Question about my lawyers actions?

[lipless]

What is the name of your state? az

Some of you are familiar with my situation from reading both my posts and the dog owners post on this forum. I apologize in advance for any redundantcy here.
I was bitten by a dog belonging to a friend of mine, who was at the time living rent free at a home that is owned in partnership by three other people. The house however is in (lets call him harvy) harvy's name. Harvy's daughter "joan" owns a share in the house, and another man "mark" owns a share in the house. While Harvy is listed as the owner, the dog owner was residing there with Mark. Harvy and joan do not live there at all. Mark let the dog in even though the dog owner had told him not to allow the dog in when other people were there. I was bitten, half of my upper lip was torn off and I am now permanently disfigured. my lawyer only contacted Harvy about the incident. My question is this; Is that standard practice in a dog bite case for a lawyer to not contact the dog owner? It seems odd to me but as I know little about how the law works in these matters, I wanted some input from others who do have a working knowledge of these types of situations. Any input would be appreciated.

 

[Zigner]

This case is too complex for a free internet forum. If you aren't sure of your lawyers actions, talk to him. If you're still not sure, seek a second opinion.

 

[las365]

Hey there! Your lawyer is trying to track down parties who are liable and have applicable insurance and/or assets from which you could recover money. The dog owner has no insurance or assets.

You did print out his thread from this forum and give it to your attorney, right?

 

[las365]

This case is too complex for a free internet forum. If you aren't sure of your lawyers actions, talk to him. If you're still not sure, seek a second opinion.

And yes, Zigner is correct!

 

[lipless]

Thanks guys I think I understand now! Ps. You guys are quick! I just posted this.

Yes Las I did print out the thread and gave it to my lawyer! Thanks

 

[lipless]

med coverage yes but no pain and suffering?

I got an e-mail today from my lawyer and Im supposed to talk to him tomorrow. In the meantime he said it appears that there is only coverage for my medical bills and nothing else. how is that possible? I think I should be compensated for time lost from work and the fact that I am permanently disfigured. I know one of the senior members is in the insurance biz. Any insights as to why.


further info: home is owned by 3 separate people but mortgage is only in one of their names
the morgage holder does not reside at the home. I suspect that he is claiming the partial owner that does reside at the home is a renter. would he have to provide a renter agreement?

any insights would be greatly appreciated

 

[HomeGuru]

I got an e-mail today from my lawyer and Im supposed to talk to him tomorrow. In the meantime he said it appears that there is only coverage for my medical bills and nothing else. how is that possible? I think I should be compensated for time lost from work and the fact that I am permanently disfigured. I know one of the senior members is in the insurance biz. Any insights as to why.

**A: whose insurance is he referring to? You were supposed to file a claim with your own insurance company who would in turn subrogate.

########

further info: home is owned by 3 separate people but mortgage is only in one of their names
the morgage holder does not reside at the home. I suspect that he is claiming the partial owner that does reside at the home is a renter. would he have to provide a renter agreement?

any insights would be greatly appreciated

**A: who cares about the mortgage and renter. Sue everyone including all owners on title, all legal occupants, John and Jane Does etc.