Oklahoma Jury Awards $1,600,000 in Truck Rear-End Collision

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.

A passenger was rendered quadriplegic following a vehicle rollover accident on Interstate 25 in Colorado on July 5, 2013. The plaintiff, a front-seat passenger, alleged that a defendant driver operating a Jeep Cherokee negligently made a sudden left turn from the highway shoulder without a signal, striking the plaintiff's Honda Accord. The collision caused the plaintiff's vehicle to hit the median and roll over multiple times, resulting in a spinal cord injury and a spinal fracture. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant driver for negligence. Product liability claims were also brought against the vehicle manufacturer, windshield manufacturer, and seatbelt manufacturer, alleging dangerous and defective designs. Specifically, the plaintiff contended the windshield failed to provide sufficient roof support during the rollover, leading to roof collapse, and that the seatbelt was defective, allowing slack that contributed to the injuries. The defendants denied liability and disputed the plaintiff's allegations of damages. The seatbelt manufacturer, Takata, specifically argued the alleged slack was due to the plaintiff's body position, not a product defect. The case proceeded to a ten-day trial against only the defendant driver and the seatbelt manufacturer. Following approximately 8.5 hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding $52,000,000. This amount included $5,000,000 for non-economic losses, $15,000,000 for economic damages, $30,000,000 for physical impairment or disfigurement, and $2,000,000 for the plaintiff spouse's loss of consortium claim. The jury apportioned 50% liability to the defendant driver, 40% to the nonparty vehicle manufacturer (Honda), and 10% to the nonparty windshield manufacturer (AGC Flat Glass North America). The jury found no liability on the part of the defendant seatbelt manufacturer, Takata.

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.

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.

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.