Many of the immigrants have arrived alone on relatively short work contracts, but others bring their wives and families and pursue residency or citizenship. The area has also seen an influx of South Asian residents from other states who have moved to San Antonio for the low cost of living and strong economy.

The city’s “Little India” is located both near the headquarters of the USAA, which employs many South Asian information technology workers, and near the Medical Center, where many South Asian physicians and medical professionals work. The area includes numerous Indian and Pakistani restaurants, grocery stores and community centers.

According to Dr. Jayesh Shah, president of the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin, San Antonio now contains about 300 physicians and 3,000 families of Indian origin.

The nation as a whole has seen a recent burst of South Asian immigration. The new arrivals are mostly skilled workers, including physicians and technology workers. Cities such as Houston, New York and Chicago have some of the largest Indian populations, and Indians now represent the third-largest immigrant group nationwide.

San Antonio’s “Little India” is a source of community and cultural continuity for many members of the city’s South Asian population. Residents can incorporate their style of living in India into their new culture in Texas, purchasing Indian groceries, visiting Indian restaurants, meeting at the Hindu Temple of San Antonio and participating in popular pastimes like cricket.

A. Banerjee is a Houston immigration lawyer in Texas. Before selecting an attorney, contact the Law Offices of Annie Banerjee by visiting their information filled web site at http://www.visatous.com.

<!– Social Buttons Generated by Digg Digg plugin v5.3.6,
Author : Buffer, Inc
Website : http://bufferapp.com/diggdigg –>

The survey asked about:

1. customer service
2. claims satisfaction
3. value for price paid
4. percent who plan to renew
5. percent who would recommend the company

Based on their responses, the top auto insurance companies were:

1. USAA
2. State Farm
3. Farmers
4. GEICO
5. Auto Club of Southern California
6. Nationwide
7. Liberty Mutual
8. Allstate
9. American Family
10. The Hartford
11. Erie Insurance Group
12. Progressive
13. MetLife
14. Travelers
15. Mercury General

It’s important to note, having sued drivers covered by most of these companies, I would have a different ranking.  My ranking would largely be focused on what company is most reasonable in willing to admit when their drivers caused a problem, and who are willing to protect their customers by making fair settlement offers when their customers do something wrong.

Using my criteria, I’d put USAA, GEICO, Liberty Mutual, and Hartford in a top group.  I’d put MetLife, Nationwide, Travelers and State Farm in a middle group.  I’d put Farmers, Allstate, Progressive, and Mercury in a bottom group.

My criteria is certainly different than that used in the survey, but I also think it’s an important perspective when you’re buying insurance.  Heaven forbid, if you do cause a wreck, you want to make sure your company protects you.  When the company doesn’t offer enough and forces a lawsuit to be filed against you, then that’s likely the insurance company not doing its job.

There are many important procedural steps to take when initiating a personal injury action.  The local laws can be confusing and there are critical time limitations to adhere to every step of the way.  Another important aspect of any injury case involving a car vehicle accident is the victim’s right to recover under various insurance policies, depending on the circumstances.  The manner in which one handles the case can impact a victim’s entitlement to a potential damages recovery.

In a recent case, Newton v. Ragland, Ga. Ct. of App. (2013), the appellate court reversed the lower court’s refusal to enforce a settlement agreement in a personal injury action that arose from car accident.  In March 2009, Newton ran a red light at an intersection and crashed into Ragland’s vehicle.  As a result of the accident, Ragland sustained severe injuries.  Newton’s vehicle was covered under two separate insurance policies: her own automobile liability insurance (USAA General Indemnity Company policy) and a Zurich Insurance Company policy that was held by a dealership that owned the car at the time of the accident.

Both policies included a per person bodily coverage limit of $25,000.  Significantly, the victim, Ragland, also had uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UM/UIM”) coverage. In order to move forward with the case, Ragland’s attorney sent a letter to the insurance claims adjusters at both of Newton’s insurance companies demanding the $25,000 payment from each, in return for a limited liability release under Georgia state law.  The letter advised both companies that in order for Ragland to recover UM benefits as well, it would need their respective payments first, by a specified due date.

USAA sent the $25,000 in a timely fashion and included a letter indicating that they have now settled the claim, and attached a general release (instead of a limited one requested).  Ragland’s attorney then faxed a letter confirming receipt of the funds, stating that he assumed the tender of the $25,000 is conditioned upon his client signing the release. He did not mention that the release was general and not limited as originally requested.  He also made no mention that Ragland may not sign the document.

Ragland hired a new attorney and filed this action against Newton claiming that USAA had rejected his settlement offer by providing a general release instead of a limited one.  Newton answered by filing a motion to enforce the original settlement agreement.  The trial court denied the motion.  The court of appeals reversed, finding that the contract to settle the matter was formed when USAA sent the policy limits to Ragland within the offer letter’s due date.  Under contract formation principles, the inclusion of a general liability release was not deemed to “impose a new condition of settlement.”

As one can see from this ruling, it is terribly important to understand the local court rules and state laws that are applicable to car accident cases.  If you have been the victim of a car accident, resulting from the negligence of another, you are encouraged to contact an Atlanta-based injury attorney who can help to protect your rights to a recovery.

Stephen M. Ozcomert is a caring and dedicated injury attorney  with over 20 years of experience handling car accident cases.   Contact us today by calling (404)-370-1000 to schedule your free initial consultation, or you can reach us through our website.

Related Blog Posts:

 Limited Liability Waivers in Your Georgia Car Accident Case

Negligent Third Parties and Automobile Collision Causation

Georgia Court of Appeals Rules Expert Testimony not Required for Causation of Back Injuries in Car Accident Cases