Missouri Injury Law Blog

Jason L. Rice v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, Missouri Supreme Court - SC90139

Ambiguities in insurance policies are construed in favor of the insured, this is because the insurance company is the one who drafted the policy and any ambiguities or mistakes must favor the insurer or victim as they did not draft the policy.

In the above mentioned Missouri Supreme Court case the court ruled that a Shelter Insurance Missouri auto policy excluding and including certain amounts or policy limits for total uninsured motorist coverage was ambiguous and therefore unenforceable. In one portion of the policy it guarantees additional coverage for Missouri uninsured motorist claims and then under another provision attempts to limit it.

For the full opinion regarding ambiguous UM policy provisions see Rice v Shelter.

Debra Derousse v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Missouri Supreme Court - SC90093.

Missouri Statute requires uninsured motorist coverage to cover damages caused by owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles for "bodily injury, sickness, or disease" See Mo Statute 379.203.1

In the above Missouri Supreme Court case it was determined that mental injuries are included as the personal injury plaintiff's lawyer plead that her mental injuries were a sickness under the Statute and the Court agreed that mental injury is a sickness.

This case stemmed from a St Louis motor vehicle accident wherein a body was ejected from a car, his the Plaintiff's windshield and rolled off and came to rest just outside her door. She opened the door and saw the dead body, additionally, she knew the victim which caused even more emotional distress. her emotional distress manifested itself into physical pain, loss of sleep, depression, nightmares, etc. The full Missouri personal injury uninsured motorist opinion.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

Back in early 2008 we were retained as the injury lawyers by the victim of a Belleville Illinois drunk driving crash at a major intersection. Initially, the victim retained a different personal injury law firm who secured a settlement offer of just under $50,000, however, the victim did not want to accept and the previous attorneys did not believe the case was worth more than that offer. We immediately filed a lawsuit on her behalf and eventually settled the case for the policy limits of $100,000.00.

The personal injury lawyers at Sansone Law at not looking for a quick settlement but will put all the necessary hard work into your case to make sure the absolute best result is obtained, as in the case above.

Our Missouri and Illinois personal injury law firm has handled and is currently handling many drunk driving accident cases in Missouri and Illinois. Personal injury lawyer Ben Sansone spent many years of his practice defending DWI cases and has extensive knowledge of all the tests, procedures, and facts necessary to prove the other driver was intoxicated in the civil case and thus open the defendant up to aggravated liability.

See below links of previous posts regarding the above case:

Illinois Drunk Driving Personal Injury Lawsuit

Illinois Drunk Driving Lawsuit - Complaint with Punitive Damages

The above link discusses an Illinois Complaint that includes punitive damages. In both Missouri and Illinois the rules of civil procedure require you initially file the lawsuit without punitive damages claim, gather the necessary evidence to support a punitive damages claim then file a motion for leave to amend the complaint and add punitive damages. This is technically the rule, however, it has been my experience that if you initially file the punitive damages claim by the time the defense files a motion to dismiss based on the plaintiff not obtaining leave as described above, the evidence has already been gathered and the court will grant the leave for punitive damages at the same hearing the defense is trying to get it stricken.

this is the approach I take when the evidence is overwhelming that the driver was intoxicated and we usually have evidence of a plea of guilty or a conviction prior to filing the case.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Drunk Driving Law , Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

In August 2007 my client was the injury victim of a high speed car accident caused by an Illinois drunk driver operating a large pick up truck owned by a car dealership. See: Illinois Truck Accident - Drunk Driver Covered by Auto Dealership Policy

In Missouri and Illinois evidence of intoxication by an at fault driver will, in most cases, allow the imposition of punitive damages. Under Missouri and Illinois law, punitive damages cannot be added to a lawsuit until after filing a motion with the court, showing sufficient evidence to justify punitive damages, then the court will grant leave to file punitive damages. As a practical matter, if the evidence is overwhelming that the driver was drunk, then I often will add punitive damages initially as the defense will not fight the punitive damages claim as they know the judge will ultimately allow it. For example, See Illinois Drunk Driving Lawsuit - Negligence and Punitive Damages. Should a motion be necessary for leave to file punitive damages allegations supporting drunk driving should suffice to have leave granted to file punitive damages. See: Motion for Leave to File Punitive Damages - Illinois Drunk Driving Personal Injury Lawsuit.

Punitive damages are important as they can be used to pressure the insurance company to settle quickly to avoid an excess judgement. An excess judgement is when the judgement exceeds insurance policy limits and thus holding the at fault driver personally responsible financially over and above his insurance coverage. In such situations, I send a letter to the insurance company demanding payment of policy limits within a certain time period, usually 30 days. At the expiration of the time period the offer is forever withdrawn. This tactic opens the insurance company up to potential liability for an excess judgment under a bad faith refusal to settle claim.

The key to the above drunk driving head injury personal injury lawsuit settlement was the combination of the potential excess judgment liability and even more importantly properly evaluating, treating, and proving our client's traumatic brain injury through his treating neurologist as well as different experts to evaluate his current impairment as well as future impairment that he will suffer as a result of the head injury.

As a result of our efforts, the Illinois drunk driving injury lawsuit settled for a total of $575,000.00 $350,000.00 from the car dealership's insurance policy covering negligent entrustment and the negligence of the drunk driver; $100,000.00 being the policy limit for the drunk driver's separate personal policy, and $125,000 from the insurance policy that covered the driver of the vehicle my client was traveling in.

If you or someone you know has suffered a traumatic brain injury, post concussion syndrome, or other head trauma as the result of the negligence or fault of another, please contact us for a free evaluation of your case.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

In May 2008 my client was struck by a Hummer H2 while legally traveling on his bicycle in a designated bike lane in the Soulard area of St Louis MO. He proceeded through an intersection that had no stop sign for his direction of travel, however, the cross traffic had a stop sign and the other driver went through the stop sign and violated my client cyclist's right of way and causing a collision which resulted in serious personal injury. (See police report diagram of St Louis Bike Accident)

This type of vehicle and bicycle collision is referred to as the right cross. As a Missouri and Illinois personal injury lawyer, I represent multiple bike accident and injury clients, two I am currently handling were a result of the above mentioned "right cross". Both were legally and properly either traveling in a bike lane, legally on the shoulder of the road as allowed by Missouri bike law, or properly crossing a pedestrian crosswalk on their bike.

In this case, we recovered $100,000.00 policy limit for our bike accident personal injury client. This amount represents the full policy limit the owner of the vehicle had through GEICO Insurance. However, in this case, the driver did not own the vehicle, therefore, we are also pursuing the driver's insurance policy limit of $50,000.00 as excess insurance coverage.

A few legal hoops need to be hopped through prior to settling the primary personal injury liability insurance coverage, as in this case, the primary insurer (GEICO) has a duty to get all potential liable parties released. Therefore, we entered into a Missouri personal injury release agreement completely releasing the owner of the vehcile from liability and releasing the driver for nay amount of a judgement over and above the additional $50,000.00 policy limit through her personal auto insurance policy.

This Missouri personal injury settlement arrangment keeps the door cracked for recovery in excess of the bodily injury liability insurance policy limits, this is done if the excess carrier refuses to settle within policy limits, if a judgment is then obtained against the driver in excess of the policy limits, then the driver assigns to my client any right for bad faith refusal to settle against the injury insurer, which can potentially make the personal injury insurer liable beyond its bodily injury policy limits. That is the heart of the agreement entered into to settle the primary personal injury auto insurance coverage and still have the potential to still pursue the Missouri bike accident personal injury case against the at fault party. We have done this in several other cases with much success, it is called a covenant not to enforce judgment - See Illinois Drunk Driving Accident - Covenant not to Enforce. This is an example of the injury release we used in this case but it is from another case we handled that involved an Illinois drunk driving personal injury lawsuit that stemmed from a high speed rear end collision that caused a severe head and brain injury to my client as well as multiple other injuries. That case settled for just under $750,000.00 with another $250,000.00 of insurance we are still pursuing.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Bicycle Accidents , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

About 6 months ago I was retained by a Springfield Missouri cyclist that was injured when a car passed him then made a right turn into a parking lot, cutting him off and causing the Missouri bicyclist to crash into the side of their car and resultant injuries. This is what I have referred to in earlier Missouri bike and personal injury law blog articles as "the right hook".

Under Missouri law, a driver overtaking a bicycle must maintain a safe distance. In this case the negligent driver failed to maintain a safe distance and caused a collision.

Missouri State Statute § 304.678 reads as follows:

Distance to be maintained when overtaking a bicycle.

Missouri Bike Statute 304.678. The operator of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on the roadway, as defined in section 300.010, RSMo, shall leave a safe distance when passing the bicycle, and shall maintain clearance until safely past the overtaken bicycle.

Under Missouri law bicyclists are to be treated as other vehicles; for instance, under Missouri law a vehicle is not to cut a bicyclist off, pass a bicyclist unsafely, or pull out in front of a bicyclist.

Clearly, in this situation the negligent driver at best misjudged the speed the Missouri bike accident victim was traveling and not only attempted to pass him, but also made a right hand turn in front of him cutting him off and causing the crash.

Prior to my St Louis personal injury law firm being retained, another attorney encouraged this same bike accident injury victim to accept medical specials only as the top offer from the insurance company, fortunately he did not accept that offer and contacted us; we settled the case six months later for 3 times the amount the previous attorney advised was the best offer he would ever get.

As an avid cyclist myself I have had a few close calls and understand the fact that drivers simply choose not to notice cyclist on many occasions. Like em or not, in Missouri, bicyclists have the same rights to the roadway (except highways) as motorist do. Many lawyers who are not cyclists do not fully understand or believe in this right, but it is one that must be pursued aggressively for just resolution of Missouri or Illinois injury claims resulting from motorists hitting a bicyclist.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

In August 2007 we posted the following blog regarding an Illinois personal injury and work comp claim as the result of a rear end collision in Madison County Illinois, the case was an Illinois worker's compensation claim along with a an Illinois negligence claim against the at fault driver because the injured passenger was on official work duty when the rear end car collision occurred. See:

Illinois Car Accident - Work Comp Claims and 3rd Party Claims - Affects on Recovery by Victim when Competing Claims

The at fault driver had an Illinois automobile accident liability coverage of $100,000; initially the insurer for the negligent Illinois driver, denied paying on the claim. We immediately file d a lawsuit on behalf of our client and the day before all the party deposition were to take place we settled for $95,000 plus payment of all court costs. The Illinois worker's compensation claim resolved approximately 6 months prior to the negligence case and settled for $25,000 plus $60,000 in benefits paid.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workers' Compensation , Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

Recently, Sansone Law was able to settle a Missouri toy products liability case for close to $100,000.00 after several years of litigation. The case stemmed from a 2004 injury that was described in the previous blog entry below.

Missouri Personal Injury Law - Child Injured by Unreasonably Dangerous Toy

It was a very difficult case from a liability standpoint as the toy knife was not blatantly dangerous looking. However, after comparing the rigid nature of the knife and the seemingly serrated edge to give it a more realistic look, with other similar toys on the market it became obvious to me this toy was dangerous for what it was intended for. The rigidity and serrated edge made it dangerous for little kids that it was marketed to. Most knifes in similar toy sets were very flexible with blunt and smooth edges for safety.

The Missouri personal injury products liability lawsuit was slated to go to trial in April 2009, however we were able to negotiate a settlement that paid for the minor child's medical bills plus and put a handsome amount of money into a protected savings account for her future education.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

My client, James Hunt, was assaulted by the police when they were investigating "suspicious activity" outside his house. The police claim they simply asked him to verify the people outside of his house were an acquaintance. The real story, is that the police (part of an aggressive "crime suppression" squad) assumed two black people in a car waiting for James were burglars, and upon James answering the door they assumed he was a burglar and assaulted him. Soon after the police realized their mistake and tried to get James to agree to forget about it, he refused and said he was going to get a lawyer.

So, what is the best way to cover up a police assault on an innocent person? Charge him with a crime, claim he assaulted the police without provocation, and get six other officers to all back the story up. The prosecuting attorney's office is pushing the case because a guilty plea or verdict will effectually destroy any civil case James may have against the police. That is why this criminal case is so important, without a victory here the civil personal injury case is done.

Well, the police story is so ridiculous, that after police testimony the only defense was Jame's own testimony. The jury became deadlocked and refused to convict James.

See St Louis Post dispatch story by Heather Ratcliffe - "Jury Deadlocked in case involving fracas with police"

Jury deadlocks in case involving fracas with police
By Heather Ratcliffe
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
10/17/2008

St. Louis — A jury deadlocked Wednesday on whether a man assaulted St. Louis police who went to his home last year to ask what he knew about people sitting in a van in the alley behind his house.

Defendant James Hunt, 53, countered that officers ordered him out of his home and beat him without provocation. Police said Hunt started it by grabbing an officer's shirt. The jury gave up after about four hours of deliberation.

Hunt is charged with third-degree assault, a misdemeanor.

Officer William Clinton testified that he had noticed the van in the Benton Park West neighborhood about 6 p.m. May 11, 2007, while patrolling an area hit by a rash of burglaries. He said the man and woman in the van claimed they were waiting for Hunt.

Officers handcuffed the two and knocked on Hunt's back door to verify the story. They said Hunt became agitated, cursed and grabbed Detective Ron Martin by the shirt.

"I defended myself," Martin testified Wednesday. "I hit him twice to get him off me." Officers said they handcuffed Hunt and put him in a patrol car.

Hunt told a much different story.

He said officers asked him outside without saying why and that Martin threw a punch. "When the officer swung at me, I ducked and it (obscenity) him off," Hunt said. He said Martin responded with more punches.

Hunt claimed Martin jabbed him in the face with the end of a crowbar three times; he showed jurors pictures of his swollen face.

"Look at all the problems I got for answering my door," Hunt said.

Hunt filed an internal affairs complaint with the police. Officials ruled it unfounded, and the case was closed.

Hunt said police may have seen family photos belonging to his girlfriend, who is white, and presumed that Hunt, who is black, was a burglar.

Only after officers found his house keys did their demeanor change, he said. They offered him a cigarette, he said.

"They asked me how I wanted to deal with this," Hunt testified. "I told them I was going to get a lawyer."

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Sansone Law in the News , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

My Missouri personal injury client, Kathy, is a self made small business owner who was injured as the result of a dangerous condition on the premises of Lowe's back in July 2007. She incurred personal injury to her knee and incurred $15,000 in medical bills as a result of Lowe's negligence under Missouri injury law. Our Missouri personal injury law experience and expertise helped secure a $60,000 settlement for Kathy, 4 times the amount of her medical bills.

Kathy was what Missouri personal injury attorneys call a "business invitee" on Lowe's’ premises, thus raising the standard of care as the premises is open to the public for business purposes. Kathy was caused to slip and fall due to an unreasonably dangerous condition on Lowe's’ property, specifically, standing water on the concrete floor. Moreover, not only was there standing water but the Missouri injury liability was aggravated because there was organic soot and plant food in the water, making the concrete excessively slick as compared to just water on concrete. Additionally, this condition was located across the entrance to the nursery section at Lowe's, an obvious high foot traffic area.

As you can see in the picture, the saw cut between the Lowe’s entry and exit gate is full of a black substance, that is organic grunge; additionally, the water between the gates has this same organic material under it as this is drain off from the plants being watered, thus carrying dissolved plant food and minerals that make the concrete floor incredibly slick.

Also, you can see there is a crack in the concrete which creates about a ½ inch lip, Kathy slid on the water (you can see several slip marks in the picture) full of the organic material and then she hit the lip causing her knee to twist and her resultant fall and injuries. Lastly, there were no warning cones present, where they should have been, instead they were off to the side behind a counter.

The premise was within the exclusive control of Lowe's and it was held open to the public for business invitee access. Therefore, Lowe's owed Kathy the highest degree of care under Missouri personal injury law to keep the premises in a safe condition and to regularly inspect it to guarantee invitee safety.

Additional info on Missouri Premise Liability Law as written by a Missouri personal injury lawyer.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Premises Liability , Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

In Missouri, premises liability refers to the legal liability imposed on property owners for allowing an unreasonably dangerous condition to exist on the property which results in personal injury. Under Missouri injury law, business property owners owe a higher legal standard of care than private property owners. In Missouri commercial or business property owners have a duty to make the property safe and to reasonable inspect the property to make sure there are no hidden defects that could be dangerous. In Missouri, private property owners are only liable for dangerous conditions they know about or should have known about.

A victim of such a defective condition and resultant injury hired me as her Missouri personal injury lawyer and we recently settled her slip and fall case resulting from a Missouri personal injury incident occurring on 6/30/2004. My client was a business invitee at a gas station in Sullivan Missouri, she was caused to slip and fall due to an unreasonably dangerous condition, under Missouri injury law, on the gas station's property, specifically standing water in the bathroom. The bathroom was within the exclusive control of the gas station owner and it was held open to the public for business invitee access. Therefore, the gas station owed my client the highest degree of care under Missouri law to keep the bathroom in a safe condition and to regularly inspect it to guarantee invitees’ safety.

When my client entered the bathroom she immediately slipped and fell, noticing that not only were her pants wet from the fall but there was standing water that she slipped in, the bathroom was very dirty, and there was indication of a lot of foot traffic through the bathroom. This indicates that the bathroom had not been maintained for several hours. This fact was admitted later in discovery after we filed a Missouri personal injury lawsuit in Franklin County, Missouri.

The gas station owner failed to reasonably inspect the bathroom as they admitted they did not regularly clean the bathroom and there was evidence that the water was from a known leak under the sink. The insurance company would only offer $12,000 to settle the case until after we filed a Missouri personal injury lawsuit and pushed the case towards a trial, the insurance company settled for $41,000.

My client incurred a serious personal injury to her ankle requiring a little less than $10,000 in medical treatment. Initially the insurance company would not offer any more than $8,000 stating my client should have watched where she was walking and that the fall was her own fault. Upon filing the Missouri personal injury claim the offer increased to $12,000. Still way too little, the bathroom was a dark, dirty bathroom, with a known water leak in it, clearly, the business owner was liable. There was no rug, warning sign, or repair done to protect the public from the slippery condition created by the known water leak.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Premises Liability , Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

In a previous Missouri personal injury lawyer blog post I discussed the facts and circumstances of my Illinois workers compensation client who witnessed the traumatic death of a co-worker as the result of a fall from a water tower. As a result of witnessing this tragic death incident, which has turned into a million dollar Illinois wrongful death case and Illinois products liability action, my client suffered post traumatic stress.

This Illinois workers compensation case recently settled for $32,500.00 to compensate my Illinois personal injury and workers compensation client for the traumatic stress endured as a direct result of the work related injury.

Many Illinois personal injury lawyers may have never pursued the claim because there was no direct physical injury. In fact, my client's first Illinois personal injury lawyer did not pursue the claim and recommended a settlement to him of less than $10,000. I took over the case and through psychological testing and other important case work we were able to evidence the psychological injury and settlement the case for more than 3 times more what his first Illinois work comp lawyer recommended.

An Illinois or a Missouri work comp case or claim require one very simple element to have a claim in the first place, a work related injury. That injury can be physical or mental. Often times a mental injury is drastically more debilitating than a physical injury.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workers' Compensation , Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

Every year Missouri Lawyers Weekly comes out with their Missouri Top Settlements and Verdicts Issue espousing the largest Missouri personal injury settlements and verdicts for the previous year. According to the January 28, 2008 issue of Missouri Lawyer's Weekly, the largest Missouri medical malpractice settlement for 2007 was 2 million dollars. Due to confidentiality agreements with our 2007 medical malpractice settlement, we did not submit our settlement to Lawyers Weekly; however, our 2007 Medical malpractice settlement was 4.5 million dollars, more than double the highest reported Missouri medical malpractice settlement reported in 2007. This was a Missouri wrongful death case as a result of the alleged negligent medical treatment of post gastric bypass complications. This entry and the other entry discussing this case disclose limited information allowed by the confidentiality agreement.

Co-counsel with me was St Louis injury lawyer Robert Pedroli of Pedroli and Gauthier, we worked side by side on this case from the beginning. Often personal injury lawyers will bring in co-counsel after approval by the client based on the size, complexity, and time commitment required on these multi million dollar medical malpractice and wrongful death injury cases.

Recently, a client asked me what is the difference between a personal injury judgment and a settlement and which is better? Clearly, a settlement is an agreement between the parties often prior to a trial or judgment to resolve the case. A judgment is entered by the court after a bench trial or as in injury case more often a jury verdict. However, the more important distinction is that a personal injury settlement is usually paid out immediately in a lump sum or as part of a structured settlement. A Judgment may be subject to significant reduction to bring it within the Missouri statutory damage caps or because the judge rules it was excessive, a judgment is often appealed by the losing party, especially if it is a large judgment, which usually stays collection during the pendency of the appeal and may even result in overturning the judgment and thus no collection, and, most importantly, a judgment must be collected as it is not always voluntarily paid by the defendant. The judgment may exceed the defendant's insurance limits, it may exceed their assets, or they may even declare bankruptcy. Therefore, a large settlement is worth more than a large judgment.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

While working for Phoenix Fabricators my client's late husband, Jason, was repairing weld lines on a water tower in Arkansas. He lost his footing and his lanyard and safety clip failed, allowing him to fall to a tragic and untimely death. The surviving spouse and children settled the Illinois workers compensation claim, and have a cause of action against the lanyard manufacturer through a wrongful death products liability lawsuit. The employer was found by OSHA to have violated several regulations including failure to have safety nets among several other serious violations. Unfortunately, in most cases and in this current case, worker's compensation is the sole remedy available to an employee against their employer for injuries sustained on the job. This does not prevent us from filing a lawsuit against any responsible or negligent 3rd party.

Generally, the location of the injury or death dictates the applicable law, so in this case, Arkansas work comp law presumptively applied. However, under Arkansas law this wrongful death case would be capped at about $200,000, an amount that is disgustingly inadequate for the death of a young man. However, Under Illinois worker's compensation law the wrongful death the cap is much higher, therefore, the work comp claim was filed in Illinois seeking work comp benefits pursuant to Illinois law. We argued that Illinois work comp law applied because the decedent was an Illinois resident and was hired over the phone while he was at his home in Illinois.

This allowed us to convince the worker's compensation insurer to agree that Illinois law may very well apply and lead to a favorable worker's compensation settlement of $500,000.00 present cash value. The decent was entitled to payments over a number of years which would have amounted to more than $1,000,000.00.

The 3rd Party Case: We are currently pursuing the manufacturer of the defective lanyard for a negligence and products liability/wrongful death case for the death of our client's husband. This will allow us to recover damages in excess of worker's compensation's limited remedies that are capped by regulation in favor of employers. This case against the lanyard manufacturer is a multi million dollar case to compensate my client and her family for the death of her husband and her children's father.

ILLINOIS WORKER'S COMPENSATION & WRONGFUL DEATH CASE - Initial Blog Entry

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Products Liability / Dangerous Products , Workers' Compensation , Wrongful Death , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

We recently settled a Missouri personal injury case stemming from a motorcycle accident outside of Union Missouri. One of the at fault drivers had a policy of insurance for $100,000 and a few months after filing a Missouri motorcycle accident personal injury lawsuit, the driver's insurance tendered the entire amount of insurance coverage. There were some disputes as to which car caused the accident as one witness claimed that a car abruptly stopped in the left lane causing the driver mentioned above to swerve to the right and strike my client on his motorcycle.

The vehicle that stopped abruptly did not stay around and was never identified, therefore, under Missouri law, it is a uninsured motorist and the injured party's uninsured motorist coverage applies for the negligent actions of the unidentified motorist. Thus, we are pursuing the injury claim beyond the policy limits above by seeking compensation from the motorcyclist's uninsured motorist coverage insurance carrier.

Word to the wise, as a St Louis personal injury lawyer and a motorcyclist myself, I strongly recommend to all motorcyclists to max out your insurance coverage as you may be hit by someone with minimum insurance coverage or even no coverage and your only remedy will be your own uninsured and under insured motorist coverage.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Motorcycle Accidents , Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

This week we secured a Plaintiff's verdict in favor of a bicyclist who was hit at an intersection when a driver of a pick up truck made a right turn and crossed the shoulder the cyclist was in, causing her to hit the side of his truck, get thrown from her bike, and break her elbow. The driver claimed he saw her, made and extra wide turn, and that she panicked and lost control of her bike all by herself. Additionally, the police officer, who did not witness the accident, testified against the cyclist essentially claiming the bike accident and injury was her own fault.

Despite the evidence presented by the defense we were able to overcome that bias many people have, and clearly the police officer had, towards bicyclists and our right to use the roadways and the degree of care motorists must exercise towards bike riders.

Almost no cases, at least none that are available in court records or that I know of, regarding collisions between cars and bicycles are taken to trial in Missouri. In fact, many Missouri lawyers drop bicycle accident cases or do not aggressively pursue them. The simple fact of the matter is, despite some good statutes in Missouri protecting bicyclists, there are still many laws that could be passed to protect cyclists. For example, Missouri statutes require a safe distance be maintained when passing a bicyclist, however, there is no state statute regarding the duty of a motorist to yield to a bicyclist traveling in the shoulder when making a right turn. As in the case above, the entire case had to be tried on a "failure to keep a careful lookout" legal theory as the judge would not allow me to argue failure to yield, claiming that there is no specific law creating that duty. A point that we are appealing along with a few others in an attempt to clarify Missouri bicycling law and the legal responsibility in Missouri of drivers towards bicyclists.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Bicycle Accidents , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

While on the job my client was injured as a pedestrian after he was crossing Delmar Blvd in St Louis, Missouri, near its intersection with Union. The light for eastbound traffic was red but there was a green arrow for eastbound traffic to turn North (left) at Union. As my client, a pedestrian, was crossing the road, about four car lengths from the crosswalk, a stopped driver waved him to walk by, as he stepped into the turn lane he looked left and the roadway was clear, as he was crossing a speeding car that was trying to beat the light struck him and fractured his left tibia (lower leg). The police responded to the car and pedestrian accident injury and the report was inconclusive as to fault.

Being that my client was on the job at the time of the car and pedestrian collision, this was immediately claimed through Missouri workers compensation and the employer's work comp insurer covered my client's medical expenses and lost wages. Additionally, we pursued a 3rd party claim, for personal injury sustained in St Louis Missouri, on behalf of our client against the negligent car driver for striking him as a pedestrian.

As a personal injury lawyer I have to recognize that often my client's cases have weaknesses, and this case was no exception. The weaknesses in this case included that he was crossing Delmar without using the cross walk. Additionally, he partially relied on an unknown driver waving him through traffic to rely that the roadway was clear. On the other hand, the other driver was speeding and claimed he was heading to church, however, in order to go to his church he would have had to head south on Union. This combined with several other inconsistencies that I highlighted in the driver's deposition testimony battered his credibility and helped secure a favorable personal injury settlement.

We were able to resolve the workers compensation case and the 3rd party liability case for about $90,000 combined. We were able to maximize client recovery by minimizing the workers compensation lien on the 3rd party liability case. The 3rd party liability case settled favorably about 30 days before trial.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workers' Compensation , Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

My client, Kevin, was involved in a St Louis Missouri car and truck accident after the driver of a truck lost control of his vehcile on Highway 44 near Antire Road in St Louis County. The driver that lost control of his truck and hit my client's car claimed a large semi truck caused the accident by cutting him off and causing him to lose control of his truck and thus striking my client's car. The collision caused my client to lose control of his vehicle, spin out, and hit the median.

As the result of the two truck drivers' negligence, Kevin sustained a knee injury consisting of a torn meniscus cartilage. This injury required minor surgery and physical therapy amounting to about $14,000 in medical bills.

A claim was made against the insurer for the pickup driver, Progressive Insurance, and my client's uninsured motorist coverage, Fireman's Fund, to cover the negligence of the unidentified semi truck driver. Many personal injury lawyers would have only made a claim against the primary truck driver as the only evidence of the large semi truck driver's negligence was the pickup driver's own statement to the police about the semi truck cutting him off.

Aggressive pursuit of my client's primary claim and the pursuit of the uninsured motorist claim yielded a result over and above the primary at fault driver's insurance limit of $25,000. Instead we were able to recover additional amounts over the $25,000 insurance limit and ultimately recover a $55,000 personal injury settlement for our client.

DEMAND LETTER - Personal Injury Auto Accident - Demand to Liability Insurer and Uninsured Motorist Carrier

National Transportation Library - Large Truck Accident Causation

Missouri Uninsured Motorist Report

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

Ms. Jacobs was traveling on I-70 when a fatigued truck driver fell asleep at the wheel and swerved into her and forced her off the highway. As a result of the truck accident she suffered shoulder impingement that required surgery.

The case was transferred to me after several years of drawn out litigation with another personal injury law firm that initially filed the injury case. The client came to us because she wanted her case pursued aggressively by personal injury trial lawyers. Her prior lawyers were not pursuing the case diligently, they failed to prepare and set the case for trial which keeps continued pressure on the insurance company.

When my office received the case the offer from State Farm Insurance, the insurer for the negligent truck driver, was about $20,000. I prepared the case for trial, primarily by getting the client's treating doctor's medical testimony on the record which supported her injuries, continued symptoms, medical treatment, and the doctor's opinion that the accident was the sole cause for the injuries and resultant symptoms.

More importantly, we amended the Injury Petition to a "Negligence Per Se Petition" based on the fact the negligent truck driver was cited by the police for careless and imprudent driving, moreover, the negligent truck driver plead guilty to and was convicted of the careless and imprudent driving, therefore, the issue of liability was was essentially admitted by the truck driver's plea of guilty and conviction. The negligence per se Petition was allowed by the Judge, thus adding tremendous pressure on State Farm. The issue at trial was not both liability and damages, but only damages now.

The defense lawyers for State Farm increased their offer by more than double within a few days of trial to $45,000. This was an exceptional injury settlement based on the medical bills of about $13,000 and the client's injuries which she recovered from.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Injury Law , Automobile Accidents , Truck Accidents , Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

Car accident in Chesterfield Missouri on Long Road with questionable liability as there were conflicting witness accounts as to whether the intersection traffic light was green or had a green arrow. Our client made a left turn pursuant to a green arrow and was broad-sided. Client suffered a broken leg and knee requiring a patella implant. After full recovery from the other driver's insurance we were able to recover $100,000 (policy limits) from our client's under-insured motorist coverage despite set-off clauses in the policy and the insurance company's claim that the policy payout was set-off by the recovery from the other driver. The insurance company settled for the UIM policy limit.

What is Set-off in this situation? After a victim of injury resulting from a car accident recovers from the other party's insurance company in full (i.e. the other at fault party only had $25,000 in coverage) and that amount does not fully compensate the injury victim, then if the victim had under-insured motorist coverage (as our client did in this case) then the under-insured coverage carrier can sometimes take a set-off against the coverage amount the victim had. In this case, the under-insured carrier tried to claim that since $25,000 was recovered from the at fault party, then that amount should be deducted from the $100,000 under-insured coverage therefore they should only have to pay out $75,000. We were able to prevent that in this case due to a strict reading of the insurance policy and specifically it's under-insured and set-off clauses and they paid out the full $100,000 to our client as the set-off clause was ambiguous and therefore unenforceable.

MISSOURI INSURANCE SET-OFF CASE LAW
See Zemelman v. Equity Mut. Ins. Co., 935 S.W.2d 673 (Mo. App. WD 1996) Court read the policy’s UIM “set-off” provision against the policy’s “other insurance” provision and found it ambiguous because the language described the UIM as “excess over any other collectible insurance.”

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

In 2007, there was a confidential settlement of a medical negligence case. Suit for the alleged negligent failure to timely diagnose and surgically treat complications following a gastric bypass (or stomach staple) procedure, settled for the sum of $3.5 million against the bariatric program of a hospital.

Additionally, we settled with the surgeon for his medical malpractice insurance policy limits of $1,000,000.00 Per confidentiality agreements names of parties and specifics of the case cannot be revealed.

CT Scan showing Leak from Staple Line
Arrows show leak abcess
A common complication that must be treated

Co-counsel on the above case was Robert Pedroli of Pedroli and Gauthier

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Injury Law , Medical Malpractice , Gastric Bypass Malpractice , Wrongful Death , Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

This week in St Louis Missouri after a two day jury trial a city jury awarded my client actual and punitive damages as a result of personal injury after a man intentionally drove his car into him.

In March 2006 after a disagreement the parties had about another issue Sikman walked to his car and verbally told Toroslu to get out of his way or he was going to run him down. Toroslu remained next to the vehicle asking Sikman to wait for the police to resolve their disagreement, however, Sikman got into his car, made a sharp left turn, and struck Toroslu knocking him to the ground.

Toroslu did not plan on filing a lawsuit against Sikman as he was not hurt that bad and only bruised and scraped. However, Sikman filed a lawsuit against Toroslu for battery and property damage claiming that Toroslu punched his car mirror wanting about $600 in damage and punitive damages. Therefore, it was only natural to file a counterclaim as part of defending a frivolous lawsuit.

Frivolous lawsuit is a term used a lot but in most cases it is used to describe a lawsuit that someone simply does not like and is actually not frivolous. People often put that stamp on lawsuit s that they disagree with despite having legal and factual merit.

The lawsuit filed by Mr. Sikman is a perfect example of a truly merit-less and frivolous lawsuit. Without any evidence, he claimed that the run down of my client never occurred and the mirror of his car was damaged as a result of Toroslu allegedly punching it. He had no witnesses to support his claim, and even better yet, after brief investigation I found four independent witnesses who all saw the incident and each and every one of them agreed with Toroslu's version of being intentionally run down by Sikman. But wait, it gets better! All the witnesses testified that Sikman tried to bribe them with cash and gifts to get them to testify in favor of him; what a piece of work.

Even after all of this evidence came out at trial, Sikman still allowed his claims to go to the jury, and of course, the jury rejected his claim against Toroslu. Additionally, we filed a counterclaim on behalf of Toroslu as part of the defense of this frivolous claim by Sikman, we stipulated to $1 in actual damages as Toroslu was hardly injured from the altercation; thus we were able to get a punitive damages award of $750; 750 times the actual damages of $1 that we claimed.

What is next? Sikman's lawyers have vowed to fight the punitive damages award and force Toroslu to spend more money on legal fees and expenses; over what? $750? it is crazy.

Based on the evidence presented at trial and the verdict reached by the jury, we now have an excellent malicious prosecution claim we will file on behalf of Toroslu seeking attorney fees spent on defending Sikman's obnoxious and patently frivolous claim and seek additional punitive damages for the malicious prosecution.

This is the deterrent the law has established to stop truly frivolous claims and allow a remedy for those that are maliciously prosecuted such as my client was in this case.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

M.A.E. v. Dr Smith, M.D. (confidentiality agreement), Missouri 2006

Medical Malpractice settlement after my client underwent a de Quervain's release, a simple outpatient procedure designed to relieve pain caused from injured tendons at the base of the thumb and wrist. The Dr. negligently cut 90% of the siatic nerve when making the incision, reducing our clients ability to feel the back of her hand and causing a numbing sensation.

My client incurred nominal additional expenses and lost wages as a result of the doctor's negligence. There was a zero offer from defendant to settle the case until 2 days before trial and the case was settled for $60,000. Additionally, because the underlying injury that required surgery in the first place was work related, we settled her work comp case for medical bills plus $20,000.

This was not a record breaker, but given the nature of the injuries it was definitely a victory. The primary reason any offer was made at all on the case was that we destroyed the Defendant's medical expert in deposition the week before trial. He is the type of doctor that believes most, if not all legal cases against doctors are frivolous, in the deposition he all but admitted the doctor was negligent.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Injury Law , Medical Malpractice , Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

December 2003, my client was in a car accident when she was rear ended by a driver who claimed she hydroplaned and lost control of her vehicle. My client sustained about 10k in medical bills, however, the other driver's insurance company, The Hartford Insurance Company, would only offer a few thousand over my client's medical bills.

In February 2007 in the face of a low offer (but more than the medial bills) by the insurance company we took the case to a jury and recovered $30,000, more then double the offer on the case and three times the amount of the medical bills.

This is not a huge case, but it is significant, many lawyers want to take the easy money and not take the risk of pushing for just compensation as the result of the personal injury sustained. We do not take this approach and will take a case to trial whether it is large or small.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Injury Law , Automobile Accidents , Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

Nursing negligence caused my client to suffer 2nd Degree burns on his legs when a home health nurse negligently allowed his shower water to get too hot. Daniels is parapalegic and needs assistance in and out of the shower which includes the duty to set the water temperature, especially due to Daniel's lack of feeling in his legs.

As a result Daniels was treated for his burns and endured several infections through the burns causing a significant impact on his health. We were able to secure a significant settlement for Daniels just a few weeks before trial and after consistent zero offer from the insurance company as they claimed Daniels burned himself for monetary gain and that he lacked feeling in his legs and therefore suffered only a little.

Our medical expert was highly critical of the procedure the home health nurse followed and her lack of oversight during the shower preparation process. The grueling discovery process finally revealed enough evidence to show that despite any desperate claims of self infliction of the wounds, there was so much evidence of negligence established by us that they had to settle or risk a potential multi million dollar verdict after a trial.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Injury Law , Medical Malpractice , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

Bus accident resulting in personal injury: Our injured client was struck by a Greyhound bus at a rest stop when he walked between parked cars and failed to look before crossing. Several other law firms refused to take the case, and understandably so, because he admitted to not looking where he was going.

Attention to detail by us lead us to this great settlement. Upon extensive investigation we learned that the Greyhound bus recently had brake problems and we tracked down a witness who was on the bus that was willing to testify that the brakes were malfunctioning and that was the reason the bus stopped at the rest stop to begin with.

Of course, Greyhound's records did not indicate this problem, however, the bus driver admitted to the brake issue during his deposition. Our client incurred about $12,000 in medical bills and the settlement reached was excellent considering the comparative fault and damages.

Madison County Illinois Court Record of Greyhound Bus Lawsuit

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Injury Law , Automobile Accidents , Truck Accidents , Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

Negligence by school and its employees when my client, a 6 year old boy, was on the school playground when he fell from the monkey bars and severely sprained his wrist. The school was liable because they failed to properly supervise the boy and they failed to have a safe surface under the monkey bars.

The parents were responsible for about 2k in medical bills and their son had symptoms and problems with his wrist and forearm for several months. The boy fully recovered but was left with a scar on his wrist and months of pain and suffering.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Injury Law , Premises Liability , Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark: