Verdictly
Settlement
Dallas County • 2017

Dallas Improper Vehicle Repair Settles for Undisclosed Amount

One driver's vehicle had its roof improperly repaired with glue instead of welds. Later, when another vehicle hydroplaned and struck it, the roof detached, causing severe injuries to the occupants. The jury found the repair shop mostly at fault for the injuries.

Case Information Updated: October 2025

Back to cases
Burns / Lacerations
Other Accident
Auto Repair Negligence

Case Outcome

Outcome
Settlement
Amount
$41,935,624
County
Dallas County, TX
Resolved
2017

Injury & Accident Details

Injury Type
Burns / Lacerations
Accident Type
Other
Case Type
Auto Repair Negligence, Negligent repair, Vehicle negligence, Scarring and burn injuries

Settlement Context

This settlement of $41,935,624 is above the median of $500,000 for burns / lacerations cases resolved by settlement. The typical range is $78,500 to $41,935,624, based on 4 cases in our database.

Case Overview

A plaintiff driver and passenger suffered severe injuries in a December 2013 motor vehicle accident in Dallas, Texas. Their 2010 Honda Fit was involved in a collision after another vehicle lost control and crossed into their lane. The plaintiffs alleged that a defendant collision center, which had previously repaired the vehicle's roof for a prior owner, was responsible for exacerbating their injuries. They claimed the collision center improperly used adhesive glue instead of 108 welds as specified by the manufacturer, leading to the roof separating and the vehicle's safety cage collapsing during the accident.

During the trial, the plaintiffs argued that the improper repair compromised the vehicle's structural integrity, causing significantly more severe crush injuries and trapping the driver, who sustained extensive burns. They presented crash test evidence and testimony indicating the collision center opted for glue due to insurance company requirements, despite manufacturer guidelines. The collision center countered that the accident's severity caused deceleration injuries, not those from structural failure. It maintained that the roof panel was not a structural part of the safety system and contended that adhesive glue was as strong or stronger than welds.

The jury found the collision center 75% liable for the plaintiffs' injuries and the driver of the other vehicle 25% liable. The jury awarded the plaintiff driver $25,888,153 for past and future pain, disfigurement, physical impairment, medical expenses, and lost wages, among other damages. The plaintiff passenger was awarded $16,047,471 for similar categories of damages, including medical expenses and loss of consortium.

Following the verdict, the parties reached a settlement for an undisclosed sum under a high/low agreement. As part of the resolution, the parties also agreed to conduct crash testing to further study the safety implications of glued versus welded vehicle repairs.

Understanding This Case

  • This case was resolved through a settlement, avoiding the uncertainty and expense of a trial. Settlements typically resolve faster and provide guaranteed compensation.
  • This case was resolved in Dallas County, Texas. Local jury tendencies, judge assignments, and regional economic conditions all influence case outcomes in this jurisdiction.
  • Resolved in 2017, 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

65
/100
Reasonably Fair

This outcome is within expected ranges

This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.

Curious about 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 Dallas County.

Check Your Case Value

Similar cases you may find useful

Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.

Undisclosed
Settlement
Other Injury
Other Accident
Breach of contract

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.

Dallas County • 2023
View full case
$8,184
Mixed
Neck Injury (Whiplash)
Other Accident
Motor Vehicle Negligence

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.

Dallas County • 2015
View full case
Undisclosed
Verdict-Defense
Shoulder Injury
Other Accident
Motor Vehicle Negligence

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.

Dallas County • 2019
View full case
Undisclosed
Verdict-Defense
Other Injury
Other Accident
Motor Vehicle Negligence

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.

Dallas County • 2015
View full case
Undisclosed
Verdict-Defense
Shoulder Injury
Other Accident
Motor Vehicle Negligence

A collision occurred on September 20, 2012, on Kentucky Avenue near Floyd Street in Louisville. The plaintiff, then age 41, was making a right turn when the defendant pulled from a space to the plaintiff's right, resulting in the crash. The plaintiff sustained a rotator cuff injury that required surgical repair. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, alleging the defendant negligently pulled from a parking lane into the plaintiff's path. The plaintiff sought $3,917 for past medical expenses, up to $15,000 for future medicals, and $120,000 for pain and suffering. The defendant denied liability, arguing she was in a turn lane, not a parking lane. An independent medical examiner for the defense also linked the plaintiff's shoulder issues to pre-existing degenerative conditions. Following a trial, a jury found in favor of the defendant on the issue of liability. A defense judgment was subsequently entered, and the plaintiff received no damages.

Dallas County • 2015
View full case