Zarwin’s National Insurance Company Client Prevails in Philadelphia Underinsured Motorist Case

Liability was not an issue, and the case proceeded to trial solely on damages. In order to simplify the concept of underinsured motorist benefits for the jury, the parties agreed that counsel could reference Plaintiff’s damages had to exceed $285,000 for Underinsured Motorist benefits to trigger, and counsel was also permitted to tell the jury they should not consider $285,000 to be a starting point for an award, and the jury could decide to award zero. Plaintiff agreed to this arrangement to forestall any attempts by the defense to reference the already settled suit against the tortfeasor driver. Frank was permitted to ask only one question of Plaintiff on cross-examination to confirm for the jury that Plaintiff did sue the other driver involved in the collision.

Plaintiff was 29 at the time of the accident and 32 at trial. The Medical Cost Projection report set her life expectancy at an additional 50 years; hence the nearly $1,000,000 claim for future medical costs. That figure included numerous additional injections, surgical procedures, constant medical monitoring, and therapy visits, among other things.

At trial, Frank cross-examined the Plaintiff with photographs of the vehicles involved in the collision, which showed very minimal property damage. Plaintiff also delayed seeking medical attention immediately after the accident, dropping off passengers at three different locations, then going through a drive-thru for food before going to the hospital. She also went on a vacation two days after the accident, and when she returned went back to work full-time. Frank also secured testimony from Plaintiff’s medical experts that neither of them even saw the photographs of the vehicles and did not take into account the facts of the collision. Plaintiff’s economic expert, also a medical doctor, never even spoke to Plaintiff, despite offering some of her own opinions on future procedures as well.

While the original Underinsured Motorist Claim for policy limits and a Future Medical Cost Projection of $970,000 was at stake, after deliberating for a mere two hours, the jury agreed with the defense that the Plaintiff’s injuries were minimal and she did not need future treatment to the tune of $970,000. The jury awarded the Plaintiff only $90,000 in total damages, with $0 for future medical costs and $0 for future pain and suffering. Because the jury’s award was less than the underinsured motorist threshold for recovery in this case, the award of $90,000 for the Plaintiff’s past pain and suffering ultimately resulted in a $0 verdict against Zarwin’s client.

Defending an insurer in a jury trial can be risky, but this was a clear situation where the Plaintiff was overreaching. Frank Love and his client made the calculated decision to use this case to send a message that in the right circumstances, one should not shy away from forcing a Plaintiff to actually prove her case in court.