Case Results

R. Harris and Shutters were able to obtain excess policy limits for two clients that were passengers in a vehicle that turned in front of a vehicle as they were heading into a shopping plaza resulting in severe injuries. Each client was life-flighted from the scene and each had extensive medical treatment. Investigators were immediately sent to the scene and to the vehicles to determine the possible causes related to speed and distance. As passengers, our young clients were found to have no liability for the accident and we were able to make a recovery from several insurance sources, including some excess amounts.

Shutters was able to obtain policy limits of $100,000 from the at-fault party that rear-ended his client’s F-250 pickup truck leading to shoulder injuries. The insurance company argued and fought the claim suggesting that the damages to the rear of the F-250 were nominal, however, to show the force of the impact, the pictures of the at-fault party’s vehicle revealed extensive damages, as well as the solid heavy-duty steel trailer hitch on the F-250, was bent by several inches. Shoulder surgery was recommended but not undergone. Shutters’ client was able to show that as a hands-on business owner, that additional employees were hired to replace what the client could no longer perform.

Shutters and R. Harris successfully obtained policy limits of $400,000 ($100K at-fault party and $300K of uninsured motorist coverage) when his client was struck by a vehicle while riding his bicycle on the sidewalk along San Jose Boulevard. The at-fault party was exiting a gas station and not paying attention resulting in spine injuries that led to a two-level fusion in his back.

Shutters obtained a total of $232,000 for his client following two motor vehicle accidents that were less than one month apart. Insurance fought against which accident caused the need for the client’s two-level cervical fusion, however, the total amount of the available at-fault limits from both accidents was eventually tendered ($70,000). Shutters then fought with the client’s own insurance company seeking additional compensation for her injuries and was able to procure an additional $162,000 in settlement funds.

Shutters and R. Harris successfully obtained all available limits of $125,000 for their client who sustained a fractured femur after a motor vehicle pulled out in front of his motorcycle.

Shutters’ client sustained a fractured ankle while making a delivery to a supermarket and was able to prove that the loading dock had a possible defect that contributed to the injury.

Shutters represented a client whose new Cadillac was damaged by a valet. The valet company denied the claim for diminished value initially and after suit was filed and before trial, had offered $7,000 which was rejected. The Court awarded every penny that Plaintiff was seeking.

Shutters obtained the policy limits for his client following a motor vehicle accident that totaled his client’s older Cadillac. While the injuries were soft-tissue, the injuries caused the client to miss several weeks of work and the medical billing exceeded the available PIP limits of his client’s policy.

Shutters and R. Harris obtained a verdict of $268,954.56 against GEICO. This was a motor vehicle accident wherein our client was a passenger turning on a green arrow when the at-fault party ran a red light crashing into the side of our client’s vehicle. The accident was actually caught on video through a nearby store surveillance and shown to the jury. The at-fault party tendered the available $10,000 policy, but GEICO refused to tender the available $50,000 uninsured motorist coverage. Our client sustained bulges and several herniated discs in her spine and while she did not undergo surgery, our experts testified that she would be a surgical candidate in the future. Her pre-existing records failed to show any prior back or neck complaints. GEICO offered $35,000 before the trial. GEICO has an expert from JOI testify that her injuries were not permanent and that her injuries would resolve without any surgical intervention.

Shutters’ client was a patron at a local thrift store that had outdoor furniture on the front walk secured with clear locking wires. His client, unable to detect the wires, caught her foot, fell, and sustained fractures to her hip and arm. This matter was defended vigorously on liability issues, however, even with an assessment of comparative fault, the store conceded the risks moving forward with a trial and resolved the lawsuit.