Recent Trial Results
Most insurance companies bank on the fact that it is simply not economically feasible or practical for an attorney to take a relatively small case to trial. It is common knowledge in the personal injury industry that it is extremely expensive and time consuming to go all the way to trial with the case that involves soft tissue injuries, i.e., muscle sprain and strain. Moreover, it is particularly difficult to convince a jury that someone really got hurt, to some degree, when the physical disfigurement and deformity to the vehicles involved, i.e., commonly known as property damage, is relatively minor. The insurance industry banks on these facts and this is the main reason for the insurance industry low balling attorneys and claimants in response to demands for settlement for soft tissue injuries.
Most attorneys either cannot afford to take these small cases to trial or simply refuse to do so, based on the economics involved.
Bradley Wallace, Esq., our relatively new associate, recently took two cases which fit this description to trial. While Bradley knew that the economics did not make sense, he believed that he had to stand up for the little guy and fight their battle for them. Bradley further believed that less severely injured people need a voice to the insurance industry, and ultimately in the court room, equal if not more important to the voice of the more severely injured person. Additionally, Bradley decided that he wasn’t going to play the insurance industry’s game by recommending to our clients that they accept the nuisance value offer that was being conveyed and essentially the industry’s position that they dictate the value of a claim and whether or not a person’s injuries were worthy of compensation.
Bradley took these two particular cases involving minor property damage and soft tissue injuries all the way to trial and obtained favorable verdicts for the Plaintiffs, substantially greater than the offers originally made, and in one of the cases, the verdict was nine times greater than the original offer.
CASE RESULTS
2006 Wrongful Death - Dangerous Intersection: Automobile vs. Pedestrian Accident - Confidential Settlement
In 2004, private developers planned, designed, and built a huge outdoor shopping center in the heart of Rancho Mirage on Highway 111 between Rancho Las Palmas and Bob Hope Drive. The development was called 'The River at Rancho Mirage'. As a result of the success of 'The River', parking became a problem and it became known to the local community and to the local city council that there was inadequate parking and overcrowdedness on site resulting in patrons having to park off-site and in some cases across the street, on Highway 111, on side streets. The local city government had proposed solutions and offered land to the developers and owners of 'The River', on the same side of the street, to create more parking spaces. The developers and owners rejected the offer. 'The River' also planned on designing and building a parking structure, but they unfortunately cancelled the project. In short, the owners and managers of 'The River' Shopping Center and the local city government had knowledge of the inadequate parking problem and that patrons were forced to park across the Highway.
On December 29, 2006, an 80-year-old perfectly healthy, retired, local resident of Rancho Mirage dropped his wife off at a restaurant for dinner in 'The River', and then went to park, but couldn't find parking. He was forced to park off-site. He parked directly across the street from 'The River' on a side street at a 'T' intersection. He then successfully crossed the street, at the 'T' intersection, in an unmarked crosswalk. There were no stop signs, signals, or controls at the 'T' intersection. When he reached the top of the 'T' of the intersection having successfully crossed Highway 111 to 'The River' side, he found himself trapped, as access to the sidewalk was completely blocked by foilage and a hedge, which prevented him from reaching his point of safety. At that moment he found himself on the tight rope of the curb and cars started zipping by.
The 80-year-old man started to tight rope the curb toward a driveway at which point he lost his balance, stumbled into the street, and was immediately hit by a car passing by, resulting in his instant death.
We represented the family of the 80-year-old for his wrongful death against the City of Rancho Mirage, and 'The River at Rancho Mirage'.
The case was denied, disputed, and aggressively defended by the corporate and municipal defendants and their top drawer defense attorneys. Multiple complex and hypertechnical motions were filed by the defense in their combined efforts to dismiss our case and defeat our lawsuit. We defeated every motion.
All the family of the 80-year-old every really wanted was for the City of Rancho Mirage, and 'The River at Rancho Mirage' Shopping Center to do the right thing and, most importantly, to make the subject 'T' intersection safe by adding traffic controls, a crosswalk, or some other measure of safety i.e., warning signs not to cross, and for 'The River' to provide additional parking so that people would never be faced with having to park across the street again.
We retained the leading authority in traffic engineering as an expert and had studies and reconstructions performed. We performed extremely complex and sophisticated litigation and discovery, which included extensive interrogative requests for admissions, and requests for productions. We took countless depositions of defendants and independent disinterested eyewitnesses.
Ultimately, three years to the day after the tragic loss, we successfully negotiated a settlement at a stipulated private mediation for a confidential sum. Additionally, the City of Rancho Mirage and 'The River' made the 'T' intersection safer by posting signs warning pedestrians not to cross at the intersection and by placing barricades to block a pedestrian's path. At the conclusion of the settlement, our client's family created a private trust fund in the name of their husband, father, and grandfather, to benefit local children in need, and to further demonstrate that the case was never really about money, but rather, it was about 'doing the right thing', and to prevent this type of tragedy from occurring again.
2007 Wrongful Death - Police Chase Auto Accident - $5,000,000 Stipulated Judgment
A 20-year-old girl was driving home from her friend's house in Temple City, CA when she entered an intersection on a green light two blocks from her home.
At that time, a local city police officer observed, what he believed, was an illegal street race on the intersecting street. The police officer initiated a high speed chase of the suspect resulting in the street racer running a red light and crashing into the 20-year-old girl's vehicle at approximately 70-80mph. The girl was killed as a result of the crash.
We represented the family for her wrongful death against the city police department and the driver of the vehicle that killed her.
After extensive investigation, litigation, and discovery, which included intense depositions, we successfully negotiated a stipulation to a judgment against the primary defendant for $5,000,000 plus a special videotaped apology from the driver of the car.
2008 Premises Liability – Settled for $275,000
Raquel P. was an 80 year old woman who was shopping at a local outdoor shopping mall in Los Angeles. She arrived at the mall with her husband. She was dropped off in a covered parking garage at ground level. She used the “up” escalator to shop at a drug store on the upper level.
After shopping, she returned to the top of the escalator bank and discovered that the “down” escalator was not operating. Ms. P. the began walking down the “out of service” “down” escalator and essentially using it as a staircase. She was holding onto the sidebar rail. When she reached approximately 2/3 of the way down, she became disoriented, overstepped, missed a step, and fell, which ultimately resulted in her fracturing one of her knees. This required surgeries and hospitalizations.
Ms. P. presented a claim against the property owners and management company based on their negligence in creating a dangerous condition, in allowing it to exist, and in failing to warn of it, or otherwise block off the “out of service” “down” escalator.
The property owners and management company denied Ms. P.’s claim and refused to compensate her for her medical bills and for her pain and suffering.
Raquel P. hired the Law Offices of Gerald L. Marcus. We aggressively investigated her accident claim and discovered that the escalator was defective and that the property owners and management company knew that it was defective. Specifically, this was an outdoor uncovered escalator bank. Whenever it rained, the “down” escalator would shut off, creating an “out of service,” or “out of operation,” situation. There had been at least 12 service/maintenance calls due to the subject “down” escalator shutting down as a result of rain water getting into the mechanics of the escalator within a 45 day period prior to the date of Ms. P.’s accident.
It had been recommended by the escalator manufacturing and maintenance company, as well as the industry standard for the property owners and management company, to “take the out of service escalator” out of service by barricading it off, blocking it off, placing caution cones, warning signs, or caution tape, so as to prevent foreseeable patrons from using the “out of service” “down” escalator as a fixed staircase.
Upon presentation of the claim through the Law Offices of Gerald L. Marcus, the property owners and management company and escalator manufacturing and maintenance company continued to deny the claim. We retained the services of the leading authority expert in escalator manufacturing, design, maintenance, safety, and accident prevention. We conducted extensive litigation and discovery which included multiple depositions and other forms of written discovery.
Ultimately, it was determined that the Defendants were, in fact, negligent in creating an unreasonably dangerous condition in allowing it to exist and in failing to warn foreseeable patrons of the condition by instructing them not to use the out of service escalator as a fixed staircase, as an escalator is not a staircase, and does not comply with building and safety codes or standards, and is of different dimensions and size.
As such, we succeeded in convincing the Defendants to attend a private mediation. Ultimately, we successfully negotiated a settlement of Raquel P.’s injury claim for $275,000.00.
2008 – Automobile vs. Pedestrian Accident – Settled for $200,000
Albert D. was working as a property management company superintendent at a local outdoor strip/shopping mall. On the day of his accident, he was accessing an underground utility vault located in the outdoor parking lot. He was kneeling down to take the vault cover off when a motorist pulled into the driveway for the parking lot and failed to observe Albert D. approximately 60 feet ahead of her and directly in front of her, kneeling over. Independent witnesses confirmed that the driver never slowed down, swerved, or take any action so as to evidence that she may have been looking in front of her so as to avoid striking Albert D. as a pedestrian. That is when the motorist, without hesitation, attempted to turn and maneuver her vehicle into a parking space, while striking Mr. D., knocking him down, dragging him, and pinning him underneath her car.
Albert D. presented a claim for his medical bills and injuries to the driver’s insurance company. The driver’s insurance company disputed his claim and denied payment. Albert D. hired the Law Offices of Gerald L. Marcus.
We presented a comprehensive and extensive detailed and thorough demand for settlement letter and package of materials to the driver’s automobile liability insurance carrier. We conducted extensive field investigations to include scene photographs, interviews of witnesses, analysis of the reporting police officer’s report, diagrams of the scene, measurements, and presentation of all of the medical records, reports, and bills for services rendered.
Albert D. suffered multiple contusions, abrasions, road rash, and a knee injury which required arthroscopic knee surgery. The driver’s insurance company continued to dispute and/or deny liability and the driver of the vehicle refused to take responsibility.
We filed and served a Superior Court lawsuit and aggressively litigated the case accordingly. After taking several depositions and retaining an accident reconstruction expert as well as a biomechanical factor expert engineer and a human factors expert, we convinced the driver’s insurance company to attend a private mediation. We successfully negotiated a settlement of Albert D.’s bodily injury claim, for approximately $200,000.00.
2007 - Premises Liability – Settled for $300,000
Maria P. was an 84 year old woman who was shopping at a local market with her daughter. She was pushing a shopping cart through the check out stand and ultimately pushed it through the front doors intending on going to her car which was parked in the parking lot immediately outside of the market. After she pushed the cart outside, one of the wheels got stuck in a large hole or defect, on the walkway, immediately outside of the store. Maria P. attempted to prevent her shopping cart filled with items that she just purchased from tipping over. She was unable to do so and while she was struggling with the cart, and in the process of it tipping over, she fell and fractured her hip.
Maria P. presented a claim against the insurance company for the market and they denied her claim and refused to take any responsibility whatsoever for the dangerous condition which they knew existed immediately out in front of their property on the walkway. Ms. P. hired the Law Offices of Gerald L. Marcus.
We investigated the claim thoroughly by having our investigators go to the scene, measure the defects, photograph the dangerous condition, inspect the shopping carts, diagram the scene, and interview independent witnesses as well as store employee witnesses.
We presented a comprehensive and extensive as well as detailed and thorough demand for settlement letter and package of materials on behalf of Maria P. which included all of her surgery records. Initially, the insurance company for the local market refused to take responsibility and denied the claim. We were forced to file a Superior Court lawsuit and aggressively litigated the case accordingly. After extensive discovery, we convinced the defense attorneys for the insurance company for the local market to attend a private mediation. We successfully negotiated a settlement of Maria P.’s premises liability bodily injury claim for damages for approximately $300,000.00.
2006 – Premises/Product Liability – Settled for $300,000.00
Robert G. was a 46 year old warehouse supervisor who was inspecting a bi-parting 2000 pound wrought iron gate, which secured the property where he worked. Upon discovering the gate was off its track, a gust of wind blew the gate over onto his body, crushing him and causing multiple fractured bones. Robert underwent several operations and missed approximately six months of work due to the severity of his injuries. Our firm pursued a case on behalf of Robert against the property owners, the general contractors, and the fence/gate contractor responsible for the condition of the gate. This case involved: premises liability, general negligence, professional negligence, and product liability. Our investigation revealed that the primary defendant was uninsured. After several years of extensive litigation, discovery, depositions, and expert analysis, we successfully settled Robert’s case against multiple defendants based on apportionments of liability for approximately $300,000.
2006 – Premises Liability – Settled for $285,000.00
Jon H. was a 30 year old successful pharmaceutical/medical device industry sales representative, who decided to take a year off from work to pursue a lifelong dream to become a rock star. Jon was a very talented lead guitar player; he formed a band, recorded a CD, and began touring at a series of small clubs across the country. While performing at a well-known club in Santa Monica, CA, the stage collapsed and Jon fell through, causing him to fracture his wrist and undergo surgery. This injury also ended his dream of becoming a musician.
The club’s insurance company denied Jon’s claim for damages. More specifically, the insurance company denied all liability, negligence or responsibility, arguing that Jon should not jump up and down while playing his guitar. We took Jon’s case against the club, and aggressively litigated the case. After extensive discovery and multiple depositions, we successfully settled the case at private mediation for $285,000.
2005 – Dog Attack – $100,000.00 (policy limit)
Sandy W. was a guest at someone’s house for a party. When the party came to a close, she and the resident property owner walked out the back door where Sandy was immediately attacked by a vicious dog, which bit a chunk of flesh out of her leg. The homeowner’s insurance company denied the claim, saying that Sandy did not have permission to be in the homeowner’s back yard. Through thorough and aggressive litigation, we were able to prove that Sandy did indeed have permission, and were able to obtain a policy limit $100,000.00 settlement for her case.
2007 – Dog Attack – $195,000.00
Kristal K. (a minor) was a guest at a relative’s home for a week, and was getting into bed for the night when the family’s dog approached her. Kristal pat the dog on the head goodnight, when it decided to attack her by viciously biting her hand enough to cause nerve damage. Kristal received surgery on the affected hand to try and repair the nerve damage, and the homeowner’s insurance company then offered a total of $12,500 to settle the claim. We denied the low offer, litigated the case, and obtained a $195,000.00 settlement.
2006 - Wrongful Death – Pending
Scott B. was a 29 year old man driving on the I-5 Freeway entering the Santa Clarita Valley on a dark rainy night. As he rounded a curve on the freeway he encountered an accident scene off the left shoulder, and the lane he was driving in was occupied by a flatbed tow truck that did not have his flashers on. Scott tried to swerve to the right to avoid the people standing on the left shoulder, and to avoid hitting the stationary tow truck, but he did not have enough time to make a successful maneuver. Scott’s vehicle slid sideways into the back of the flatbed, where he sustained major head trauma that caused him to lose his life at the scene of the accident. The tow truck company’s insurance company is denying liability for this accident, stating that they had their flashers on at the time of the accident, and that they did not violate any laws. Witness testimony does not agree with the testimony of the flatbed driver.
Scott’s young son is now fatherless. While we cannot bring this little boy’s father back to him, we are doing (and will continue to do) everything within our power to ensure that he can at least have the financial assistance that his father would have been able to provide.
2006 – Automobile Accident – $85,000.00
Roberto R. was involved in a rear end collision with another party, and received medical treatment for back injuries sustained in the accident. The at-fault party’s insurance company did not believe that Roberto should have required six months of treatment for this accident, and did not make any offer to settle his claim. The exact reason for the denial was that the insurance adjuster felt Roberto’s treatment was excessive, and made a decision that his claim was worth zero. We litigated the case, and were able to settle the claim at a mandatory settlement conference for $85,000.00.
2006 – Automobile Accident – $45,000.00
Ken U. was a school principal for over 25 years when he was involved in an injury producing auto accident. Ken treated for soft tissue injuries for three to four months, and when we presented the claim to the at-fault party’s insurance company, they offered $5000.00 to settle the claim in its entirety. The offer was not enough to even pay for his medical bills. We litigated the case, and after two mediations, we were able to obtain a $45,000.00 settlement.
2007 – Automobile Accident – $80,000.00
Michael S. was working as a messenger when he was involved in an accident that caused him to suffer a severe laceration to his scalp. After incurring over $25,000.00 in medical bills, the at-fault party’s insurance company offered to settle the claim for $30,000.00. The adjuster felt that the injuries were not very severe, and that Michael over treated for his injuries. After taking several depositions, and aggressively litigating the case, we were able to obtain a settlement for $80,000.00.
2003 - Swimming Pool Drowning – Settled for $1,000,000.00
In the summer of 2003, Cesar A., a 14 year old boy, went with his father to a privately-owned, public swimming pool in northern Los Angeles County. They paid an entrance fee, and Cesar went swimming with approximately 50 other kids under lifeguard supervision. Cesar’s father decided to buy lunch at the snack shop, when he returned, he saw Cesar being pulled out the pool by a Good Samaritan after being at the bottom of the pool for approximately 4 minutes. The lifeguard was nowhere to be found. Cesar lived, but suffers from mild brain damage. This was a hotly disputed case, the owners and operators of the pool blamed Cesar’s father. After extensive investigations, litigation, discovery and the retention of technical experts, we negotiated a policy limit settlement for Cesar of $1,000,000.00, and structured it over Cesar’s lifetime to meet his expected special needs. Cesar will never have to worry about finances again, as the total projected settlement will be approximately $5,000,000.00.
2003 - Premises Liability/Products Liability – Settled for $900,000.00
Garrett S. was a three year old boy at a department store in Santa Monica shopping with his parents when a free-standing wardrobe mirror he was looking at tipped over and landed directly on his head, crushing his skull. Garrett S. suffered brain damage from this incident. The store owner blamed the manufacturer of the mirror for the accident; the manufacturer blamed the store, and Garrett’s parents. With extensive investigation, litigation, discovery, depositions and technical experts; we successfully negotiated a settlement of $900,000.00, and structured it over Garrett’s lifetime to provide for his special needs. The approximate projected settlement will be more than 5,000,000.00.
2004 – Premises Liability – Settled for $150,000.00
Bert C. was an 86 year old man who was shopping at his neighborhood liquor store. After making a purchase at the check stand, he walked out the front door and missed a step down causing him to fall on the city sidewalk and break his hip. The property owner blamed Bert C. for not paying attention and the store owner for not painting the step red. After extensive investigation, litigation, discovery, depositions, and the retention of technical experts, we successfully negotiated a settlement of $150,000.00.
2002 – Premises Liability – Settled for $185,000.00
Lizette M. was a 30 year old mother and Santa Clarita Valley resident who slipped and fell on a puddle of water in the common area of a major local shopping mall. She suffered injuries to her thumb requiring surgery. This was a hotly disputed case. The mall owners denied liability, arguing they had no knowledge of the puddle on the floor, and therefore should not be held liable for the accident. After extensive investigation, litigation, discovery, depositions, and the retention of experts; we successfully negotiated a settlement of $185,000.00.
Minor Impact Automobile Accidents
We have represented thousands of auto accident victims involving impacts with relatively minor property damage to the vehicles involved. These accidents resulted in mostly soft-tissue injuries, such as: whiplash, strains and sprains, but sometimes there is an exacerbation of a preexisting injury. A majority of the major insurance companies typically deny, and/or dispute these injury claims based on a causation defense, stating: “The force of impact is insufficient to cause any injury.” The next step is for the insurance company to offer a low amount of money to settle the claim, or make no offer at all. Many personal injury law firms stay away from these types of claims, because they have become too expensive, time consuming, and difficult to handle, prosecute and win.
We understand that not all accidents are created equally, and that people can be injured in these types of accidents, just as people may not have any injuries in accidents resulting in major impact collisions. We fight for our clients, prosecute their cases aggressively and zealously until we obtain a fair and just result. More than 95% of all of these types of cases that we handle are settled favorably, to the satisfaction of our clients, and without going to trial.