Hollaway v. Direct Gen. Ins. Co. of Miss., Inc., a case from the Supreme Court of Kentucky, involved a car accident in the parking lot of an apartment complex where the vehicles were both traveling at very low speeds. There were differing accounts of what actually happened in this car accident.
One party testified that he was driving a friend’s car with that friend in the passenger seat at the time. At this point, both occupants of the car noticed another vehicle backing out of a parking space about 25 feet from them. They further testified that they stopped their vehicle to allow the other party to continue to back his vehicle out of his spot. However, they then claimed the other driver turned towards them as he was backing out and did not stop driving until the rear of that vehicle crashed smashed into the front of their vehicle. The driver claimed there was no way to get out of the way of the other car as it was reversing towards them.
As one might expect, the other party has a different version of what occurred. In his version, he was backing out of the parking lot at a slow and controlled speed when the other car came up from behind and slammed into the rear of his vehicle. He said the vehicle was traveling in the wrong direction at the time, and he had no way to avoid the collision. In this case, neither party called the police to come and make a report as to who was at fault in this accident.
What the parties did agree to was that both were wearing seat belts during the accident and there was no visible to damage to one car. The other car only had around $450 in damage to one fender on the driver’s side. While this is not an issue in every case, as your Boston personal injury lawyer can explain, when dealing with car accident cases, if the injuries claimed are excessive and the damage to the vehicle is very minor, this may make it less likely for an insurance company to agree to high level of damages without additional documentation or even litigation.
The party claimed she had an injury to the back and hip went to a considerable amount of pain management appointments, thus generating what the insurance company considered an excessive medical bill. When the insurance company refused to settle the case, plaintiff argued that the insurance company acted in bad faith with respect to the settlement process and sued the insurance company for acting in bad faith. Prior to trial, the insurance company filed a motion for summary judgment asking that the lawsuit be dismissed, as plaintiff had failed to present any evidence to support their claim of bad faith dealing. The trial court agreed and granted their motion to dismiss.
At this point, plaintiff appealed, and the intermediary court of appeals for the state affirmed trial court’s decision to grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment. With little choice, plaintiff again appealed, and the state supreme court found there was no err in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
If you are injured in an accident in Boston, call the Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman for a free and confidential appointment — 1-888-367-2900.
Hollaway v. Direct Gen. Ins. Co. of Miss., Inc., September 22, 2016, Supreme Court of Kentucky
More Blog Entries:
Wilkins v. City of Haverhill – Massachusetts Supreme Court Weighs Slip-and-Fall Claim, May 23, 2014, Boston Personal Injury Attorney Blog