3 Tips for Dealing with Insurance Companies After an Oregon Car Crash

Navigating the aftermath of a car crash can be a daunting task, especially when dealing with insurance companies. Insurance Companies in Oregon are focused on minimizing the amount of money you get, which can leave you feeling overwhelmed and at a disadvantage. However, with the right approach, you can enhance your negotiation skills and secure a fair settlement. Here are three tips to help you effectively negotiate with insurance companies after a car crash.

Document Everything

The importance of thorough documentation cannot be overstated when negotiating with insurance companies. From the moment the accident occurs, start collecting and preserving evidence. This includes gathering information at the scene, such as exchanging contact details with the other party involved, taking pictures of the vehicles and the accident scene, and noting the names and badge numbers of responding law enforcement officers.

Additionally, keep a detailed record of all medical treatments, expenses, and any related receipts. This documentation serves as tangible evidence of the extent of your injuries and the financial losses incurred. Insurance companies often rely on these records when assessing the validity and severity of your claim. By presenting a well-documented case, you strengthen your negotiating position and provide a clear picture of the impact the accident has had on your life.

Also, document when you speak with an insurance company and who you speak with. If you are using the insurance company’s app then screen shot the correspondence to preserve the communication. Preserve all email correspondence with the insurer. This information is invaluable so you don’t feel overwhelmed with trying to remember what you have previously discussed or sent in. It is fairly common for insurers to deny receiving documents or correspondence.

Understand Your Policy and Rights

One common mistake individuals make when negotiating with insurance companies is not fully understanding their insurance policy and legal rights. Take the time to carefully review your policy to know the coverage limits, deductibles, and any exclusions that may apply to your situation. Knowledge is power, and being well-informed allows you to speak confidently during negotiations.

Moreover, familiarize yourself with the laws and regulations governing insurance claims in your jurisdiction. Each state may have different rules regarding fault determination, deadlines for filing claims, and limitations on damages. Armed with this knowledge, you can assert your rights effectively and challenge any unjust denials or lowball offers from the insurance company.

Consider Seeking Professional Assistance

Insurance negotiations can be complex, and the tactics used by insurance adjusters may catch you off guard. Insurers that can make the process more stressful and overwhelming know that you are likely to take a low settlement offer to avoid future stress and frustration. In such cases, enlisting the help of a skilled attorney such as Ross Law LLC experienced in car crash cases can make a significant difference. Personal injury attorneys, such as Jeremiah Ross, specialize in negotiating with insurance companies and can advocate on your behalf to ensure you receive a fair settlement.

Attorneys possess the legal expertise to interpret policy language, assess the true value of your claim, and navigate the complexities of the negotiation process. They can also handle communication with the insurance company, alleviating the stress and burden on you. While legal representation may involve fees, the potential increase in your settlement often outweighs the costs, making it a valuable investment in securing a just outcome. If you have questions regarding your personal injury case call Ross Law at 503.224.1658.

Conclusion

Negotiating with insurance companies after a car crash requires a strategic and well-informed approach. By documenting everything, understanding your policy and rights, and considering professional assistance, you can enhance your chances of reaching a fair settlement. Remember, the key to successful negotiation is being well-prepared and assertive in advocating for your rights and compensation.

Please remember this blog post is for informational purposes only. Please consult with an attorney regarding your Oregon personal injury case to ensure all of your rights and obligations are understood.

Can Cyclists Get PIP Insurance Coverage if They Are Thrown Into a Stationary Vehicle?

Answer: Yes, an Oregon cyclist can get No-Fault PIP medical coverage if they are thrown into a Stationary Car waiting at a Stop Sign. See below for details.

Here at Ross Law, we are constantly fighting to ensure that insurance companies comply with the law and the terms of their insurance policies. This often results in interesting litigation where we get to geek out over what the language in the law and policies actually mean. (Click Here to Read about our USAA Dispute)

For example, we recently represented a cyclist who was hit by a car while lawfully riding his bike on the street. The impact of the crash threw the cyclist into a stationary vehicle waiting at a stoplight. State Farm insured the stationary vehicle.

The law allows cyclists to be eligible for up to $15,000.00 in no-fault PIP medical coverage in certain circumstances. Our cyclist client was eligible for PIP medical benefits, but State Farm denied our request for coverage because they claimed the law required that their insured’s vehicle is moving in order for the cyclist to be “struck by” the insured vehicle.

We obviously had a different take on State Farm’s reading of the law. ORS 742.520(1) and (2) were enacted to ensure that Oregon’s pedestrians had no-fault PIP coverage to pay their medical bills in the event they were “struck by” a vehicle. Cyclists are considered pedestrians under Oregon’s PIP law. As a result, it was our position that in order to fulfill the legislative intent that cyclists medical bills get paid by no-fault insurance; the court had to interpret the phrase “struck by” as the forceful collision between two objects. One could be stationary or both could be moving. The court agreed with our position and granted our Motion for Summary judgment. This means that our cyclist client will be reimbursed $15,000.00 for the medical bills that he paid out of his pocket.

State Farm also likely has to pay our cyclist client’s attorney fees. That means that the cyclist will collect the entire $15,000.00. This is important as it means that the cyclist basically received free legal representation because the insurer that took an unreasonable position should have to pay his legal fees. The court will decide that issue in the near future.

State Farm may appeal the matter. If they do then we are ready to continue to fight. This was a big win. Future cyclists should benefit from our work and won’t be denied PIP benefits simply because the insured’s vehicle was not moving at the time of the crash.

If you are injured while riding your bike and are trying to get your medical bills paid after a crash with a vehicle, call Ross Law at 503.224.1658. Jeremiah Ross is a personal injury lawyer that represents cyclists throughout Oregon and is happy to provide a free personal injury and insurance case evaluation.

Please remember that all cases are different and your facts may not entitle you to PIP coverage if you were a cyclist or pedestrian that was hit by a car. Remember there is a priority of coverage issues that mean if you have PIP insurance of Health Insurance then you may not be eligible to get PIP insurance from the vehicle that struck you. Please also remember the law is constantly changing so please contact a lawyer to obtain legal advice. This post is not intended to be legal advice and is for general education purposes.

Happy Veterans Day!

Ross Law would like to thank all of those that have served our country. As a Veteran himself, Jeremiah Ross, knows first hand the challenges service members endure on a daily basis. Thank you Veterans for all of the sacrifices you have made.

Ross Law is honored to zealously advocate for veterans and their families. A recent example of this was our litigation against USAA who wrongfully denied a veteran’s family member PIP insurance benefits after a car crash. We will continue to fight on behalf of those that have fought for us. Happy Veterans Day and Happy Birthday Marines!

Jeremiah Ross on the Left

Ross Law Prevails in Lawsuit Against USAA after USAA's "Deplorable" Conduct!

Another win at Ross Law PDX! Last year our client was injured in a car crash. Her insurer, USAA Casualty Insurance Company, was obligated under Oregon Law and her insurance policy to pay up to $15,000.00 of her reasonable and necessary crash related medical expenses. These are commonly referred to as PIP benefits. After a few months USAA stopped paying reasonable and necessary medical bills. USAA also ignored the law that required USAA to provide written notice of the denials to our client and our office. As a result, our client was incurring medical expenses and had no idea that USAA would refuse to pay them.

Unbeknownst to our client USAA’s vendor Auto Injury Solutions (AIS) had been recommending that USAA refuse to pay the bills. What appears to have happened was USAA’s adjuster arbitrarily set a reserve (think of this as the budget for the claim) of $5,000.00 to cover our client’s medical expenses. Once our client’s bills exceeded the $5,000 reserve, it triggered AIS to conduct further detailed review on all subsequent bills. Not surprisingly AIS told USAA’s adjuster to refuse to pay all subsequent bills. USAA did as AIS informed them to do and denied the bills without reaching out to our client’s medical providers to get further clarification on her injuries and treatment, or reaching out to our office for more information. As a result, thousands of dollars of crash related medical expenses went unpaid.

We had no choice at that point and filed a lawsuit against USAA Casualty Insurance Company on our client’s behalf. Our client did not have to worry about paying the costs and attorney fees to file the lawsuit because Oregon Law allows for the insured to recover costs in attorney fees in situations like this. We filed the lawsuit in Mulnomah County Circuit Court under case number 18CV27752.

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed USAA suddenly paid, without explanation, almost two thousand dollars of outstanding Medical bills. However, USAA refused to pay for a few visits to a chiropractor. USAA then blamed Auto Injury Solutions and our client for USAA’s failure to pay the medical expenses. Apparently USAA decided to “deny, deny, deny, and blame the other guy.” In doing so, it appeared USAA completely disregarded its’ contractual and legal obligation to pay these medical bills under the Insurance Policy and Oregon Law.

USAA then steadfastly refused to make a fair settlement offer. Instead, USAA attempted to settle the case by forcing our client to sign a confidentiality and non-disparagement agreement in exchange for payment of benefits that she was entitled to. USAA also refused to pay the full amount of the incurred costs and attorney fees. It was our belief that USAA was attempting to strip our client’s First Amendment Rights in an effort to conceal USAA’s attempts to profit from unlawfully denying active duty military, veterans, and their families insurance benefits. Our client stood firm and refused to be gagged by USAA’s corporate greed.

We then took a deposition of USAA’s corporate representative. He gave some troubling testimony. This included claiming that he received a letter from a physician hired by AIS that recommended that he deny the bills. This is called a “file review” letter or USAA calls it a “PHAD” (physician denial letter). However, USAA never sent that letter to anyone and claims it simply disappeared. USAA’s corporate representative confirmed that this has never happened before. USAA’s corporate representative also testified that he reviewed the written notices of the denials. These are commonly referred to as “Explanation of Benefits forms,” or “EOB’s.” These were the documents that USAA was required by law to send to our client or our office but failed to. Despite testifying the EOB’s existed and were reviewed, USAA refused to produce them despite our formal legal request and various follow up letters to USAA’s lawyers.

As a result of USAA’s shenanigans we filed motions with the arbitrator to compel them to produce the information they were concealing. At this point USAA had three lawyers on the case. We also filed motions for sanctions to punish USAA for their unscrupulous and shameful litigation tactics. In April 2019, on the last business day before the hearing on the motions for sanctions, USAA suddenly “tendered” the disputed amount of the medical bills. This means that we had won and USAA would send us a check to pay the amount of the remaining disputed bills.

However, that is not the end of the story. Despite USAA stating in writing and orally that it would send the check to pay the roughly $3,700.00 of wrongfully denied bills, USAA didn’t pay. USAA also took issue with the Arbitrator awarding roughly $59,000.00 in attorney fees and costs. The arbitrator stated that USAA’s conduct was “deplorable.”

USAA appealed the arbitrator’s decision and tried to bury the arbitrator’s written findings of facts which outline USAA’s shameful conduct. USAA was finally able to convince the court that USAA should only pay our client’s attorney fees of roughly $39,000.00. Both the Judge and the Arbitrator had serious issues with the way USAA was treating its insured and the way they chose to litigate this matter.

This was a big win for our client who was able to get thousands of dollars in medical debt wiped out. It was also a huge blow to USAA and their team of lawyers because it is clear that their unlawful PIP denials will cost them substantially if the right lawyer gets a hold of the case and forces them to explain why they are trying to screw their insured out of benefits.

If you, or someone you know, have been wrongfully wrongfully denied Personal Injury Protection benefits, or have been sent to an examination by your auto insurance company you should call an Oregon Insurance Lawyer at Ross Law PDX as soon as possible at 503.224.1658 to discuss your options. Jeremiah Ross is happy to represent clients in PIP denial cases on a contingency basis. As a Veteran, Jeremiah is happy to go to battle against USAA who hides behind a cloak of patriotism only to put profit over people.

Litigation Shenanigans & the Attorney Fee Multiplier-What You Need to Know

Most consumer and personal injury lawyers represent clients based on a contingency fee agreement. That means that the attorney will not get paid unless the client receives a settlement, award, or judgment in their favor. Many firms and attorneys defending lawsuits charge by the hour. They are then paid monthly by the corporate defendant or insurance company. This can often result in defense lawyers using tactics that are meant to drain the plaintiff’s attorney’s time, money, and resources in an effort to force the plaintiff to settle or divert the plaintiff’s lawyers attention from the issues in the case. These tactics can come at a price though, and an unpublished Ninth Circuit opinion sheds some light on the remedy available to a party who is subjected to litigation shenanigans. In Beck v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Co., No. 16-35816 (9th Cir. June 5, 2018) the Ninth Circuit approved an attorney fee multiplier of 2.0 due to the defendant’s litigation tactics. What this means is that the plaintiff’s lawyers attorney fee claim of $597,669.25 was doubled to $1,195,398.50 “due to the nature of this case and the conduct of Metropolitan and its Counsel.” Beck v. Metropolitan Prop. and Casualty Insurance Company,. 3:13-cv-00879-AC pg 44. (Dist. Or. Sept. 16, 2016)

You are probably wondering how was the plaintiff able to force the defendant Insurance company to pay double the amount of her attorney fees. Thankfully, John Acosta, United States Magistrate Judge, drafted a 56 page order that provides a clear road map for lawyers who are seeking an attorney fee multiplier in Oregon. In this breach of insurance contract case, Judge Acosta addressed the legal standard that permitted the plaintiff to seek fees under ORS 742.061 (whether or not the plaintiff satisfied the “proof of loss requirement). Judge Acosta found the plaintiff had satisfied the proof of loss requirement under ORS 742.061. As a result the defendant was forced to pay plaintiff’s reasonable attorney fees. The question then became, What is the reasonable amount of fees?

The Judge used the ORS 20.075(1) and (2) factors to determine what was reasonable. First, the Judge rejected defendant Metropolitan’s argument that the ORS 20.075(1) factors apply only to the court’s determination whether to award fees and not the amount of fees, and not to the reasonableness of the fees.. In doing so, the court provided clear guidance that both ORS 20.075(1) and ORS 20.075(2) factors are to be used to determine the reasonable amount of attorney fees to award.

The Court then delved into the factors under ORS 20.075(1). The court evaluated the parties’ respective pre-litigation conduct and did not look kindly at Metropolitan’s attempts to resolve the case on unilaterally established terms. The court also looked at the objective reasonableness of the claims and defenses asserted by the parties under ORS 20.075(1)(b). In addressing that factor the court acknowledged that the case was a simple breach of contract case. However, the defense asserted unreasonable defenses in its answer, and advanced unreasonable arguments to use as the equivalent of defenses. For example the defense asserted a merit-less “Fraud” defense. This is a common defense tactic in consumer cases, and the court did not take kindly to it. The Court then delved into the various other ORS 20.075(1) factors and found they either weighed in plaintiff’s favor or they did not apply.

The court then turned to the ORS 20.075(2) factors. The court did a fantastic job concisely addressing each of the numerous factors. In doing so, the court addressed the prevailing market rates for legal services in the relevant community. In this case the plaintiff’s attorneys submitted expert declarations as expert evidence of the plaintiff’s attorneys’ skill and experience in insurance law and to support the hourly rates she requested. The court used the expert opinions and the 2017 Oregon State Bar Economic Survey to assist in establishing the attorneys’ respective hourly rates.

The court also addressed whether the fee is fixed or contingent factor under ORS 20.075(2)(h). The plaintiff’s lawyer initially worked under an hourly fee and then transferred to a contingency fee. The Beck case is similar to many consumer cases, because the defense used tactics which made it impossible for the plaintiff to pay the lawyer an hourly rate. However, the firm representing Ms. Beck continued to be able to do so under a contingency fee agreement. The court noted that the defense’s litigation strategy increased the risk to Beck’s attorneys that they might not be fully compensated for their time, and that factor weighed in favor of an attorney fee award.

The court then addressed the attorney fee multiplier. The court noted, “Oregon law permits an enhancement of fees when it is supported by the facts and circumstances of the case. See Griffin v. TriMet, 112 Or. App. 575, 585 (1992) aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 318 Or. 500 (1994) (approving trial court award of 2.0 multiplier).” The court then spent significant time addressing the facts leading up to the litigation and the defense’s litigation tactics. The court noted that the defense’s efforts to attempt to obtain irrelevant evidence through the discovery process, using theories that lacked any relevance, and the defenses disorganized or deliberately untimely approach to raising various issues resulted in the plaintiff incurring fees for having to respond to both the substance of the issues and their “procedural infirmity.”

However, the court limited the 2.0 multiplier to the fees the plaintiff only incurred during the litigation. The court concluded that pre-litigation fees that were incurred were not subject to the multiplier because the defense’s litigation counsel played no role in the parties’ negotiations.

Judge Acosta did a magnificent job in providing a road map and guidance for future litigants facing a defendant who desires to engage in litigation shenanigans in a fee shifting case. Hopefully the opinion will have a deterrent effect and help litigants combat litigation shenanigans. The opinion is also a fantastic example of the various issues a fee petition should address and the arguments a fee seeking party may face. Lastly, the opinion is an excellent example of the facts and factors the court looks to when deciding if a fee multiplier is appropriate in a particular case.

If you are having an issue with an insurance company or have questions about attorney fees, call Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658. Ross Law PDX represents people in various claims against their insurance companies Ross LAW PDX is happy to represent Oregonians in Personal Injury Protection Insurance disputes, and claims for Uninsured Motorist Benefits and Under-insured Motorist benefits. Please remember the law is constantly changing and to not solely rely on this post.

Oregon Women Pay More For Car Insurance Than Oregon Men! Here is Why...

As an Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer and Consumer Lawyer, I am regularly asked by people if making a claim to their auto insurance will cause their insurance rates to go up. This is not an easy question to answer, because Insurance Companies are for profit businesses. As a result, Insurers are going to do what they feel is necessary in order to make a profit unless regulators or attorneys’ stop them. For example, GEICO was ordered to pay $23,000,000.00 to one of their insureds for GEICO failing to pay benefits, and denying payments on a whim. State Farm agreed to pay its customers $250,000,000 (That is not a typo) in order to avoid a racketeering trial in which customers claimed that State Farm was rigging an election for a Judge that had made favorable rulings for State Farm. USAA agreed to pay $39,000,000.00 to settle a lawsuit filed by its insureds (Veterans, Active Duty Military, and their families). These cases are evidence that some Insurance Companies are willing to skirt the law and disregard the moral high-ground in an effort to make a profit. Another example of insurers putting profit over people is how insurance companies are charging Oregon women more than Oregon men for auto insurance.

A recent study by an insurance search engine, The Zebra, found that Oregon women’ paid roughly $70.00 more for auto insurance last year than men did. A recent Pew Research study also came to the same conclusions on a national level. The studies found certain states prohibit gender based pricing, but Oregon is not one of them. What this means is that Insurers are at liberty to charge women more for insurance than men, and they do not have to have any justification for doing so.

The statistics support the fact that Oregon insurance companies are charging dramatically different rates for women than men. In 2016, insurers charged Oregon women $13.00 more for auto insurance than men. However, in 2018 that number inexplicably jumped to women paying $71.00 more for auto insurance than men. Does that mean that women are more dangerous on the road than men if insurers are charging them more? The answer is no.

The data does not support the Insurance Industry’s decisions to charge women more for car insurance in 25 States. The Zebra study affirmed that women and men equally engage in distracted driving, so that could not be a basis to charge women more. Additionally, fatality statistics do not support the insurance industry’s decision to overcharge Oregon women for car insurance. For example, men are the drivers in the vast majority of fatal Driving Under the Influence (DUII) crashes. Men also cause more speed related wrongful deaths on the road. The statistics show that men are riskier to insure than women.

View fullsize

Additionally, different companies charge different rates to similarly situated women throughout the country. For example, State Farm charged middle aged women the same as men. However, GEICO charged middle aged women 16% more than men. This is an important statistic. If insurance companies rates reflect the risk of a particular demographic of drivers then there would not be such a large disparity between the rates particular insurance companies are charging.

Then why are insurance companies charging women the so called “pink tax” to insure their vehicles? Why have the number of states where women pay more than men doubled in the past two years? The answer is simple, profits. The insurance industry is operating in a relaxed regulatory environment that permits them to take actions that will make their companies more profitable, even if that means imposing the “pink tax” on women.

For example, the insurance industry knows that Oregon does not have a bad faith claim, and Insurance Companies are specifically exempted from Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA). The UTPA is a law that provides consumers a remedy if consumers are ripped off by a business. However, the insurance industry lobbied the legislature to be exempted from that law. As a result the insurance industry knows they are likely immune from any real consequences of arbitrarily charging women more for insurance than men.

Despite the insurance industry’s protections, here at Ross Law we will sue insurance companies if a person has been wronged by an insurer and there is a recognized legal remedy for that person. For example we regularly sue insurance companies on behalf of people whose automobile insurers deny paying personal injury protection benefits. We also sue insurance companies to collect uninsured and under-insured motorist benefits. Ross Law has also sued insurance companies for denying insurance coverage for a car crash.

If you or someone you know has an issue with an auto insurance company please call Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658 for your free case evaluation. Ross Law PDX is happy to represent Oregonians in many types insurance disputes.

Please note that Ross Law PDX is not affiliated with The Zebra or the Pew Research Center. Please refer to the links in the article for the most accurate information. Please note that this blog may be considered attorney advertising and expresses the opinions of this law office. Please remember that the law is constantly changing and insurance issues are usually very complicated. Please consult with an Oregon attorney if you have a dispute with an Oregon insurer. Do not simply rely on this blog post.

Ross Law files Suit against USAA Casualty Insurance for Wrongfully Denying PIP Benefits

USAA has been my insurance company my entire adult life. They market themselves as supporters of the military and veterans. That may be the case, but as a personal injury lawyer, I often witness USAA doing anything they can to deny veterans and their families personal injury protection benefits. As a result USAA is often the target of PIP lawsuits in which the insured is forced to sue USAA for wrongfully denying benefits in an effort to obtain their insurance benefits. Recently Ross Law PDX filed a lawsuit against USAA Casualty Insurance Company in an effort to obtain our client PIP benefits.

In our case USAA through Auto Injury Solutions sent our client’s medical record out to a hired gun doctor to give an opinion that my client was not hurt as bad as she claims to have been. This is often referred to as a “record review” or “file review.” USAA then failed to provide any notice that it was denying our client’s bills or explain why. We have alleged this is in violation of Oregon Law and its contract. USAA appears to have taken a position of vigorously defending the action.

If you or someone you know have been wrongfully been denied PIP benefits, please call Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658. Ross Law PDX is happy to fight insurance companies that have wrongfully denied insurance claims. Please note that the litigation noted above is pending, and the opinions espoused by me on this blog are my opinions and based on my personal experiences.

Where Does Oregon Rank on "The States with the Worst Drivers"

As a personal injury lawyer, I often hear about Oregon's worst drivers.  Oregon's drivers can do some incredibly dumb things that often result in injuring others.  A recent survey from SmartAsset (a tech/finance company) has ranked the States' drivers from best to worst.  Oregon ranks number 26 on the list. The optimist in me says that we are lucky to live in Oregon, because there are 24 States that have more terrible driving habits than Oregonians. However, the reality isn't so rosy.  Oregonians have serious room for improvement, to drive safer and reduce traffic caused fatalities and injuries.  The survey also noted some interesting facts about Oregon Drivers: 

1) Only 83.3% of Oregon drivers have insurance.  All vehicles are required by law to be covered by insurance, so this is a troubling statistic.   This is why it is imperative to have sufficient uninsured ("UM") motorist coverage on your auto insurance policy. The State minimum $25,000.00 is likely not enough to cover you if you are in a crash.  Click here to learn three things you should know about Oregon's Auto insurance. 

2) For every 1,000 drivers in Oregon 3.16 of them will be arrested for DUII (Driving While Under the Influence of Intoxicants).  This is also a troubling statistic because this is for DUI arrest, not the actual number of DUII drivers.  This statistic is not surprising to me because I regularly represent people that were injured by DUII Drivers.  In case you were curious, North and South Dakota both top the charts for DUII arrest with over 11 DUII arrests for every 1,000 drivers.  

CAUTION THE LANGUAGE IN THE VIDEO MAY BE OFFENSIVE and IS NOT ENDORSED BY ROSS LAW

3) 1.3 people will die in Oregon Roads for every million vehicle miles traveled.  To put it another way, 2 people will die on Oregon Roads after all of the vehicles in Oregon travel a combined 3 million miles.  These wrongful deaths become more frequent as more people move to Oregon and more people drive in Oregon.  As of May 2018, 17 people had died in traffic crashes.  Things are not looking better for the remainder of the year. For example, last week a motorcyclist was killed near the St. Johns Bridge. Almost all of these wrongful deaths are completely preventable if drivers simply obey the rules of the road.  or the 

If you were wondering where the worst drivers are, well here it is.  According to Smartasset the states with the worst drivers are:

1) Mississippi

2) Tennessee

3) California

3) Missouri (Tied with California)

5) New Mexico

5) Texas (Tied with New Mexico)

7) Alabama

8) Florida

9) Alaska

10) Arizona (Tied with Alaska)

Click here to read more about the survey and the methodology they used. Remember if you or someone you know where in an Oregon car crash call Portland Personal Injury Attorney Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658.  Ross Law PDX provides free case evaluations for wrongful death and personal injury matters.   Jeremiah Ross also represents people in disputes with their insurance company in uninsured motorist claims, underinsured motorist claims, and personal injury protection benefits claims.  Please note that Jeremiah Ross, and Ross Law PDX, do not have any affiliation with Smartasset, nor have they confirmed any of the statements or statistics are accurate.