Colorado Jury Awards $297,000 in Semi-Truck Negligence

A plaintiff with a classic automobile insurance policy filed a claim after three vehicles went missing or were stolen from a storage location in Denver, Colorado. The policy required storage in a specific secure building, but the plaintiff had moved the vehicles during renovations. Two vehicles were later recovered severely damaged, while a third remained unlocated. The insurer made a partial payment for one vehicle but denied full coverage, attributing some damage to wear and tear and denying the unrecovered vehicle's claim. The plaintiff sued the insurer in federal court, alleging breach of contract, unreasonable delay and denial of payment under Colorado statutes, and common-law bad faith. The insurer counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment, alleging breach of the policy's misrepresentation and concealment provisions, and requesting recoupment of payments. These counterclaims were permitted to proceed following a magistrate judge's recommendation, which a district judge adopted. The plaintiff later amended the complaint to add the insurance producer as a defendant, alleging negligence if insurer coverage was denied. In July 2023, the plaintiff and the insurer filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice for all claims between them, indicating a settlement had been reached. The specific terms of this settlement were not publicly disclosed. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorney fees.

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 lawsuit stemmed from a motor vehicle and pedestrian collision. The plaintiff presented expert testimony related to life care planning and rehabilitation, indicating claims for long-term care and disability. The defendant countered with expert testimony from fields including psychology, neuropsychology, and orthopedic surgery. The parties reached a resolution, and the case was concluded with a stipulated dismissal in April 2019.

On March 31, 2015, a head-on collision occurred on Dixie Highway near Pages Lane, Kentucky, when an at-fault driver ran a red light. The plaintiff, not wearing a seat belt, sustained soft-tissue injuries and sought emergency care the next day; her minor daughter also sustained a laceration. The plaintiff first settled with the at-fault driver for $25,000. The plaintiff then filed an underinsured motorist (UIM) claim against her insurer, seeking medical expenses and pain and suffering for chronic neck and back pain. The insurer disputed the injury extent, asserting they were minor and degenerative. The insurer also argued the plaintiff's non-use of a seat belt contributed to her damages. Expert medical testimony addressed the severity and origin of the plaintiff's reported symptoms. The at-fault driver's liability was not contested at the UIM trial. A Kentucky jury found the at-fault driver 90% at fault and the plaintiff 10% at fault for not wearing a seat belt. The jury awarded $17,985 for medical expenses and $133,750 for pain and suffering, totaling $151,735. During deliberations, the jury questioned the court about agreeing on a damage number. A final judgment was anticipated to reflect deductions for comparative fault and prior payments.

A motor vehicle collision occurred in Mesa County, Colorado, involving a vehicle operated by the defendant and another car carrying the plaintiff as a passenger. The plaintiff alleged the incident caused permanent personal injuries, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and resulted in medical expenses and economic losses. The plaintiff filed a vehicular liability action in the Colorado District Court, Twenty-First Judicial District, County of Mesa, claiming the defendant's negligence. Allegations included failing to operate the vehicle prudently, maintain a proper lookout, obey traffic control devices, driving at an excessive speed, and failing to stop at a red light. The plaintiff sought damages for the alleged harm. In response, the defendant denied the allegations of negligence. The defendant also asserted affirmative defenses, including claims of failure to state a claim, culpable conduct, and failure to mitigate damages. The parties subsequently filed a notice with the court indicating that they had reached a settlement in the action.