Mʏᴇʀs & Cᴏᴍᴘᴀɴʏ
Client Rear-Ends Two Vehicles and Recovers Policy Limits
I like writing about cases where our clients do things that--at least on the surface--make them look like they were at-fault.
This case came to us like many others: from an attorney who felt like it wasn't a good fit for her firm.
I like these cases for a couple of reasons. I like the vote of confidence from other attorneys. And it feels pretty good to know that other people think we're going to be able to string a bow that they (and perhaps others) can't.
Anyway, our client was driving on the freeway at night. He was behind Vehicle 2.
Vehicle 2 hit disabled Vehicle 3. Then our client managed to hit both Vehicles 2 and 3.
We put together a demand letter right away. It explained Vehicle 2 was at-fault for hitting Vehicle 3 and coming to an abrupt stop in front of our client. And that Vehicle 3 was at-fault for stopping in the middle of the lane and not activating its hazards.
We could have spent tens of thousands of dollars to investigate concepts like "looming." But toward what end?
What worked in this case was getting out in front of the liability issue early in a coherent way, not wasting money on accident reconstruction and making an early demand for both Vehicle 2's limits and our client's UM limits (because the driver of Vehicle 3 was uninsured).
As a result of that strategy we collected 100 percent of the available insurance.
Two claps for getting out early demand letters and not getting bogged down in unnecessary detail and expense.