Alternative Litigation Solutions

$1,000,000.00 policy limits apportioned:

This case came to me from counsel who represented the driver and three (3) passengers in a significant motor vehicle accident. All four (4) claimants sustained serious injuries including spinal fractures, rib fractures, liver lacerations, and collapsed lungs. One claimant required a total hip arthroplasty while another claimant sustained a fractured ankle which required open reduction and internal fixation. Yet another claimant sustained bilateral hip fractures but did not require surgery. All claimants sustained wage loss. All claimants had significant medical bills. The insurance carrier for the tortfeasor "tendered" the full policy limits but left apportionment to counsel. In doing so, a potential "conflict of interest" arose in than any recommendation by counsel for apportionment may render the clients' interests "adverse" to each other and to counsel. See, Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 "Conflict of Interest: Current Clients." To resolve the conflict, all claimants agreed to submit the entire universe of injuries to me for binding apportionment. After review, I was able to apportion the entire settlement proceeds to all claimants in what I determined was fair under the circumstances. This scenario is very common in the practice and counsel should be aware of the potential conflict of interest. Apportioning the proceeds in a manner such as this, where counsel represents multiple parties, insulates counsel from any claims of malfeasance and conflicts of interest.

Philadelphia County Settlement at Mediation: $125,000.00:

Plaintiff was leaving work in a strip mall and fell on snow/ice which had accumulated in the parking lot during an active snowstorm. She sustained a fractured wrist which required surgery and the implantation of screws. She brought a claim against multiple entities including the snow removal contractor. Defendants argued no "duty" had yet arisen because snow accumulation at the time of the fall was minimal and the fall was during an active snowstorm. Thus, Pennsylvania's "hills and ridges" doctrine precluded any recovery. Ultimately, all Parties agreed the risks and expense in proceeding to trial outweighed continuing to prosecute and defend the case. A very amicable settlement was procured.

Philadelphia Settlement at Mediation:
$650,000.00:

This case arose from a contested liability, intersectional accident where each driver claimed to have entered the intersection on a green light. Plaintiff claimed injury, predominantly to his lumbar spine for which he ultimately underwent spinal surgery. In addition, Plaintiff was asserting economic damages of approximately $270,000.00. The defense argued this accident was relatively minor in nature and also pointed out that Plaintiff was involved in a subsequent accident approximately one (1) month later. However, my evaluation of Plaintiff during our private session was that he would present exceptionally well in front of a Philadelphia jury. Moreover, Plaintiff indicated he was not in any manner injured in the subsequent accident and there were no medical records to indicate he sought any treatment or made any type of claim. Compounding the medical analysis, the surgeon inadvertently lacerated a vein which caused significant blood loss and additional hospital expense, something which Pennsylvania Law likely would consider a "foreseeable" consequence and permit Plaintiff to argue was an additional compensable injury. I was asked to provide a detailed analysis and recommendation to Defendant's insurer after which I was able to successfully settle this case. It was a very good result under the circumstances.