DISCLAIMER: The above results are specific to the facts and legal circumstances of each of the above clients' cases and should not be used to form an expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client’s case.

The accident happened on December 2, 2005.  Our client was a passenger in a car driven by her supervisor from work.  The supervisor made a left turn in front of a snow plow which collided with the vehicle.  Our client was thrown forward into the seat in front of her.  She lost a tooth, fractured another and required a brief hospital stay followed by several painful dentist visits.  Fortunately, though, she had a great recovery.  Hers was a case that was small but one that merited some compensation.

The supervisor's insurance company was Erie Insurance.  Our client also had an insurance policy with Erie.  Our client thought her case wasn't very big and she'd just handle it herself.  After all, she thought, "I don't really want much and my insurance company insures both of us.  I'm sure they'll be fair about this."

Ere Insurance told our client that the limited tort option applied to her case and they would offer her nothing to settle the case.  What was wrong with that?  The problem was that the limited tort option did NOT apply in the case and Erie Insurance knew (or should have known) better.

After several more conversations in which Erie insisted that our client had limited tort and refused to offer her anything, our client called us. 

It was a small case.  But we were convinced that Erie Insurance was dead wrong about the limited tort issue.  We took the case.

We filed suit, conducted written discovery and deposed the parties.  On the verge of filing a summary judgment motion to resolve the limited tort issue, Erie settled the case.  This much is certain.  The insurance company never expressed the slightest willingness to resolve the case until we'd pushed them to the eve of a judicial decision on their false assertion that their insured was bound by the limited tort option.

Awarded: Not a lot, but a lot more than Zero