Every case is different. Success in prior cases does not guarantee success in a future case. It is however a strong indicator.
One of the more gratifying cases that I ever had involved a serious pedestrian injury. The client was injured while crossing a street. The vehicle involved was a pickup truck.
There was no question that the pedestrian was in the crosswalk and crossing with the light. The pickup truck driver was simply inadvertent and hit the pedestrian in the crosswalk.
Liability was not disputed. The liability insurance company for the pickup truck driver very promptly offered their insurance limits. Those limits were low compared to the plaintiff’s injuries.
Thorough Investigation in Virginia Car Accident Cases
In this case there was some incentive to simply take the policy limits offered by the pickup truck’s insurer. At this point the suit had not been filed.
I had no reason to believe that the driver might be insured by anyone else. The truck the defendant was driving was titled in his name only. As such this did not qualify as what is called a “non-owned vehicle”. A non-owned vehicle is frequently the source of additional coverage. That source of coverage did not apply. The defendant did not own any other vehicles. Typically those other vehicles would not be a source of coverage.
The crash occurred at 6:00 a.m. on a weekend morning. The unknown was why was the defendant driving out at that hour.
Before accepting the low limits from the driver’s liability carrier, I insisted that I be able to speak directly with the driver. I did take a recorded statement of the driver over the phone and discovered during that recorded statement that the driver worked for a local construction company. His job consisted of being a safety supervisor. He was on-call 24 hours a day. Even though the truck that he was driving was titled in his name, his employer made the loan payments on the truck. His employer also had a written contract with him that required that he be on-call 24/7. The construction company had operations going on throughout the metropolitan area on a 24/7 basis.
It so happens that during the course of that recorded statement I learned that the driver was actually on his way to a construction site where there had been a fatality. He was going to that construction site to investigate. Coming from his home. He was actually on duty, not just at that time but according to the employer, was on duty 24/7.
Anytime of the day the employer could and did dispatch him to certain construction sites. This was a large construction company that had many construction sites active at the time.
It turns out that the construction company had a very large liability insurance policy.
That policy applied in this case.
Interviewing the Other Party After a Car Accident
In this case, the interview of the driver was critical. On its face, the case looked like it had limited insurance coverage. The injuries to the plaintiff far exceeded the value of that liability policy. Aggressive investigation is important. It leads to a wealth of information. If based on that investigation there is any doubt as to every stone being turned, then you probably must file suit. Once a suit is filed, then the full benefits of court-ordered discovery can be undertaken.
That was not necessary in this case. If it had been necessary, then that too would have been employed.
Guidance for Car Accident Victims
Call, or contact us for a free consultation. Also for more info on successor liability see the Wikipedia pages. Also see the post on this site dealing with car accident issues.
