Genavieve recently obtained a $100K policy limits settlement for our client in a car accident case after the insurance company initially denied the claim completely. Ultimately, the insurance companies determined each driver bore some comparative fault, and both drivers collected the full limits of each other’s policies.
Our client was stopped at a stop sign, and then as she proceeded to turn into the right lane, another driver abruptly and improperly crossed over two lanes of traffic striking our client’s vehicle.
The other driver’s insurance company denied our claim completely, contending that our client was 100% negligent for failing to yield, keep a careful lookout, and avoid causing a collision.
In response, we asserted our client had already stopped at the stop sign and ensured the lane was clear. The police report corroborated that it was the other driver who struck our client and noted “improper lane usage” as a probable contributing circumstance. We maintained that the insurance company’s denial of liability for this claim contrary to the evidence constituted bad faith. They still refused to pay.
The other driver retained an attorney and filed a claim against our client as well, but we were not deterred. Once we had obtained all of our client’s medical records, we sent a statutory bad faith demand letter pursuant to RSMo. § 537.058. It is our understanding that the other driver’s attorney submitted a bad-faith demand letter to our client’s insurance company as well.
Both drivers sustained serious injuries in the crash. Our client incurred $37K in medical bills and her MRI’s revealed neck and back disc bulges. After a lot of persistence, the insurance companies determined that both parties were comparatively at fault, but because of the severity of the injuries, they ultimately paid the full policy limits to both drivers.
In Missouri, comparative negligence reduces the value of a claim, but does not prevent someone from obtaining any recovery. For example, if the insurance company thought our client’s case was worth $150K, but she was 33% at-fault and the other driver was 66% at fault, then our client’s case would still be worth the $100k policy limits.
$150K – (1/3 fault or $50k) = $100K
Dealing with insurance companies is often a battle, but we are willing to take on that fight.