Settlements and Verdicts

Our attorneys recovered $4,000,000.00 for a man who as injured in an accident between a commercial vehicle and a motorcycle. The victim sustained serious bodily injuries and a head injury.

A factory worker lost a leg in an accident with a piece of heavy machinery. Our firm sued the company and recovered $2,500,000 for our client

Facility sued for negligent contribution to the death of an innocent bystander. A fatal shooting occurred on the property after the facility failed to appropriately respond to outbursts of violence & gang activity. Following the young man's death, his parents hired our firm to pursue the facility for their negligent actions including failure to provide adequate security. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.

Following a fatal 18-wheeler accident, the family of a deceased woman hired Grossman Law Offices to investigate the matter and report our findings.

Following a fatal 18-wheeler accident, the family of a deceased woman hired Grossman Law Offices to investigate the matter and report our findings. The family initially knew very little about what happened in the accident, only that the mother of the family was killed and that there was an 18-wheeler involved. Our attorneys mobilized immediately upon being hired, and, along with our accident reconstructionist, conducted a thorough analysis of the scene. Early in the case, it became apparent what had happened: The driver of an 18-wheeler made an abrupt lane change, forcing our client's car into the grass median of the interstate. Once the vehicle drove into the grass, traction was lost, causing the car to swerve back onto the highway wherein the vehicle then struck a parked 18-wheeler. It was obvious that our clients had a case, and they instructed us to move forward with a wrongful death suit. However, what was less clear is which trucking company was primarily responsible. On one hand, it could be argued that the initial 18-wheeler set the whole chain of events into motion when that driver made an illegal lane change. On the other hand, the second 18-wheeler was illegally parked in an emergency lane, in violation of federal statute, and it could easily be said that if he had not been parked there, the victim would have lived since the car would have just been able to come to a stop on the road's shoulder. Naturally, this fact pattern created an opportunity for the two trucking companies to point the finger at one another. Our attorneys aggressively litigated the case, never allowing either defendant to escape responsibility for their contribution to the accident. Further, it would be a monumental understatement to suggest that this case took a lot of effort to successfully resolve. Our attorneys took the depositions of dozens of people involved, travelling to several different states in the process. Further, we invested many hundreds of hours of man power into the case. Our philosophy was simple: if we allow the defendants a moment to catch their breath, they will treat the case as less of a priority. So, from the very beginning until the the case was resolved, we made sure that no time passed from one milestone to the next. Eventually, the defendants relented and the case was resolved on the courthouse steps. From start to finish, a case that ordinarily would take most firms years to litigated, was resolved in 13 months, due entirely to our attorneys' diligence.

Our attorneys were hired to pursue a wrongful death truck accident case following a fatal wreck in West Texas. This case was certainly important to our firm, the same as any other wrongful death case, but it took on a new level of significance because of the horrific injustice that almost occurred thanks to a botched police investigation. As we ultimately learned from analyzing the physical evidence and from talking to numerous witnesses who all told the same story, the accident occurred as a large oilfield truck entered I-20, immediately cutting across multiple lanes and into the "fast lane," wherein this truck forced a small passenger car off of the roadway and into oncoming traffic, causing a fatal head-on collision. As if that was not bad enough, the truck driver then fled the scene. However, the police report told a completely different (and utterly inaccurate) story. Essentially, the police made it sound like the deceased passenger car driver (our clients' father) just arbitrarily left the roadway and crashed into the other vehicle, killing himself in the process. The family thought that did not sound right, and they brought us into the case soon after the accident, which proved to be one of the most important decisions they ever made. Since we were able to conduct a thorough investigation while the evidence was still available, we were able to identify that the police figured the accident all wrong. Our research soon led us to eye witnesses to the accident. Said witnesses, an entire family sharing a minivan, all saw the same thing. They explained how the driver of the commercial vehicle ran the other car off the road and then fled, but they also explained how they pursued the commercial truck driver and took down his license plate information. Once the driver realized they were following them, he tried to run them too off the road. These witnesses then helped us identify other witnesses who were at the scene, and as more and more good Samaritans came forward, we were able to completely dispel the "official" version of what happened in the accident. Nevertheless, since the police report ultimately showed an inaccurate fact pattern, the defendants were emboldened, and they denied liability in the case for many months. Eventually, we uncovered evidence that showed that the truck driver A) had worked nearly 80 hours in five days, B) was likely on drugs at the time of the accident, C) had attempted to tamper with witness testimony, and D) that he likely conspired with his employer to cover his tracks. Once we got this evidence under the spotlight, the defendants accepted responsibility, and the case was resolved soon thereafter.

Our firm was hired after a woman lost her husband of 10 years, due to the carelessness of a truck driver. Our client's husband, a truck driver himself, was killed when the driver of a different tractor trailer failed to yield the right of way and cut him off, forcing the decedent to collide into the trailer of the other rig. Our client was absolutely devastated by the loss of her husband. She not only suffered severe emotional distress, she also endured financial upheaval, because her husband was the sole breadwinner. Despite being entirely in the wrong, the defendants tried to invoke several "novel" defense theories to downplay their liability. Our attorneys were able to defeat these arguments, early on in the case, and the defedants were left with only one viable argument: the victim was not wearing his seatbelt. This was a fallacious argument for two reasons; One, the damage to the victim's tractor was so severe that no one could conclusively determine whether he was wearing his seatbelt or not; Second, because of the severity of the impact, wearing a seatbelt would have made no difference. In order to refute this argument, we took a two-pronged approach. We hired a medical doctor who provided an opinion to dispell the myth that the decent woudl have survived had he being wearing his seatbelt. And more importantly, we filed the case in a venue where evidence about seatbelt usage was inadmissable. After a few rounds of depositions that did not go well for the defendants, they came to the table and offered to mediate. The case was settled at mediation. Prior to his passing, the decedent worked very hard to provide for his family, so that his wife did not have to work, and would be able to pursue her dream of a college education. Resolving this case favorably helped our client see this dream come true.

We were hired by the family of a young man who suffered a life-altering traumatic brain injury due to a car wreck. The incident occurred after the young man left a bar where he had been over-served. The defendants took the position that there was no proof that he was obviously intoxicated at the time that they served him. After a protracted legal battle, we were able to obtain video footage which showed the young man on the premises in an intoxicated state. The defendants then argued that the volume of alcohol they sold him was insignificant. We successfully argued that the law does not hold them liable when they serve too much alcohol. Rather, it holds them liable when they serve any amount of alcohol to someone whom they can tell is obviously intoxicated, irrespective of where the alcohol came from. The court agreed with our interpretation, and the matter was resolved soon thereafter.

We were hired by a motorcyclist who suffered a serious brain injury after he was involved in a crash with an 18-wheeler. Despite a police investigation that put the commercial truck driver squarely at fault, the truck driver and his attorneys denied that he did anything wrong. They went so far as to insist that the police investigation was completely incorrect and that motorcyclist caused his own injuries. We hired one of the nation's leading accident reconstructionists to get to the bottom of what really happened. The expert concurred with the police investigation and after some tense negotiations, the case was resolved to our client's satisfaction.

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.

(policy limits) Our firm was hired to pursue an intoxicated driver who killed an elderly school crossing guard. The fatal accident occurred as the decedent was escorting a woman and her child across the roadway through a crosswalk. The defendant then sped through the school zone, in an intoxicated a state, and struck the decedent who died on the scene.

The family hired our firm to investigate and pursue the defendant under a wrongful death cause of action. Following our investigation and preliminary vehicle inspection, our attorneys issued a Stowers demand to the defendants. A significant factor in resolving this claim is that merely days before we submitted our demand to the defendant' insurance carrier, we won a large case against the very same insurance carrier, which was one of several such victories secured against the carrier in our firm's history. Our threats of litigation were therefore heeded and the defendants offered policy limits to settle the claim without the need to file suit.

Our firm was contacted by an out-of-state attorney who represented the family of a Georgia man who was killed while in Texas. The lawyer explained that the man lost his life in an 18-wheeler accident, and the family had tasked the lawyer with finding a firm in Texas to represent them. After extensive research, the attorney selected our firm.

Now, there was a major problem with the case: the police report put the victim 100% at fault for the wreck. The police claimed that he was speeding, weaving in and out of traffic, and ultimately killed himself when he ran his motorcycle into the back of an 18-wheeler. The referring attorney explained that the family didn't believe that the decedent would be so reckless and that something must be wrong with the police report. We explained to the referring attorney that we would be glad to look into it, but we would drop the matter if the evidence corroborated the police report, since we're not in the business of pursuing frivolous cases. He understood and agreed.

We soon began to suspect that the police report was wrong. We spoke to the witnesses whom the police report claimed had seen the decedent riding his motorcycle recklessly. They all said that the police misquoted them or flat-out made up what was in the report. Case in point, one gentleman, himself a tractor trailer driver, was quoted in the police report as saying that the victim sped by at twice the speed limit. The witness said that was all wrong. What he actually told the police, he insisted, was that the witness passed going twice as fast as he (the witness) was, only the witness was driving a heavy vehicle and was therefore only going about half the speed limit. So, the motorcyclist wasn't going fast, the witness was going slow.

We continued to get testimony from other witnesses, and they all said the same thing: the investigating officer misquoted them. We soon learned that the officer who made the report wasn't actually the one who spoke to the witnesses. He sent a rookie officers to get statements from the witnesses and then relied on the rookie's notes to make his report. Something got lost in translation, apparently. To his credit, when we deposed the officer and presented him with our findings, he was honorable, admitted his mistake, and changed his official position.

But this still left one problem unsolved. Even if the motorcyclist wasn't speeding or riding recklessly, he still crashed into the back of an 18-wheeler, so how would that be anyone's fault but his own. Unfortunately for the trucking company, the 18-wheeler involved in the wreck had a sophisticated GPS device installed, and we were able to use the authority of the court to obtain the device's data. This particular GPS hardware would record the truck's position once every ten seconds and then store it internally. Armed with this GPS data, we were able to map out the truck driver's path.

As it turned out, the truck driver had lied under oath about how the accident happened. He claimed that he drove down a long road that connected a sporting goods store's parking lot to a highway access road, came to a stop at the end of the road for several seconds, and then slowly turned onto a lane that soon merged into the flow of traffic. Then, all of a sudden, the motorcyclist hit him from behind. The GPS data showed that this was all a lie. What actually happened is that he came flying down the connecting road, blew through the stop sign, and then turned immediately into traffic, not into the lane that merged with traffic.

In short, he cut the motorcyclist off, and the motorcyclist couldn't avoid hitting the 18-wheeler.

The trucking company's accident reconstructionist originally defended the truck driver's story. But when we showed him the GPS data and how it showed a ping which located the truck about 200 feet from the intersection and then pinged again (ten seconds later) at the point of impact, the trucking company's own expert was forced to agree that there's no way the truck driver would've had time to cover that distance and come to a stop in ten seconds, meaning he must have ran the stop sign.

The trucking company soon settled with our clients. While this was not the biggest case we've ever had, it demonstrates what our attorneys are capable of. Unquestionably, most attorneys would have given up as soon as they saw a police report that was problematic. But we followed the evidence and were ultimately able to help our clients obtain fair compensation for their loss.

In this case, we represented 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 by 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.
Through the course of our investigation, it was soon determined that the head-on collision was caused by 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.

This case involved a fatal drunken driving accident after an intoxicated bar patron crashed his vehicle, resulting in the death of a passenger.

An elderly man was killed when a criminally negligent truck driver rear ended his vehicle as the man yielded the right of way to other traffic. Throughout the course of litigation the defendants fought to deny liability. Through our diligent investigative efforts we unearthed damning evidence and mounted an aggressive litigation strategy. Arguments were so persuasive that by the conclusion of litigation the defendant's attorneys acquiesced wholly with regard to liability.

A worker suffered a catastrophic injury at his workplace. The employer did not participate in workers' compensation. We represented the injured worker and resolved the case for an undisclosed amount.

We were hired to represent the family of a man who was killed in an accident after he was grossly over served at a DFW-area bar. The bar served the decedent to the point that he was dangerously intoxicated. The evidence showed that they knew he was incredibly drunk, yet continued to serve him, a clear violation of Texas liquor liability laws. Soon after leaving the bar, the decedent was involved in a rollover accident. He climbed out of the vehicle and was struck by another motorist. The family hired another law firm, who recognized that there may be a dram shop case, yet they had no first-hand experience pursuing such cases. They knew of our firm's reputation and referred the case to us, after other attorneys had told them that a case like this was unwinnable. We were able to prove otherwise and are now that firm's go-to source for any dram shop cases that come their way.

The family of a deceased woman hired our firm following a fatal 18-wheeler accident. The accident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered out of his lane, resulting in a massive collision. The decedent, a passenger in a vehicle, died on the scene. Her adult children consulted our firm to initially investigate the accident and make sense of the facts and circumstances surrounding the wreck, since the family felt that the police report did not make clear precisely what occurred.

We launched a full investigation and immediately deposed the investigating officers. Upon the completion of our investigation, it was apparent that the trucking company was indeed negligent and a lawsuit was soon filed. The defendant's mounted an aggressive defense whereby they initially claimed that the truck driver was overcome by his passenger whom they alleged grabbed the steering wheel and deliberately drove the truck off the road, despite the truck driver's best efforts. We refuted this claim by illustrating that the tire marks that were present clearly showed that the truck gradually moved across the roadway and eventually onto the grass, which is entirely inconsistent with an abrupt lane change caused by someone taking control of the wheel. It was quite an unusual defense strategy, and, frankly, we were a little surprised that a defendant would make such an absurd claim.

The defendants then argued that a tire blowout may have contributed to the accident, which is significant because it would enable the defendant to offset some portion of their liability to the tire manufacturer or installer. The problem we faced was that the salvage yard who towed the truck destroyed the wreckage before we were hired in the case. If the truck still existed, it would have been easy for us to examine the tires and make a conclusive determination. But since the truck no longer existed, this provided the defendants with a perfect scapegoat defense. However, through deposition testimony of the investigating officer, we established that there was absolutely no indication at the scene of the accident that a tire had blown out, severely weakening their ability to argue this defense.

Finally, the defendants argued that the company which loaded the trailer may have done so inappropriately. This argument was more plausible than the others considering that the precise cause of the decedent's death was that she was essentially pummeled by cargo that broke through trailer and struck her person. Our firm consulted several experts in the fields of heavy cargo transportation and physics. Our experts felt that the cargo was secured in a manner that is perfectly consistent with industry standards, and that, due to the forces involved, the cargo would not have behaved any differently irrespective of how it was secured. In short, the collision caused the cargo to break free and the negligence lay squarely on the trucking company and not any other entity. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.

Our firm was hired by a man who suffered a serious brain injury after a fall on the job. Our attorneys were able to successfully prove that the person directing the employee's activities had instructed him to use a dangerous and unstable ladder instead of an interior stairwell to access the roof. Because of this decision, the victim used the ladder which slipped out from under him, resulting in a 20+ foot fall and subsequent serious injuries. The money recovered was able to help the injured man provide for his family.

This case involved a gentleman who was killed when he was struck by a drunk driver, while standing on the side of the road. Earlier in the evening, a pair of habitual drinkers visited their favorite restaurant. They were regular customers of this establishment and tipped well, so the servers bent the rules for them on a regular basis. The drinkers' M.O. was to patronize this establishment on a weekend, drink to excess, and then sleep it off in the hotel next door. The servers felt liberated to these customers an obscene amount of alcohol, because they believed they would always go straight from the restaurant to the hotel. On the night in question, the drunken customers decided instead to go home. The victim of the accident was helping his college-aged daughter put gas in her stranded vehicle on the side of the highway. Though he was safely off the roadway, he was struck anyhow, because the drunken driver was so intoxicated that he got target fixation and veered directly into the parked car. The victim's daughter witnessed his demise. The victim left behind his wife of 20+ years and 3 children. The family hired an attorney who was a family friend. Said attorney was able to help them recover monies from the defedent's auto liability policy, but felt uncomfortable pursuing a case against the restaurant. The attorney then encouraged his clients to hire us. We were able to take the ball and run with it. This was a hard-fought case, wherein the defendents insisted that their practice of serving special customers to such an extreme degree that they were falling down drunk was an acceptable way for a bar to operate, if they were pretty sure that the customer wouldn't drive a car. Of course, that is not how Texas law works. After appromixately a year of litigation, we were able to successfully resolve the case for our clients.

An oilfield worker was driving into work out in West Texas. There was a light fog and it was just before dawn. Without warning, this gentleman struck the trailer of a truck that had blocked the entire highway, while making a left-hand turn. Our client suffered catastrophic facial fractures, a traumatic brain injury, and ended up in a coma. After numerous life-saving surgeries, the gentleman's family and children came to see him at the hospital. His younger children refused to him their father, because his injuries scared them so badly. The family reached out to our attorneys and quickly hired us to hold the trucking company accountable. Despite the defendant's obvious fault, they were determined to put up a fight and avoid responsibility. First, they alleged that the victim had been speeding, and that that's what had really caused the crash. We were able to prove this was not the case, because the speedometer had frozen at the time of the crash and showed that our client was traveling below the speed limit. When this failed, they alleged that the client wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Our attorneys reached out the to EMS technicians who responded to the crash, who testified that they had to cut our clients seatbelt in order to get him our of the car and treat him. Another defense was rebutted. When it came time to go on offense, we were able to come up with damning evidence of the trucking company's negligence. When we interviewed the company's safety compliance officer, who was in jail on a DUI conviction, we determined that the truck driver in the crash wasn't properly evaluated during the hiring process. Most importantly, an examination of the driver's vehicle showed that the high-visibility tape on the truck's trailer was caked in mud and could not be seen. This is the very piece of safety equipment that is supposed to prevent these kinds of crashes, and it wasn't there. Confronted with this evidence and some depositions that didn't go well for their side, the trucking company saw the writing on the wall and settled the case.

Our firm was contacted by the parents of a young man who had suffered a serious brain injury after a slip and fall due to intoxication. We learned that the victim had gone to a bar where he had been served despite being obviously intoxicated. The night in question was a holiday, so the bar essentially bent the rules and was serving customers when they knew they should cut them off.

The victim's mother worked in the insurance industry and understood the challenge of winning such a case. So, she conducted extensive research and learned of our firm's track record in pursuing first-party dram shop cases. We were ultimately able to recover the money necessary to help her injured son.

Plaintiff alleged that an insurance carrier unfairly denied a claim, resulting from a non-fatal fire in an airplane.

Our attorneys satisfactorily resolved the claim without the need for litigation.

We represented the husband of a woman who was killed in an 18-wheeler accident. The wreck occurred when the truck driver was speeding around a corner, lost control, and drove into oncoming traffic. The defendants initially tried to blame the accident on the weather, then on the truck's tires, then on the victim's supposed failure to take evasive manuevers. We performed an accident reconstruction and were able to demonstrate that the victim could not possibly have done more to avoid the accident, that the truck's tires were within spec, and that he could have safely executed the turn, even in the rain, if he had driven his vehicle at a safe speed. The defendants soon asked to mediate the case and the case was successfully resolved.

Our firm was hired by a delivery driver who was involved in a head-on collision, causing him to suffer a closed that resulted in the permanent loss of smell. 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 and the case was resolved through litigation.

(policy limits) Recovery for a child who suffered an in-utero brain injury as a result of a rollover car accident.

(policy limits) Our firm was hired by the wife and children of a retired Army Colonel who was killed in an under-ride 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 before the defendant finally abandoned 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 to be a hazard. The case was ultimately resolved through litigation.

A young worker was negligently trained to operate a piece of machinery. During a routine cleaning procedure, he suffered a serious hand injury consisting of numerous deep lacerations across his palm. The defendants claimed that he was a contract laborer and therefore owed no significant legal duty. Through litigation, our attorneys showed evidence to establish an employer-employee relationship thereby creating a non-subscriber work injury cause of action. The case was resolved through litigation.

A $1,000,000.00 dram shop case that involved a victim who died of alcohol poisoning. At first, the defendant denied any wrong-doing, but our attorneys were able to demonstrate that they had served the patron so much that the patient died of alcohol poisoning. Once that was established, the bar saw the writing on the wall and quickly settled the case.

(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) 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 (the type where the defendant's own attorney's fees and other claims eat away at the available funds to the accident's major victims) 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 (blame someone else for the accident) since the accident happened in a construction zone, even though it was abundantly clear that the construction zone played no role in the crash. Additionally, the defendants made it clear that they wished to downplay the extent of the damages by virtue of a character assassination on the decedent. Even though he had no fault in the accident at all, they intended to call into question his past.

Fortunately for our clients, our firm has successfully litigated against the defendant's insurer in nearly a dozen other 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 fail to offer policy limits.

The defendant's attorney adamantly persuaded them 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 clients 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.

Plaintiff suffered a back injury necessitating spinal fusion surgery when her car was rear-ended by an 18-wheeler. The defendants argued that the accident was unavoidable, thus denying liability. Suit was filed in response to the denial, and the case was satisfactorily resolved after a year of litigation.

Grossman Law Offices was hired to represent the surviving family members of a man who died in a drunk driving crash. Our investigation uncovered that a local bar served the intoxicated driver in the crash at least 8 drinks in a single hour, leaving him more than two and a half times the legal limit. While driving home, this patron was behind the wheel in a crash, which led to the death of our clients' loved one, a father of two small children. Our team was able to recover insurance policy limits from a bar, which had no other assets.

We represented the family of a young man who was out drinking with a friend at a bar. Both the man and his friend were over-served to a shocking degree. Shortly after leaving the bar, the friend crashed the car that they were both riding in, killing the young man. After tracking down the bar, they attempted to defend themselves by placing all the blame for the incident on one of their servers. Our attorneys were able to show that the bar had a culture of unsafe alcohol service. The case was eventually resolved to the satisfaction of the surviving family members.

Plaintiff was stopped in traffic when his 18-wheeler was rear-ended by another truck driver. The plaintiff retained the services of another law firm who ended up dropping the case, because they didn't believe the plaintiff's injuries were serious enough to justify pursuing a truck accident claim. The client knew his injuries were serious and contacted us for help. After arranging further medical treatment, it was determined the the client needed to have a major back surgery to alleviate his symptoms. Not only did our attorneys arrange for the client to have the surgery he needed, but we also obtained a $750,000.00 settlement on the courthouse steps, right before trial was set to begin.

We represented the family of a young man who was killed by an intoxicated wrong-way driver. The intoxicated driver who caused the crash had been drinking at a local bar prior to the wreck. The bar egregiously overserved the patron, to the point that later the man didn't even realize he was driving the wrong way on a major highway. We were able to hold the offending bar responsible for their role in the incident.

A loading dock employee suffered a fractured pelvis 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.

Grossman Law Offices was hired to pursue a wrongful death claim against a trucking company following a fatal 18-wheeler accident. The trucker had exited a parking lot without yielding, and the victim was killed when he ran into the tractor trailer.