Wrongful Death Settlements: Real Case Outcomes & Data

One driver was traveling with her husband and children when another driver, attempting to pass a semi-truck, lost control of her vehicle. The other driver's vehicle crossed the median and collided head-on with the first driver's vehicle. The first driver's husband and one child were killed, and she sustained serious injuries. She sued the State, alleging negligence for failing to install a median barrier.

Two drivers attempted to change seats while their car was traveling at 65 mph. This action caused the vehicle to roll over, resulting in the death of a passenger.

A tractor-trailer rear-ended an SUV, pushing it into other vehicles and a retaining wall. The SUV caught fire. The driver of the SUV died from his injuries, and his wife sustained serious injuries. The driver of the tractor-trailer admitted to reckless driving.

A 14-year-old was injured in a car crash and taken to the hospital. Doctors evaluated him but did not find any serious internal injuries. The next day, he died from undiagnosed internal perforations. His parents sued, claiming medical staff failed to properly monitor and diagnose his condition.

A double tractor-trailer struck another tractor-trailer, causing it to jackknife and fall onto a car. A person and four children were inside the car.

A tractor-trailer driver attempted a U-turn on a highway and became stuck. A pregnant woman driving behind could not stop her vehicle in time and collided with the trailer, resulting in her death.

One driver rear-ended a truck that was parked in the emergency lane with its running lights on. The case resulted in a jury verdict for the plaintiff.

One driver was involved in a fatal car crash. Following a wrongful death lawsuit, the case settled for $605,000. The plaintiffs' insurance limits were $500,000, leaving them to pay an additional $105,000 out of pocket. The plaintiffs then sued their insurance agent and carrier, claiming the agent failed to advise them about the availability of umbrella policies for excess insurance with a different carrier. The defendants argued their only obligation was to inform the plaintiffs that their current insurer did not offer an umbrella policy.