Anonymous v. Anonymous, et al Plymouth Superior Court
Type of Action: Auto Accident
Injuries Alleged: Open fracture of right tibia and fibula
Special Damages: $41, 350.76
Result: $400,000 Settlement
Date: December 2006
Case Summary:
At the time of the accident plaintiff was an eighteen year old college student, majoring in criminal justice. He was injured when the defendant operator’s car crossed the center line and crashed into plaintiff’s SUV. The defendant operator’s mother, the owner of the car, was also named as a defendant. As a result of the accident, plaintiff sustained open fractures of the right tibia and fibula requiring insertion of a surgical rod and screws. Although some of the screws were subsequently removed, it is anticipated that the rod will permanently remain in his leg. Plaintiff’s orthopedic expert was prepared to testify that plaintiff sustained a 20% permanent impairment of his lower extremity which caused him discomfort and restricted his activities. Most significantly, his impairments would prevent him from being able to meet the physical requirements for being a police officer which was the plaintiff’s career goal, prior to the accident. Plaintiff remained capable of performing other full time employment, consistent with his anticipated bachelors degree.
The defendant’s orthopedic expert assigned a slightly lower numerical value to plaintiff’s permanent impairment and was prepared to testify that some of plaintiff’s continuing impairments and discomfort could be alleviated by removal of the surgical rod. He did not directly contest that plaintiff’s injuries would prevent him from ever being a police officer.
Discovery revealed the existence of an excess umbrella policy in addition to the primary auto coverage of $250,000. With a trial date set, plaintiff’s counsel sent a demand letter to both insurers alleging that both had committed unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A and setting forth a joint demand figure to settle the case as to both carriers. In response to the Ch. 93A letter, the auto carrier tendered its policy limits and the excess carrier tendered an additional $150,000.