Arizona Jury Trial for UIM Bad Faith Claim Concludes
One driver brought an action against another motorist after a collision. The driver then filed a claim for underinsured motorist benefits, alleging the collision caused depression and that their damages exceeded the other driver's limits. The insurance company refused to pay, and the driver alleged breach of contract and bad faith for failure to conduct an adequate investigation. The defense argued that the depression was not related to the accident or was exaggerated.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Defense
- Amount
- $38,000
- County
- Maricopa County, AZ
- Resolved
- 2001
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Psychological / PTSD
- Accident Type
- Other
- Case Type
- Depression
Settlement Context
This verdict-defense of $38,000 is near the median of $38,000 for psychological / ptsd cases resolved by verdict-defense. The typical range is Undisclosed to $150,478, based on 4 cases in our database.
Case Overview
An automobile collision led to an initial judgment of $38,000 for the plaintiff against the at-fault motorist. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a claim for Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UIM) benefits with their insurer, the defendant, asserting the collision caused depression and that overall damages exceeded the primary judgment. The defendant refused to pay the UIM claim.
The plaintiff then initiated a lawsuit alleging breach of contract and bad faith, specifically citing the insurer's failure to perform an adequate investigation. The plaintiff contended that the accident directly caused their depression, while the defendant argued that the depression was either unrelated to the collision or had been exaggerated. Both parties presented testimony from medical experts specializing in psychiatry, neuropsychology, internal medicine, and physical rehabilitation. The plaintiff also called an insurance expert.
The case proceeded to a five-day jury trial in Arizona, where jurors deliberated for 1.5 hours. The record did not specify the jury's verdict or the final judgment in the case.
Understanding This Case
- This case went to trial and resulted in a jury verdict. Verdicts can yield higher awards but carry the risk of receiving nothing if the jury rules against the plaintiff.
- This case was resolved in Maricopa County, Arizona. Local jury tendencies, judge assignments, and regional economic conditions all influence case outcomes in this jurisdiction.
- Resolved in 2001, this case reflects the legal and economic conditions of that period, including medical costs, insurance practices, and jury award trends at the time.
VerdictlyTM Score
This outcome is within expected ranges
This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.
Curious about your case value?
Get a free case evaluation to understand what your motor vehicle accident case might be worth based on cases like this in Maricopa County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
A plaintiff alleged bilateral rotator cuff injuries resulted from paramedics' forceful removal of the plaintiff from a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants, presumably alleging negligence in the plaintiff's care. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in September 2006, concluding the case in favor of the defense.
The employer, Star*Tel Systems, appealed a decision by an administrative law judge in Kentucky. The judge had previously determined that an employee sustained a permanent and total disability following a work-related motor vehicle accident. The appeal challenged the judge's opinion, order, and award.
A collision occurred on September 20, 2012, on Kentucky Avenue near Floyd Street in Louisville. The plaintiff, then age 41, was making a right turn when the defendant pulled from a space to the plaintiff's right, resulting in the crash. The plaintiff sustained a rotator cuff injury that required surgical repair. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, alleging the defendant negligently pulled from a parking lane into the plaintiff's path. The plaintiff sought $3,917 for past medical expenses, up to $15,000 for future medicals, and $120,000 for pain and suffering. The defendant denied liability, arguing she was in a turn lane, not a parking lane. An independent medical examiner for the defense also linked the plaintiff's shoulder issues to pre-existing degenerative conditions. Following a trial, a jury found in favor of the defendant on the issue of liability. A defense judgment was subsequently entered, and the plaintiff received no damages.
A personal injury case arose from an auto accident. The plaintiff retained an expert in economics to assess damages. The defendant presented experts in emergency medicine, biomechanics, and accident reconstruction, suggesting disputes over the nature or cause of injuries. An occupational therapy expert also participated in the case. The matter proceeded to a trial, which concluded on December 9, 2016. Details regarding the verdict or any award were not specified in the record.
A vehicle collision occurred in May 2008 on Stony Brook when a teenager, pulling from a private drive, struck a childcare worker's vehicle. The childcare worker sustained soft-tissue neck pain and was transported to the emergency room. Liability for the collision was later established by summary judgment. The injured worker subsequently filed a lawsuit in Louisville, seeking damages for medical bills, lost wages, impairment, and pain and suffering. The plaintiff's case was complicated by involvement in a second crash a month later, though injuries were distinguished. The defendant disputed the claimed injuries, citing credibility, lack of objective proof, and a "threshold" defense. The jury found the plaintiff met the medical expense threshold but did not sustain a permanent injury. Ultimately, the jury awarded the plaintiff $8,184 for medical expenses but $0 for lost wages, impairment, and pain and suffering, resulting in a total verdict of $8,184. A judgment consistent with this verdict was entered. The plaintiff later moved for a new trial, arguing the verdict was inadequate. The defendant countered, citing credibility issues. The motion was pending as of June 2016.
Explore More Cases Like This
Browse similar cases by injury type and location to get a better understanding of case values in your area.