I was involved in a serious personal injury accident. Mr. Grossman's experience and aggressiveness in handling my case resulted in a great settlement!
-
E. McClure
Commercial Vehicle Accident Case
Wrongful Death Claim Procedure
How do I File a Wrongful Death Lawsuit or Claim? Our Dallas Texas Attorneys Explain
When someone dies because of someone else's negligence, attorneys for that person’s survivors usually file a claim on their behalf. But if the insurance company resists, it can evolve into legal action.
Whether filing a wrongful death claim or taking the next step and filing a lawsuit, the attorneys need to conduct a thorough investigation to determine the cause of death and who is at fault. That is a technical task that requires experienced Dallas wrongful death lawyers like the ones at Grossman Law Offices.
Once the appropriate parties have been identified, the attorneys will have the information they need to get results, either by reaching an agreement out of court or pursuing a favorable jury verdict. Along with providing financial compensation for the family, these cases can have far-reaching consequences, leading to changes in laws or procedures that are designed to prevent anyone else from going through something similar.
Wrongful death cases require the efforts of knowledgeable personal injury attorneys. The lawyers at Grossman Law Offices in Dallas can give you a free consultation, and you won’t be charged unless they win your case. You can reach them at 1-855-326-0000 (toll free).
Related articles:
Questions answered by this article:
What is the process in filing a wrongful death claim?Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
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
$150,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workplace Accident
(policy limits) Recovery of a disputed life insurance policy for the family of a contractor who died on the job.
(policy limits) Recovery of a disputed life insurance policy for the family of a contractor who died on the job.
Total Recovery:
$150,000.00
$150,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$341.00
$341.00
$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
$400,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Medical Malpractice
A young handicapped woman lost her life when a long-term care facility failed to provide her with treatment for obvious symptoms of severe illness. The defendants maintained that there were no outwardly visible signs of illness. The medical evidence showed otherwise. The case was successfully resolved through litigation, though damages caps imposed by tort reform were a factor.
A young handicapped woman lost her life when a long-term care facility failed to provide her with treatment for obvious symptoms of severe illness. The defendants maintained that there were no outwardly visible signs of illness. The medical evidence showed otherwise. The case was successfully resolved through litigation, though damages caps imposed by tort reform were a factor.
Total Recovery:
$400,000.00
$400,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$132,000.00
$132,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$250,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
Our attorneys were hired to investigate a fatal motor vehicle accident involving an 18-wheeler that claimed the lives of several men, the family of one in particular which our firm represented, felt that the official version of events as outlined in the police report was not an accurate portrayal of the facts and circumstances of the collision.
Our firm launched an investigation, the findings of which served as the basis for a subsequent lawsuit. We were able to determine that the defendant's accusations of contributory negligence on behalf of he driver of the vehicle did appear to be valid and plaintiffs conceded as much. However, the plaintiffs were adamant that the contributory negligence did not entirely overshadow the negligence on behalf of the defendant truck driver.
Through physical evidence and an admission of liability that our attorneys were able to importune from the defendant under oath, we were able to show that the defendant had indeed pulled into the path of the decedent's vehicle, which was of consequence irrespective of the decedent's own contributory negligence, and that icontact.com
Our attorneys were hired to investigate a fatal motor vehicle accident involving an 18-wheeler that claimed the lives of several men, the family of one in particular which our firm represented, felt that the official version of events as outlined in the police report was not an accurate portrayal of the facts and circumstances of the collision.
Our firm launched an investigation, the findings of which served as the basis for a subsequent lawsuit. We were able to determine that the defendant's accusations of contributory negligence on behalf of he driver of the vehicle did appear to be valid and plaintiffs conceded as much. However, the plaintiffs were adamant that the contributory negligence did not entirely overshadow the negligence on behalf of the defendant truck driver.
Through physical evidence and an admission of liability that our attorneys were able to importune from the defendant under oath, we were able to show that the defendant had indeed pulled into the path of the decedent's vehicle, which was of consequence irrespective of the decedent's own contributory negligence, and that icontact.com
Total Recovery:
$250,000.00
$250,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$82,500.00
$82,500.00
Litigation Expenses:
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workplace Accident
Major freight train company sued as the result of an incident which claimed the life of an employee. Our attorneys settled the case outside of court for a confidential amount.
Major freight train company sued as the result of an incident which claimed the life of an employee. Our attorneys settled the case outside of court for a confidential amount.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
Confidential
$97,500.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / First-Party Dram Shop Accident
(policy limits were $100k) Recovery for wife of a motorcyclist who was killed in a drunk driving accident.
(policy limits were $100k) Recovery for wife of a motorcyclist who was killed in a drunk driving accident.
Total Recovery:
$97,500.00
$97,500.00
Attorney Fees:
$48,750.00
$48,750.00
Litigation Expenses:
$0.00
$0.00
$95,035.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Automobile Accident
Recovery for the father of a young man who was killed in a car accident.
Recovery for the father of a young man who was killed in a car accident.
Total Recovery:
$95,035.00
$95,035.00
Attorney Fees:
$31,678.00
$31,678.00
Litigation Expenses:
$25.00
$25.00
$3,200,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Automobile Accident
Our attorneys were hired to represent the family of a middle aged woman who was killed in a car accident. The incident occurred as another vehicle struck the car that the decedent was a passenger in, head-on on the passenger side. The impact resulted in catastrophic injuries which claimed the life of the decedent.
Our attorneys were hired soon after the accident and we launched a full investigation. Through the course of our investigation, it was soon determined that the head-on collision was caused a failed component in the defendant's vehicle (the particulars of which cannot be elaborated upon per the resolution agreement). Suit was filed against the manufacturer of said component and litigation commenced. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
Our attorneys were hired to represent the family of a middle aged woman who was killed in a car accident. The incident occurred as another vehicle struck the car that the decedent was a passenger in, head-on on the passenger side. The impact resulted in catastrophic injuries which claimed the life of the decedent.
Our attorneys were hired soon after the accident and we launched a full investigation. Through the course of our investigation, it was soon determined that the head-on collision was caused a failed component in the defendant's vehicle (the particulars of which cannot be elaborated upon per the resolution agreement). Suit was filed against the manufacturer of said component and litigation commenced. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$3,200,000.00
$3,200,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$1,280,000.00
$1,280,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$100,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Medical Malpractice
(policy limits) Recovery for wrongful death/ nursing home negligence which resulted in bed sores which became infected.
(policy limits) Recovery for wrongful death/ nursing home negligence which resulted in bed sores which became infected.
Total Recovery:
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$33,133.00
$33,133.00
Litigation Expenses:
$400.00
$400.00