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
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, Texas. 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 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.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
One driver was proceeding through an intersection when their vehicle collided with another vehicle making a left turn. The injured driver claimed injuries to their back and neck. The case involved a claim against the injured driver's own insurer for underinsured motorist benefits after an initial settlement with the at-fault driver's insurer.
A passenger in a sport utility vehicle was injured when the vehicle she was in was rear-ended by another car. The passenger claimed injuries to her back and neck, including bulging discs. The driver of the other vehicle claimed his brakes failed. The jury found that the driver's negligence did not cause the accident.
One driver was stopped at a light when the vehicle behind them struck their pickup truck. The driver of the second vehicle claimed the pickup truck driver swerved in front of them and braked suddenly, causing the collision. The driver of the second vehicle alleged injuries to their knee and spine. The defense questioned the credibility of the driver's account and pointed to inconsistencies in their statements.
One driver stopped in traffic due to construction. The other driver rear-ended the stopped vehicle. The injured driver claimed ankle and back injuries. The defense argued the accident was unavoidable or that the driver acted as an ordinary and prudent driver. The jury found the second driver liable but awarded no damages.
One driver was stopped at a stop sign when her vehicle was struck from behind by another vehicle. The driver who was rear-ended claimed injuries to her back and neck. The driver who caused the collision stated her foot slipped off the brake pedal. The jury found that the collision was not a proximate cause of the injuries claimed.
Explore More Cases Like This
Browse similar cases by injury type and location to get a better understanding of case values in your area.