I didn't know what to expect because I had never been in an accident like this before--actually, I was trying to work the case myself and it wasn't going so well. Fortunately, I talked to Mike and he was able help me out. He did an outstanding job.
-
J. D. Dodd
Commercial Vehicle Accident
Deceptive Insurance Company Tactics
Can I Trust the Other Guys' Insurance Adjuster? Attorney Michael Grossman Discusses
In my line of work, I hear many shocking stories about the unscrupulous methods employed by insurance companies involved in trucking accident cases, but few have had quite the impact as a story I heard from a mother of 3 named Jackie R.
Jackie contacted my firm, not to seek legal counsel or to file a lawsuit, rather, to share her story as an exposé, of sorts, in order to shed some light on the deceptive practices used by some insurance companies.
Not too long ago, Jackie’s husband Joe was killed in a trucking accident while was changing a tire on the side of the highway. The driver of an 18-wheeler was not paying attention, and he drove off the road, onto the shoulder, and crashed directly into Joe. Needless to say, Joe did not survive.
Before Jackie was even notified that her husband had died, the insurance company that represented the 18-wheeler driver had already sent an investigator and an attorney to the scene of the accident charged with the mission of building a case against Joe.
By the time Jackie was able to pull herself together and make it to the morgue, the insurance company had already realized that they bore the lion’s share of the liability in the case, and they went directly into “damage control” mode with a new mission of paying as little money as possible.
One very appalling method employed, far too often, by the insurance companies is that they will be very aggressive in trying to get the victim’s family members to settle soon after the death. This is the best time for the insurance company because the victim is in an emotionally fragile state; something the adjusters use to their advantage.
Shortly after Jackie arrived at the morgue to view her husband’s remains, an insurance company representative showed up to present a settlement offer. Naturally, Jackie was infuriated. Her brother insisted that the insurance rep leave. After much protest, the insurance rep drove away, only to call again the following day.
Jackie’s brother recommended that she sue the 18-wheeler company but Jackie insisted that she was not “money hungry” and that she was certain that she would be compensated fairly by the trucking company and their insurance carrier. After all, it was their fault. Surely they would take care of her and her children.
For the next couple of weeks, Jackie was bombarded with phone calls at her home, and even at the homes of her relatives, until she finally gave in and agreed to meet with an insurance company rep. Within minutes the insurance company dispatched a female claims adjuster who met Jackie at her sister’s house. Jackie described the adjuster as being very persuasive, and very aggressive. The insurance rep showed up with a settlement package already filled out. She explained that there was no point in hiring an attorney, since “…all a jury would give you anyway is compensation for your husband’s lost wages”, which, not-so-coincidentally, is exactly what the insurance company was prepared to offer (This was an outright lie).
Overwhelmed by the loss of her husband and frightened by the prospect of raising three children without his income and support, Jackie reluctantly agreed to the settlement, equivalent to several years worth of her husband’s salary, but only if she could have an attorney review it.
The insurance rep said, “Hang on a minute.” and within a half hour, an attorney was there to review the paperwork—the only problem was that the attorney worked for the insurance company. He skimmed through the paperwork and told Jackie that everything seemed quite fair to him. He put a pen in her hand and asked her to sign the settlement paperwork. Jackie was suspicious, but she decided to trust the insurance company lawyer and she agreed to a deal that she now realizes was obscenely unfair.
Essentially what happened is the insurance company representative lied to Jackie about the amount of money that she was entitled to. Jackie should not have only been compensated for a few years worth of her husband’s salary, she should have received compensation for all of her other damages. An experienced trucking accident attorney would have likely been able to get her fair settlement to the tune of seven figures or more. Furthermore, the attorney that worked for the insurance company acted entirely unethically in reviewing the settlement documents. Had Jackie realized what he had done, she could have filed a complaint that would have likely gotten him disbarred. The whole situation was completely unfair to Jackie and her children and the insurance company preyed on them in their moment of weakness and uncertainty.
This is one of hundreds of similar stories I have heard in my 20 years of practicing trucking accident cases. Unfortunately, this type of thing happens far too often because innocent people with good intentions make the mistake of trusting the insurance company; an entity that is only interested in their bottom line.
So what happened to Jackie? The insurance company structured the payout in such a way that as Jackie’s children became adults, the vast majority of the money stopped coming in. Now, Jackie receives only $600 per month; hardly a reasonable sum for the loss of her high school sweetheart and the father of her three children.
What happened to the insurance adjuster? Well, it’s a lot easier to climb the corporate ladder when you are the “hero” that just saved your company a few million dollars.
This is a true story as told to us by a real victim. Unfortunately, by the time she contacted us it was too late to help her. She shared this heartbreaking story as a cautionary tale to help others avoid her same fate. If you have lost a loved one in an 18-wheeler accident I strongly urge you to hire an experienced attorney who can make certain that responsible parties are held accountable.
Why you should not represent yourself
How mediation works in personal injury
A delivery driver hired our firm to pursue a negligent trucking company following a collision with insecure cargo. Our client was driving his work vehicle when numerous large metal pipes fell from the back of a flatbed trailer onto the roadway. Our client took evasive action but was unable to avoid the debris, which resulted in a fairly severe accident. As a result, our client sustained lower back injuries including two herniated discs which required surgery to correct. The defendants conceded liability early on but would not make a reasonable settlement offer. As such, suit was filed and the case was ultimately successfully resolved through litigation.
$300,000.00
$120,000.00
$1,500.00
Recovery for client who suffered soft tissue back injuries when he was rear ended by a delivery truck.
$75,000.00
$25,000.00
$100.00
Recovery for client who suffered nerve damage and required steroid injections as a result of a car accident.
$150,000.00
$50,000.00
$4,800.00
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.
$335,000.00
$134,000.00
$63,000.00
Our client was injured in a motor vehicle accident when an employer driving a company vehicle failed to yield the right of way and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant's employer was sued for negligence soon thereafter. The defendants alleged that the company should not be held liable for the actions of the employee.
They claimed that the employee was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Through discovery, our attorneys learned that the defendants had a policy, both written and implied, whereby employees of the company were allowed to drive work vehicles after hours.
Furthermore, our attorneys argued case law that expanded the definition of course and scope which showed that the defendant was indeed "on the clock" when the accident occurred.
As a result, the defendants conceded liability and turned their defenses toward the alleged damages. They claimed that our client had a preexisting condition that was responsible for her current state.
We deposed the emergency room physician who assessed the client and recommended surgery regarding the medical necessity of the surgical procedure and the proximate cause of the plaintiff's condition. He testimony unequivocally defeated these arguments. The case was satisfactorily resolved through litigation.
$210,000.00
$70,110.00
$3,787.00
Plaintiff, a delivery driver, suffered a back injury resulting in spinal fusion surgery when he was injured in an accident involving falling cargo from an 18-wheeler. The defendants cited the plaintiff's failure to take evasive action as a source of contributory negligence and litigation commenced accordingly which culminated in an acceptance of liability and eventually satisfactory resolution.
$530,000.00
$210,000.00
$5,000.00
Recovered for car accident victim who suffered a closed head injury.
$200,000.00
$66,666.00
$1,500.00
(policy limits) A young mother was killed in an accident involving two commercial vehicles, one an 18-wheeler. The accident occurred as the young woman was a passenger in a vehicle that was traveling down a highway in the early morning hours. Without warning, the vehicle in which she was a passenger collided with a stalled 18-wheeler that parked in the right of way, resulting in catastrophic injuries that claimed the young woman's life soon thereafter.
The authorities initially faulted the driver of the vehicle in which the victim was a passenger, stating that he was using an electronic device rather than paying full attention to the roadway. However, the 18-wheeler was indeed blocking the roadway and plaintiff alleged that the vehicle did not follow the requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act in regard to providing adequate reflective or laminated warning at specific intervals. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to remove his vehicle from the roadway when he first noticed signs of mechanical failure.
Had he simply moved to the shoulder of the road, plaintiffs argued, his lack of adequate warning signs would have been inconsequential. An initial settlement has been obtained in this case, yet litigation has commenced in full against the remaining defendant, and is currently ongoing.
$250,000.00
$78,000.00
$370.00
Recovery for client who suffered injuries to both legs in a truck accident.
$102,500.00
$40,833.00
$19,984.00
A loading dock employee suffered a fractured and damage to internal organs as the result of a crushing injury sustained when an 18-wheeler backed into him and crushed him between the trailer and loading dock.
$700,000.00
$175,000.00
$1,084.00