Beaumont, Texas Mobile Crane Negligence Settles for $4.8 Million

A two-vehicle collision occurred on October 13, 2017, in Mayfield, Kentucky, at the intersection of Ky. 131 and Ky. 58. A 16-year-old permit driver, accompanied by a passenger, was making a left turn from Ky. 131 onto Ky. 58 when her vehicle collided with a vehicle operated by an intoxicated driver traveling on Ky. 58. Surveillance video showed the permit driver rolled through the stop sign and flashing red light before turning into the path of the oncoming vehicle. The intoxicated driver's blood alcohol content was later measured at .219. Both the permit driver and the passenger sustained severe injuries and required extensive medical treatment, with combined medical bills totaling over $900,000. After settling with the intoxicated driver and receiving underinsured motorist coverage, the injured parties, as plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit against Arrowhead Camper Sales. The business was located adjacent to the intersection, and the plaintiffs alleged it contributed to the crash by parking campers and trailers too close to the right-of-way, obscuring the permit driver's view of oncoming traffic. They claimed both a statutory violation under KRS 177.106 and general negligence. The plaintiffs presented an accident reconstruction expert and local witnesses who described long-standing visual challenges at the intersection due to the parked campers. The defendant, Arrowhead Camper Sales, denied its campers obstructed drivers' views, asserting that its owner had navigated the intersection thousands of times without issue. The defense's accident reconstruction expert testified that drivers had an unobstructed view of over 1,000 feet just beyond the stop sign. The defense maintained the crash resulted from the combined negligence of both drivers involved in the collision. The case proceeded to an 11-day trial in Mayfield. After an hour of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous verdict on liability in favor of Arrowhead Camper Sales. The jury's finding for the defendant meant they did not reach questions regarding the duties of the drivers or the extent of damages. A defense judgment was subsequently entered.

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.

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 motor vehicle collision occurred in Colorado, involving a vehicle operated by the plaintiff and another driver. The plaintiff alleged that the incident resulted in serious and permanent personal injuries, including neck and shoulder injuries, a concussion, and head trauma. After settling claims with the other driver, the plaintiff sought underinsured motorist benefits from the defendant insurer, with whom the plaintiff held a policy for $100,000. The plaintiff alleged the insurer refused to pay the benefits. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a breach of contract action against the defendant insurer in the District Court 20th Judicial District, Boulder County, Colorado. The plaintiff demanded judgment for damages, litigation costs, and prejudgment interest. The defendant insurer denied the allegations and asserted affirmative defenses, including comparative negligence, failure to state a claim, and failure to cooperate with policy conditions. The parties later notified the court that they had resolved all claims. Following a notice of settlement and stipulation for dismissal, the court dismissed the action with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs.

A plaintiff alleged she was injured when her vehicle was rear-ended in traffic, subsequently pushing it into a third car. After settling with the at-fault driver for $25,000, which represented the policy limit, she sought underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage from her insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, claiming her damages exceeded that amount. State Farm denied the UIM benefits. The plaintiff, joined by her husband for a loss of consortium claim, filed suit in the Colorado First Judicial District for the County of Jefferson. The complaint alleged breach of contract, bad faith breach of insurance contract, and violations of Colorado statutes. State Farm asserted affirmative defenses, including failure to mitigate damages. Following a jury trial, the jury rendered a verdict for State Farm. It found the plaintiff failed to cooperate with State Farm's investigation, that these actions were material, substantial, and disadvantaged the insurer, and that she intentionally misrepresented material facts. The court entered judgment for State Farm. The parties later stipulated to dismiss the case with prejudice, with State Farm waiving costs in exchange for the plaintiff's waiver of appellate rights. The court granted the dismissal.