In this article we discuss yet another case in which an insurer made only low ball offers to settle a motor vehicle case in which the victim suffered a serious injury, this time an injury that actually affected the victim's ability to work.
In this case an individual driving an SUV was involved in an accident with bicyclist. According to the victim, the driver was coming in the opposite direction when, without warning, he made a U-turn right in front of him causing him to over the SUV's hood. The victim tore a cartilage in his wrist during the accident. This caused him difficulties at work where he was a mechanic for a high-end motor vehicle dealer. And a physician testified that the victim will likely eventually need to be fused and that this will likely end his career as a mechanic. This would result in a loss of earning capacity.
The law firm that handled this matter on behalf of the victim uncovered that the driver was test-driving the SUV in order to be able to write an advertising review of the SUV for his employer. This added the driver's employer as a defendant. Early on the insurance company for the defendant had made an offer to settle the case - for $10,000. The week before the trial they raised their offer - to $30,000.
The bicyclist, no doubt with the advice of the law firm representing him, did not accept these settlement offers. The law firm was able to report that the case went to trial where they obtained
a verdict from the jury in the amount of $550,000. Part of this amount ($250,000) was for economic damages and part ($300,000) was for the non-economic damages such as pain and suffering and the nature of the injury.
Both sides knew the facts of this case before trial. The testimony of the doctor was not a surprise. Yet, each side saw the case from a very different perspective and thus reached a very different conclusion as to the value of the case.
The insurance company adjuster and defense attorney no doubt viewed the case as one that involved an injury from which there was a full recovery. They probably discounted the bicyclist's claim that he had problems from the injury when he returned to work. And they probably felt that the doctor's testimony was either too speculative or too far removed from the present.
The law firm that represented the victim, however, realized that it was not that simple. This injury was one was not resolved but rather one which left the bicyclist with a weakened wrist - a wrist that in time would need serious surgery after which the wrist would never be the same again. The law restricted the amount of time the bicyclist had to pursue a lawsuit so he could not wait until the wrist failed him as by then it would be too late. But the law does allow him to recover now for long term effects of the injury. This is how the law firm positioned the case on behalf of the bicyclist and the jury agreed.
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://cdnimages.articlefriendly.net/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites
