Don't do this without an attorney because you're not going to be able to protect yourself. When you need guidance and protection you need to call. And if I had a choice, I'd call Michael Grossman again.
-
C. Arguetta
Automobile Accident Case
Dallas Truck Accident Claim Process
Thinking About Filing a Truck Accident Claim? Let Our Dallas Attorneys Help You
If you've been involved in a truck accident and you wish to bring a truck accident lawsuit, you need to know what you're up against. Truck accident lawsuits are difficult. Unlike car accident cases, these lawsuits are a legal battle that will not resolve easily.
This reason for this is money. Commercial trucks are covered by insurance policies that are typically valued fifty times higher than the policies that cover passenger cars. With this much money on the line, commercial insurance carriers are going to do whatever it takes to avoid paying for your accident.
Their defense is multifaceted, but the most immediate threat comes from their insurance adjusters. Commercial insurance carriers seek out the most aggressive insurance adjusters they can find. These adjusters have proven many times over their ability to deny claims just like yours and force a lawsuit. They do this because most people are unaware of the difficulties faced in a truck accident lawsuit and will come to court completely unprepared for the legal defenses of the insurance companies.
If you are going to win a case like this, you need experienced help. Our attorneys have been winning truck accident lawsuits for twenty years. We know how to secure a fair settlement, both inside and outside of the courtroom. If you are going to bring a truck accident lawsuit, contact the truck accident attorneys at Grossman Law Offices and make sure your injuries are fairly compensated.
Related articles:
Questions answered by this article:
Are trucking accidents handled the same as car accidents?Can my case be settled quickly?
Why are commercial trucking cases harder to settle?
Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$90,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries and Leg Contusions)
Recovered for client who suffered soft-tissue back injuries and leg contusions in an 18-wheeler accident.
Recovered for client who suffered soft-tissue back injuries and leg contusions in an 18-wheeler accident.
Total Recovery:
$90,000.00
$90,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$30,000.00
$30,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$562.00
$562.00
$1,450,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Brain Injury)
Our firm was hired by a delivery driver who suffered a closed head injury resulting in the permanent loss of smell in a head-on accident. The incident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered into oncoming traffic. Our client's delivery vehicle was struck head-on, causing massive damage to both vehicles.
Our client was taken to an area hospital where he was treated for minor bodily injuries and a closed head injury which originally manifested itself as a concussion and temporary memory loss.
Suit was filed against the defendants following their failure to respond to our correspondence in a timely manner and litigation began. Included in the suit were both the defendant truck driver and his employer. The results of our investigation and the physical evidence from the accident scene made it apparent that the defendants had indeed caused the accident. Defense counsel soon conceded liability
Our firm was hired by a delivery driver who suffered a closed head injury resulting in the permanent loss of smell in a head-on accident. The incident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered into oncoming traffic. Our client's delivery vehicle was struck head-on, causing massive damage to both vehicles.
Our client was taken to an area hospital where he was treated for minor bodily injuries and a closed head injury which originally manifested itself as a concussion and temporary memory loss.
Suit was filed against the defendants following their failure to respond to our correspondence in a timely manner and litigation began. Included in the suit were both the defendant truck driver and his employer. The results of our investigation and the physical evidence from the accident scene made it apparent that the defendants had indeed caused the accident. Defense counsel soon conceded liability
Total Recovery:
$1,450,000.00
$1,450,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$560,000.00
$560,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$31,410.00
$31,410.00
$187,500.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Back Injury Requiring Surgery)
Our firm was hired by a young woman who was rear-ended by an 18-wheeler when she slowed for traffic in a construction zone. Initially, she attempted to represent herself and the insurance carrier offered roughly $1,000 to settle her case. She then contacted our firm and we filed suit soon after our initial investigation. The case was successfully resolved in litigation.
Our firm was hired by a young woman who was rear-ended by an 18-wheeler when she slowed for traffic in a construction zone. Initially, she attempted to represent herself and the insurance carrier offered roughly $1,000 to settle her case. She then contacted our firm and we filed suit soon after our initial investigation. The case was successfully resolved in litigation.
Total Recovery:
$187,500.00
$187,500.00
Attorney Fees:
$61,875.00
$61,875.00
Litigation Expenses:
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
$335,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Commercial Vehicle Accident
The mother of a young man hired our firm to investigate the death of her son following a fatal car accident. The incident occurred as one of the two vehicles involved ran a red light and drive into the path of the other. The defendant was driving a work vehicle for a construction company. The defendant survived the accident and stated to police that the decedent caused the accident. The police could not conclusively determine who was at fault, yet the police report strongly implied that the decedent was likely at fault based on the statement provided by the defendant.
The plaintiff's mother was not convinced. Through a thorough investigation, we ultimately determined that the stoplight that the defendant claimed that our client ran, in fact, worked on a timer whereby the light was always green between certain hours unless a vehicle traveling on the intersecting road had been stopped at the right light for more than 30 seconds. Based on an analysis of the vehicles and tire markings, it was conclusively determined that both vehicles were traveling at the speed limit, which clearly indicates that the defendant driver had not accelerated from stop, rather, he was traveling at the speed limit, which would not have triggered a green light for the defendant.
The logical implications of this information is that the light could not have been red for the plaintiff, and it certainly would have been red for the defendant. As a consequence of this information, the case was resolved through litigation.
The mother of a young man hired our firm to investigate the death of her son following a fatal car accident. The incident occurred as one of the two vehicles involved ran a red light and drive into the path of the other. The defendant was driving a work vehicle for a construction company. The defendant survived the accident and stated to police that the decedent caused the accident. The police could not conclusively determine who was at fault, yet the police report strongly implied that the decedent was likely at fault based on the statement provided by the defendant.
The plaintiff's mother was not convinced. Through a thorough investigation, we ultimately determined that the stoplight that the defendant claimed that our client ran, in fact, worked on a timer whereby the light was always green between certain hours unless a vehicle traveling on the intersecting road had been stopped at the right light for more than 30 seconds. Based on an analysis of the vehicles and tire markings, it was conclusively determined that both vehicles were traveling at the speed limit, which clearly indicates that the defendant driver had not accelerated from stop, rather, he was traveling at the speed limit, which would not have triggered a green light for the defendant.
The logical implications of this information is that the light could not have been red for the plaintiff, and it certainly would have been red for the defendant. As a consequence of this information, the case was resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$335,000.00
$335,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$134,000.00
$134,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$63,000.00
$63,000.00
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) Our attorneys secured a recovery against a major trucking company for the daughter of a man who was killed after his vehicle collided into an 18-wheeler which was blocking the roadway. Litigation is ongoing against additional defendants.
(policy limits) Our attorneys secured a recovery against a major trucking company for the daughter of a man who was killed after his vehicle collided into an 18-wheeler which was blocking the roadway. Litigation is ongoing against additional defendants.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) Our firm was hired by the wife and children of a retired Army Colonel who was killed in an underide 18-wheeler accident. In addition to being a decorated veteran, the decedent worked both professionally and on a voluntary basis to establish numerous learning institutions and vocational programs for at risk youths. The accident occurred as the decedent was traveling on a rural highway when an 18-wheeler failed to yield the right of way and made a rolling stop through a stop sign.
This placed the trailer of the 18-wheeler in a position whereby it blocked the entire roadway and shoulder, leaving the decedent no option but to collide with the trailer. Witnesses on the scene attempted to revive him but to no avail. Furthermore, while two female eye witnesses struggled to pry open the decedent's door to provide emergency care, the truck driver stayed in his truck and offered no assistance. Despite what appeared to be an incredibly apparent case of negligence on behalf of the defendant, defense counsel refused to accept liability resulting in rather lengthy litigation.
The defendants initially denied the claim based on the allegation that the decedent was speeding and the truck driver therefore could not adequately gauge the amount of time he had to pause at the stop sign. The physical evidence contradicted this notion entirely, notwithstanding the fact that even if the decedent had been contributorily negligent, that would not have outweighed the severe degree of negligence on the part of the defendant. Nevertheless, our attorneys were able to conclusively refute this argument based on eye-witness testimony and the testimony from police investigators who calculated the decedent's speed to be precisely at the posted speed limit. In a desperate and largely unprecedented move, the defendants then designated the state as a responsible third party.
Generally speaking, a defendant will often threaten to designate a third party in order to leverage their position but it is rare that such an arbitrary and arguably frivolous designation is actually carried out. However, that is precisely what occurred and the state was thusly incorporated into the lawsuit by the defendants. The basis of the defendant's argument was that the state erected a large street sign that obstructed the truck driver's view of approaching traffic.
Several months of intense litigation were required to before the defendant finally acquiesced in regard to this argument. The argument was finally abandoned by the defendants when in the first mediation our attorneys presented video footage shot (in a controlled setting) from the perspective of an 18-wheeler driver which showed that the sign simply did not obstruct enough of the roadway in order to be a hazard. The case was ultimately resolved through litigation.
(policy limits) Our firm was hired by the wife and children of a retired Army Colonel who was killed in an underide 18-wheeler accident. In addition to being a decorated veteran, the decedent worked both professionally and on a voluntary basis to establish numerous learning institutions and vocational programs for at risk youths. The accident occurred as the decedent was traveling on a rural highway when an 18-wheeler failed to yield the right of way and made a rolling stop through a stop sign.
This placed the trailer of the 18-wheeler in a position whereby it blocked the entire roadway and shoulder, leaving the decedent no option but to collide with the trailer. Witnesses on the scene attempted to revive him but to no avail. Furthermore, while two female eye witnesses struggled to pry open the decedent's door to provide emergency care, the truck driver stayed in his truck and offered no assistance. Despite what appeared to be an incredibly apparent case of negligence on behalf of the defendant, defense counsel refused to accept liability resulting in rather lengthy litigation.
The defendants initially denied the claim based on the allegation that the decedent was speeding and the truck driver therefore could not adequately gauge the amount of time he had to pause at the stop sign. The physical evidence contradicted this notion entirely, notwithstanding the fact that even if the decedent had been contributorily negligent, that would not have outweighed the severe degree of negligence on the part of the defendant. Nevertheless, our attorneys were able to conclusively refute this argument based on eye-witness testimony and the testimony from police investigators who calculated the decedent's speed to be precisely at the posted speed limit. In a desperate and largely unprecedented move, the defendants then designated the state as a responsible third party.
Generally speaking, a defendant will often threaten to designate a third party in order to leverage their position but it is rare that such an arbitrary and arguably frivolous designation is actually carried out. However, that is precisely what occurred and the state was thusly incorporated into the lawsuit by the defendants. The basis of the defendant's argument was that the state erected a large street sign that obstructed the truck driver's view of approaching traffic.
Several months of intense litigation were required to before the defendant finally acquiesced in regard to this argument. The argument was finally abandoned by the defendants when in the first mediation our attorneys presented video footage shot (in a controlled setting) from the perspective of an 18-wheeler driver which showed that the sign simply did not obstruct enough of the roadway in order to be a hazard. The case was ultimately resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
Confidential
$60,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries & Chiropractic Treatment)
Recovered for client who was rear-ended by an 18-wheeler resulting in soft tissue injuries and chiropractic treatment.
Recovered for client who was rear-ended by an 18-wheeler resulting in soft tissue injuries and chiropractic treatment.
Total Recovery:
$60,000.00
$60,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$1,050.00
$1,050.00
$1,000,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) A husband and father of three was killed when the driver of an 18-wheeler veered into oncoming traffic, striking the young man's vehicle and several others. The defendant was employed by a small construction company that operated only a single 18-wheeler. As such, the defendants were largely underinsured and were not financially solvent.
Furthermore, the defendants had an eroding insurance policy and numerous other parties were intent upon filing claims of their own since the 18-wheeler struck multiple other vehicles. This created the need for an aggressive and rapid response before the other claimants could erode the policy.
Defense counsel made it clear that they wished to litigate the case despite the insurmountable liability arguments that our attorneys presented. They intended to designate a third party as a responsible defendant since the accident happened in a construction zone, even though it was abundantly clear that the construction zone played no role in the crash.
Additonally, the defendants made it clear that they wished to downplay the extent of the damages by virtue of a character assasination on the decedent. Fortunately for our clients, our firm has successfully litigated against the defendant's insurer in nearly a dozen cases, so the carrier was quite aware of our courtroom capabilities. We presented a sample lawsuit to the defendant's insurance carrier and informed them that the lawsuit was to be filed the moment that they refused to settle.
Additionally, our attorneys submitted a Stowers' Demand with a brief window of time for the defendants to respond. We made it abundantly clear that we intended to seek punitive damages and that we would assert the full limits of the carrier's exposure under the Stowers' Demand should the carrier not offer policy limits.
The defendant's attorney adamantly persuaded the carrier to litigate, however, our attorney's threats of litigation, past track record, and incredibly aggressive pre-litigation actions convinced the insurance carrier to disregard their own attorney's advice and to settle the case, lest they face our attorneys in court.
Had our clients been represented by virtually any other firm who did not have our specific track record or who would have not recognized that this case required special and immediate attention coupled with an abnormally aggressive stance, the client's would have certainly been tied up in litigation for years, with the limited supply of funds rapidly depleting since the other claimants who did not need to litigate would have essentially had right of first refusal.
(policy limits) A husband and father of three was killed when the driver of an 18-wheeler veered into oncoming traffic, striking the young man's vehicle and several others. The defendant was employed by a small construction company that operated only a single 18-wheeler. As such, the defendants were largely underinsured and were not financially solvent.
Furthermore, the defendants had an eroding insurance policy and numerous other parties were intent upon filing claims of their own since the 18-wheeler struck multiple other vehicles. This created the need for an aggressive and rapid response before the other claimants could erode the policy.
Defense counsel made it clear that they wished to litigate the case despite the insurmountable liability arguments that our attorneys presented. They intended to designate a third party as a responsible defendant since the accident happened in a construction zone, even though it was abundantly clear that the construction zone played no role in the crash.
Additonally, the defendants made it clear that they wished to downplay the extent of the damages by virtue of a character assasination on the decedent. Fortunately for our clients, our firm has successfully litigated against the defendant's insurer in nearly a dozen cases, so the carrier was quite aware of our courtroom capabilities. We presented a sample lawsuit to the defendant's insurance carrier and informed them that the lawsuit was to be filed the moment that they refused to settle.
Additionally, our attorneys submitted a Stowers' Demand with a brief window of time for the defendants to respond. We made it abundantly clear that we intended to seek punitive damages and that we would assert the full limits of the carrier's exposure under the Stowers' Demand should the carrier not offer policy limits.
The defendant's attorney adamantly persuaded the carrier to litigate, however, our attorney's threats of litigation, past track record, and incredibly aggressive pre-litigation actions convinced the insurance carrier to disregard their own attorney's advice and to settle the case, lest they face our attorneys in court.
Had our clients been represented by virtually any other firm who did not have our specific track record or who would have not recognized that this case required special and immediate attention coupled with an abnormally aggressive stance, the client's would have certainly been tied up in litigation for years, with the limited supply of funds rapidly depleting since the other claimants who did not need to litigate would have essentially had right of first refusal.
Total Recovery:
$1,000,000.00
$1,000,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$333,333.00
$333,333.00
Litigation Expenses:
$0
$0
$102,500.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Both Legs Broken)
Recovery for client who suffered injuries to both legs in a truck accident.
Recovery for client who suffered injuries to both legs in a truck accident.
Total Recovery:
$102,500.00
$102,500.00
Attorney Fees:
$40,833.00
$40,833.00
Litigation Expenses:
$19,984.00
$19,984.00
$75,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries)
Recovery for worker who suffered soft tissue injuries when his fork lift was struck by a delivery truck.
Recovery for worker who suffered soft tissue injuries when his fork lift was struck by a delivery truck.
Total Recovery:
$75,000.00
$75,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$350.00
$350.00