Verdictly
Verdict-Plaintiff
Dallas County • 2017

Texas Court Issues Defense Verdict in False Claims Action

A company that made highway guard rail end terminals was accused of violating the False Claims Act. The accuser claimed the company secretly modified the design, which led to vehicles impaling the guard rails and causing severe injuries. The company denied these allegations. A jury found in favor of the accuser and awarded damages, which were then trebled and increased by penalties, totaling over $663 million. However, an appeals court later overturned this judgment, stating the government had not declared the design unsafe.

Case Information Updated: October 2025

Back to cases
Other Injury
Other Accident
False Claims Act

Case Outcome

Outcome
Verdict-Plaintiff
Amount
$663,000,000
County
Dallas County, TX
Resolved
2017

Injury & Accident Details

Injury Type
Other
Accident Type
Other
Case Type
False Claims Act, False Claims Act Violation, Hazards and accidents, Patent infringement

Settlement Context

This verdict-plaintiff of $663,000,000 is above the median of $22,000 for other cases resolved by verdict-plaintiff. The typical range is $8,200 to $102,285, based on 304 cases in our database.

Case Overview

A manufacturer of highway guard rail end terminals faced allegations of violating the False Claims Act in a qui tam action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case centered on the defendant's Trinity ET-Plus guard rail, a safety device designed to prevent guard rails from spearing or folding into vehicles upon impact, which required Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) certification for states to receive federal reimbursement for installation. The relator, owner of a competing company, asserted that the defendant secretly modified the ET-Plus design in 2005 by reducing the width of a component, which allegedly led to device failure, vehicle impalement, and severe injuries.

The relator argued the defendant made the modification to save $2 per unit, totaling approximately $50,000 annually, and presented an internal email supporting this claim. The plaintiff sought $218 million in damages. The defendant countered that the government was aware of the 2005 modification and had retroactively approved the modified design for reimbursement. A defense expert testified the modification was not significant enough to necessitate additional testing or reporting to the FHWA.

The case first went to trial in July 2014 but resulted in a mistrial. A second trial in October 2014 concluded with a jury finding for the plaintiff, awarding $175 million in damages. Under the False Claims Act, these damages were automatically trebled to $525 million. The judge added $138 million in penalties, bringing the total judgment to $663 million.

The defendant appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, disputing the damages and fraud claim on materiality grounds. In September 2017, the appellate court overturned the lower court's judgment. The court ruled that the U.S. Government had never declared the challenged design unsafe and had paid to install the guardrails while declining to remove them. The Fifth Circuit accordingly reversed the Texas court's judgment, rendering judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendant.

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 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

28
/100
Potentially Unfair

This outcome significantly deviates from 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 understand 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
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
Settlement
Other Injury
Other Accident
Motor Vehicle Negligence

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.

Mesa County • 2017
View full case
Undisclosed
Verdict-Defense
Other Injury
Pedestrian
Motor Vehicle Negligence

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.

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

A personal injury case arose from an auto accident. The plaintiff retained an expert in economics to assess damages. The defendant presented experts in emergency medicine, biomechanics, and accident reconstruction, suggesting disputes over the nature or cause of injuries. An occupational therapy expert also participated in the case. The matter proceeded to a trial, which concluded on December 9, 2016. Details regarding the verdict or any award were not specified in the record.

Larimer County • 2016
View full case