s responses at the committee hearing and her current position as a trucking industry lobbyist have led us to oppose her nomination to head this critical safety agency,” said John Lannen, Executive Director of the Truck Safety Coalition.

posted by Mark Avera at 10/06/2009 11:26:00 AM | 0 comments

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Truck Drivers Who Break the Rules

Trial Lawyers: 28,000 Truckers Violate Safety Rules; Raise Insurance Limits
August 31, 2009


A new analysis of government data reveals that more than 28,000 motor carrier companies that operate 200,000 trucks have violated federal safety regulations.
The trial bar association, the American Association for Justice (AAJ), said it found commuters are sharing roads with trucks that have incurred thousands of safety violations, such as defective brakes, bald tires, loads that dangerously exceed weight limits and drivers with little or no training or drug and alcohol dependencies.
The group also said that current minimum insurance requirements for truckers are inadequate.
AAJ said it obtained data on the safety performance of U.S. trucking companies from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
States found to have a rate of companies in violation of safety requirements above the national average include West Virginia, North Dakota, Nebraska, Vermont, Iowa, Montana, Delaware, Idaho, Arkansas, Connecticut, Kentucky, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Indiana, Mississippi, Wisconsin, and South Dakota.
According to the FMCSA, more than 4,000 people die every year in collisions with trucks and 80,000 more are seriously injured. Also, though trucks make up less than four percent of all passenger vehicles on U.S. roads, they are involved in 12 percent of all motor vehicles fatalities.
AAJ also maintains that the minimum insurance requirements for commercial trucks are "completely inadequate to compensate those who have been seriously injured in a collision involving multiple vehicles or multiple injured individuals." In 1980, Congress set the minimum level of insurance to $750,000; when adjusted for inflation, $750,000 is just $292,000 in 1980 dollars, according to the analysis.
While large trucking companies may carry more than the required level of coverage, smaller companies often carry just the bare minimum, according to the AAJ. AAJ's analysis of the U.S. trucking industry found that 87 percent of the companies in violation of safety standards are small companies that have fleets of 10 trucks or less.
The AAJ said that many deadly accidents involving unsafe trucks are never recorded as safety violations. A 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that nearly one-third of commercial motor vehicle crashes that states are required to report to the federal government were never recorded. Additionally, state crash reports were not always accurate.
The analysis by AAJ follows a July 2009 GAO study which found that more than 1,000 commercial trucking firms that were ordered out of service because of federal safety violations evaded compliance by operating under a different name, but often using the same owner, address and employees.

posted by Mark Avera at 9/01/2009 05:27:00 AM | 0 comments

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

New Scam Involving Jury Duty....

Our friends in law enforcement want everyone to be aware of this scam which is relatively new. Please, never give your social security number or date of birth to anyone over the phone. If this happens to you, please write the number of caller ID and call law enforcement immediately to report the incident.

Jury Duty Scam DO NOT DELETE WITHOUT READING !This has been verified by the FBI (their link is also included below). Please pass this on to everyone in your email address book. It is spreading fast so be prepared should you get this call. Most of us take those summonses for jury duty seriously, but enough people skip out on their civic duty, that a new and ominous kind of fraud has surfaced.The caller claims to be a jury coordinator. If you protest that you never received a summons for jury duty, the scammer asks you for your Social Security number and date of birth so he or she can verify the information and cancel the arrest warrant. Give out any of this information and bingo; your identity was just stolen.The fraud has been reported so far in 11 states, including Oklahoma , Illinois , and Colorado . This (swindle) is particularly insidious because they use intimidation over the phone to try to bully people into giving information by pretending they are with the court system. The FBI and the federal court system have issued nationwide alerts on their web sites, warning consumers about the fraud.Check it out here: http://www.fbi.gov/page2/june06/jury_scams060206.htmAnd here: http://www.snopes.com/crime/fraud/juryduty.asp

posted by Mark Avera at 1/27/2009 04:40:00 PM | 1 comments