Pavlin Z. was riding a 50 cc Honda scooter along the curb in San Francisco and suffered a tibial plateau knee fracture when an SUV in the number one lane changed lanes and cut him off. There was no contact between the scooter and the SUV; Pavlin hit the curb trying to avoid being hit by the SUV. The investigating officer faulted the scooter rider entirely. The SUV driver was named only as a witness in the Traffic Collision Report rather than as an involved party. Further, another witness on the Traffic Collision Report was unfavorable to Pavlin. The insurance company denied the claim outright and we filed suit immediately. In Discovery, we established that the witness did not have a clear view of the accident, and while the SUV passenger saw the scooter, the SUV driver did not. The “facts” of the case were effectively reversed with this new information and the case settled 11 days before trial for $1,400,000.
Rick and Kim G’s own insurance company said Rick was at fault because he was “curb-sneaking” on his motorcycle when a vehicle made a left turn in front of him from the opposite direction. The police report also placed the blame for the Motorcycle Accident on Rick’s driving/lane location. However, based upon an analysis of the width of the lane and the mechanics of the impact, our investigation clearly proved this scenario couldn’t be true. The defendant driver hit Rick’s bike on the left side, establishing that that our clients were in the intersection first and absolutely had the right away. The case settled globally for $200,000.
Bennett M had a Motorcycle Accident on a canyon road while attempting to pass another motorist.The Defendant driver claimed that Bennett was passing her on the left at an unsafe speed, just as she was about to turn left. The lead investigating officer agreed and found Bennett at fault. We hired an accident reconstructionist to investigate the accident. He determined that based on Bennett’s skid mark, he was traveling within or just slightly above the speed limit. We also deposed the other 2 officers on the scene who disagreed with the lead officer on the At-Fault Issue. The insurance company’s offer was only $15,000 so we went to binding Arbitration, where we received a favorable verdict of 100k.
Christopher S.’ case was difficult for a couple of reasons. First, there was no police report taken. Second, there were no witnesses except for the biased wife of the driver of the car who hit him. The Defendant driver claimed Christopher was splitting lanes between the car pool and number one lane on the 405 Freeway and ran into him with the left side of his bike. Christopher maintained that he was in the number one lane and that the Defendant changed lanes and ran into him. USAA offered $25,000 but we successfully pushed for a binding arbitration verdict in excess of $300,000.