Example Of Litigation Plan

HOUSTON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; Inez Grant; Morehouse Parish School Board; Horace Mann Insurance Company and Lloyd Gray, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees.

Paul Imbree, the plaintiff , a supervising licensed driver has suffered a serious injury in a road accident in Northern Territory due to the negligence and breach of duty of care by Jesse McNeilly aged 16 years & 5 months old, the first defendant, and an inexperienced driver not possessing any driver/ learner’s permit.

The ATRA and CALA are trying to stop minor cases from receiving enormous sums of money which will dampen the economy. The subject matter of these cases varies to some length including but not limited to medical and car insurance. In a case against Rich Mountain Nursing and Rehabilitation Center of Mena, jurors found the defendant, Mena, guilty of malpractice in the death of Margaretha Sauer, a ninety-three year old woman. The non-economic punitive damages cash award for the suffering and pain of the Sauer family to be paid by Mena was seventy-eight million dollars. Punitive damages is one of the issues that the ATRA is trying to combat. If nursing homes continue to have pay large sums for punitive damages, they will not be able to survive. The premium average liability offered by nursing homes has increased from $820,000 in 1999 to $11.6 million in 2001. With the liability premiums continuing to rise, the prospects of profits continue to dwindle. They will have no chance at retaining a profit and thus will have to close. It will also mean that doctors will charge more for their services, which leads to fewer health insurances carrying

Brohawn, supra, 276 Md. at 399. Subsequently, the other party to the altercation filed an action against Brohawn seeking damages for intentional torts and negligence. Id. at 399-400. Transamerica, Brohawn’s insurer, refused to defend Brohawn on the grounds that her coverage contained a policy exclusion whereby Transamerica was not responsible for intentional conduct. Id. at 400. Thereafter, Transamerica initiated a declaratory judgment action, in the same court, seeking to have the court declare that Brohawn’s conduct was intentional, and, therefore, fell within the policy exclusion. Id. at 401. The circuit court dismissed the declaratory judgment action because “the question of coverage would be ‘determined by the jury’s verdict in the tort suits]. . . .” Id. at

State Farm has asked whether it has a duty to defend the insured pursuant to the insured’s homeowners policy. It is our opinion that State Farm has no duty to defend the insured under the insured’s homeowners policy. The insured’s homeowners policy entitled the insured to a defense for “a suit brought against an insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this coverage applies, caused by an occurrence.” In this case, these elements initially triggering the insured’s homeowners policy are likely satisfied. Nevertheless, the SECTON II – Exclusions section provides that the liability coverage does not apply to any of the fifteen exclusions specifically enumerated therein.

We write today to present you with a demand for settlement and the supporting documentation for our demand. As you know, we represent Ms. Betty Brath in the matter of a grievous injury she suffered due to the negligence of your insured. Ms. Brath has reached maximum medical improvement but unfortunately will never fully recover. We are able to calculate her past and future medical expenses at approximately $34,177.73. Her general damages at trial will be approximately $170,000.00. We therefore demand payment in the amount of $204,177.73. We elaborate on this demand below.

1. A liability, estimated at $157,050 at December 31, 2012, was settled on February 26, 2013, at $175,160.

Yes, I agree with the court that the damage awarded in this case was arbitrary and reversed the State Appellate court decision. The Court held that the punitive award of $145 million was neither reasonable nor proportionate to the wrong committed, and it was consequently ruled an irrational, arbitrary, and unconstitutional deprivation of the property of the insurer. (Ethical and Legal Environment, 2011). This is like a punishment to defendant, since the defendant was held responsible for doing illegal act outside the state’s jurisdiction.

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

* Research for similar cases with the same injury but with settlements far greater than $100,000. The bigger its difference from the client’s demands, the better it would be. Present these case citations to the court and by the principle of perceptual contrast, it will drive home the point to the jury that the plaintiff’s demand is indeed very

Paul Joseph, the other driver – Florida’s no fault law includes an “injury threshold” limiting law suits to claims of great bodily injury, permanent disability or disfigurement. Statutes, however, are unclear as to exactly what constitutes great bodily injury. It is unlikely that Paul Joseph would be named as a defendant in this action, as Mary’s PIP insurance would be the proper party. Under Florida’s Civil Remedy Statute, §624.155(1)(b), Mary’s insurance company is required to act in her best interests. Should they act in “bad faith” by failing to settle for a reasonable amount, Mary may sue for an amount which is “a reasonably foreseeable result of a specified violation of this section by the authorized insurer and may include an award or judgment in an amount that exceeds the policy limits.” Fla. Stat. §624.155(8) However, the statute goes on to state that “No punitive damages shall be awarded under this section unless the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice and these acts are: (a) Willful, wanton, and malicious; (b) In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured; or (c) In reckless disregard

A few days later he was screened by a physician. The doctor located anterior pain on his anterior spine. Eventually he was given a CT and X-ray which both confirmed an avulsion of part of the iliac crest apophysis which is another word for an outgrowth or projection of a bone. The surgery team performed an open reduction and internal fixation with two titanium fixed screws. A CT scan was given and confirmed adequate screw placement following the procedure.

I have attached our confidential litigation plan for your file. I would ask that if it is necessary for you to share the report or the information contained therein, that you only share it with other members of your management group. Disclosing the report or information to any other persons will destroy the confidential and privileged nature of the same. Consequently, the report and information contained therein will become discoverable to the plaintiff in this case and in other claims that are or may be directed at Support Systems and Services. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions or concerns regarding the report or this matter in general.

This court further finds, as did the court in Shaeffer that the duty "runs only from the insurer to the insured, not to third parties." Id. (quoting Bean, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 4275, 1988 WL 114464 at *1). A third party, therefore, generally "has no cause of action for bad faith against the tortfeasor's insurance company." Id.; see also Chitlik v. Allstate Ins. Co., 34 Ohio App. 2d 193, 197-98, 299 N.E.2d 295 (1973).” So it is clear that Vic Victim will not be able to file a suit

It can be concluded that Mr. Prendergast was acting negligently whilst driving his car, above the national speed limit, as confirmed by his insurers. Therefore Contributory Negligence is the basic issue to be consulted with the insurers who are claiming that Steven’s claim ought to be ‘substantially reduced’ due to the negligence on his behalf.