Verdictly
Settlement
Maricopa County • 2013

Maricopa County UIM Claim Settles After Appeal, Amount Undisclosed

One driver and two passengers were involved in a motor vehicle collision. The driver sustained injuries resulting in medical expenses. The driver sought compensation from the at-fault motorist and later filed a claim with their own insurance company for underinsured motorist benefits. The insurance company denied the claim, stating the driver had rejected this coverage. The case went to court, and after an appeal, the parties settled.

Case Information Updated: October 2025

Back to cases
Other Injury
Other Accident
Motor Vehicle Negligence

Case Outcome

Outcome
Settlement
Amount
$50,000
County
Maricopa County, AZ
Resolved
2013

Injury & Accident Details

Injury Type
Other
Accident Type
Other
Case Type
Motor Vehicle Negligence, Economic Injury

Settlement Context

This settlement of $50,000 is near the median of $15,000 for other cases resolved by settlement. The typical range is $7,752 to $67,500, based on 126 cases in our database.

Case Overview

A vehicle owner, the plaintiff, and two passengers were involved in a motor vehicle collision, after which the plaintiff reported nearly $36,000 in medical expenses for her injuries. The plaintiff received $50,000 from the at-fault motorist. She then filed an underinsured motorist (UIM) benefit claim with her insurer, the defendant. The defendant denied the claim, asserting the plaintiff had previously rejected UIM coverage by signing a form.

The plaintiff subsequently sued the defendant in Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County, on January 14, 2011, contending she was entitled to UIM coverage. The plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing the defendant had not properly offered UIM coverage because the rejection form lacked adequate information to accept or reject the offer, did not include a premium quote, and did not comply with A.R.S. § 20-259.01 or the Arizona Department of Insurance's directive. The defendant filed its own motion for partial summary judgment, maintaining that the statute only required a written offer and did not define what constituted such an offer.

The Superior Court initially granted the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's motion. However, this ruling was later reversed on appeal. The parties subsequently settled the case on September 27, 2013.

Understanding This Case

  • This case was resolved through a settlement, avoiding the uncertainty and expense of a trial. Settlements typically resolve faster and provide guaranteed compensation.
  • This case was resolved in Maricopa County, Texas. Local jury tendencies, judge assignments, and regional economic conditions all influence case outcomes in this jurisdiction.
  • Resolved in 2013, 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

58
/100
Questionable

This outcome differs from typical similar cases

This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.

Want to check 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.

Check Your Case Value

Similar cases you may find useful

Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.

$30,000
Settlement
Lumbar Disc Injury
Rear-end
Motor Vehicle Negligence

On May 26, 2004, a plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile that was rear-ended near the intersection of Bedford Avenue and De Kalb Avenue in Brooklyn. The plaintiff's vehicle was preparing to make a U-turn when the collision occurred. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit, alleging the driver of the striking vehicle was negligent and the vehicle owner was vicariously liable. The defendants conceded liability, and the case proceeded to trial solely on the issue of damages. The plaintiff claimed to have sustained a herniated disc at C5-6, seeking medical treatment 21 days after the incident. Treatment included chiropractic care, acupuncture, massage therapy, and hot and cold packs over several months. The plaintiff reported missing two days of work and alleged permanent neck pain, decreased range of motion, and episodes of immobility, asserting an inability to engage in activities such as dancing, playing basketball, or wearing high heels. A family medicine physician testified on the plaintiff's behalf. The defendants argued that any injuries sustained by the plaintiff resolved within 90 days of the accident, with the decreased range of motion improving within three months. A radiologist testified for the defense, stating that the plaintiff's MRIs were normal and indicated no injury. Prior to the verdict, the parties agreed to cap any damages award at $25,000, which represented the policy limits. The plaintiff had also settled a claim with the driver of the vehicle in which she was a passenger for $3,500. Following the trial, a jury awarded the plaintiff $30,000, including $10,000 for past pain and suffering and $20,000 for future pain and suffering. The final recovery was then reduced to the agreed-upon $25,000 cap.

Kings County • 2010
View full case