ADVERTISEMENT

VERDICT IS IN: Woman Distracted by Cell phone, kills woman & brain injury for Fiance

Again, her reading the word "Okay" didn't cause the crash. Her trying to pick her phone up off the car floor while driving caused the crash.

That could just as easily have happened if she was trying to pick up a pack of gum or a bottle of water or a tube of lipstick off the floor.
I see your point; but the text started the whole chain of events and texting and driving is illegal in MN.

Either way, its inattentive driving where the driver was not even sure if she applied the brakes before impact.

Seriously, if she does not know if she applied the brakes, how attentive to driving was she?

I think she is in serious trouble here.

I think this is why your insurance company says to not admit to anything.

Chain of events can’t be a valid argument. Where would they begin? If she hadn’t met the friend that texted her...if she had bought a different phone case that wasn’t as slick...if she had toast instead of cereal she would have left the house 2 minutes earlier...
 
Chain of events can’t be a valid argument. Where would they begin? If she hadn’t met the friend that texted her...if she had bought a different phone case that wasn’t as slick...if she had toast instead of cereal she would have left the house 2 minutes earlier...
That depends. How does she like her toast?
 
Again, a text from the daughter to Destiny Xiong started the entire chain of events.
And, again, the text message wasn't the cause of the crash.

Reading the text message was in fact part of a chain of events leading up to the crash. But if Xiong had simply read the text and then set the phone in the passenger's seat there would have been no crash. The crash occurred because she dropped the phone on the floor and then made the fateful decision to start rooting around for it while driving.

If she had dropped a water bottle on the floor and crashed while trying to retrieve it, would you say the accident occurred because she was drinking water?
 
This brings back bad memories for me. Ironically the same day. My wife and 3 daughters were traveling back from a wedding the day before. At 11:16 am I got a call at work from my oldest daughter. She informed me that they were involved in a bad accident. I left work immediatly and drove from Iowa City to Waterloo, accident was just West of Waverly. A 20 year old girl pulled out from a side street onto a 4 lane divided highway in front of my family traveling 65 mph. Thankfully everyone survived. My wife has had 2 reconstructive surgeries on her right ankle. Oldest has permanent nerve damage in her lower left leg. Middle has had 2 surgeries, 1 on her right ankle and on her right wrist. Youngest should be driving, but is still going through PTSD couseling. We are still waiting to settle with the 20 year old's insurance company. Our attorney has obtained the 20 year old's cell record. She was texting at the time she pulled out. Please put the mother F#$%ing phone down!!!!! It's not that important to not wait til you are off the road and parked.
That would be the scariest drive ever. Glad it all turned out ok. I was almost that 20 year old driver on a two lane HWY. I swear I looked both ways a couple times but when I got into the middle the HWY, I heard wheels locked up and saw the nose of an SUV out my passenger window. Luckily they were paying attention and got stopped. I did not have a cell phone at the time. I just simply missed the car some how.
 
Chain of events can’t be a valid argument. Where would they begin? If she hadn’t met the friend that texted her...if she had bought a different phone case that wasn’t as slick...if she had toast instead of cereal she would have left the house 2 minutes earlier...
the friend who texted her? Uh, it was her daughter who texted her, she looked down to read it, tried to put the phone on the dash, it fell to the ground, she
went to retrieve the phone, the crash occurred

So, you are saying that texting and driving, which is illegal in Minnesota, had nothing to do with this accident?

If you can't get one fact straight (who texted her), its doubtful you can make any kind of valid argument, which you bring up in your opening statement.
 
And, again, the text message wasn't the cause of the crash.

Reading the text message was in fact part of a chain of events leading up to the crash. But if Xiong had simply read the text and then set the phone in the passenger's seat there would have been no crash. The crash occurred because she dropped the phone on the floor and then made the fateful decision to start rooting around for it while driving.

If she had dropped a water bottle on the floor and crashed while trying to retrieve it, would you say the accident occurred because she was drinking water?
it was her daughter who texted her, she looked down to read it, tried to put the phone on the dash, it fell to the ground, she went to retrieve the phone, the crash occurred

So, you are saying that texting and driving, which is illegal in Minnesota, had nothing to do with this accident, even though this is what everyone involved in the case is talking about? Seriously?

You say Xiong simply read the text. Simply read the text?? Well, again, that is illegal in Minnesota.

Why are you trying to discount Xiong reading the text from her phone, which led to her dropping the phone, and where she had to retrieve it? Why not just leave it there until she was safely stopped?

Why do you keep bringing up objects like water bottles and makeup? If you are not paying attention and cause an accident, you get a ticket for inattentive driving. And if you kill someone and/or injure someone, there are more charges coming, like in this case. Bottom line, distracted driving was involved and it all started from the selfish act of picking up a phone, texting and driving.

And make no mistake; if you read a text, that is "texting," and that is illegal in Minnesota, so please don't discount the actions of Xiong.
 
Been 15 years since I have taking a Criminal Law class but it I think you could make a cause and harm argument for the courts. I wonder if there is any case law out there similar to this situation. I personally think the prosecutor can lay the argument that the accident wouldn't have happened without the text so the text was the cause that eventually the harm derived from.
 
The verdict is in. I can see why the deceased's family is not happy. The jury found Xiong not guilty of the most serious counts: criminal vehicular homicide and criminal vehicular operation resulting in great bodily harm. She was, however, found guilty of careless driving, a misdemeanor. Xiong is expected to be sentenced on her misdemeanor conviction in April.

The whole story:



Jury: Woman not grossly negligent in fatal I-35W collision in New Brighton


By SARAH HORNER | shorner@pioneerpress.com | Pioneer Press
PUBLISHED: February 13, 2018 at 3:16 pm | UPDATED: February 13, 2018 at 8:25 pm

A Hudson, Wis., woman was careless when she fumbled for her cellphone and wound up crashing into a line of cars on Interstate 35W in New Brighton — resulting in a fatality and a serious injury. But she not grossly negligent, according to a Ramsey County District Court jury.

Prosecutors had to prove gross negligence in their case against Destiny Xiong, who hit Brea Miller and Michael Bain’s Honda Fit as it sat stopped in traffic on the afternoon of May 1, 2016. Miller died and Bain, her fiance, was seriously injured.

After less than an hour of deliberations Tuesday morning, the jury found Xiong not guilty of the most serious counts: criminal vehicular homicide and criminal vehicular operation resulting in great bodily harm.

She was found guilty of careless driving, a misdemeanor.

Xiong, 36, wiped away tears and hugged her defense attorneys after the verdicts were read.

Her relief stood in contrast to the reaction from the victims’ families, some of whom sobbed and refused to stand for jury members as they exited the courtroom until a legal advocate urged them to do so.

“It was a just verdict,” Xiong’s defense attorney, Earl Gray, said following the trial. “This wasn’t a criminal homicide case. (Xiong) wasn’t grossly negligent.”

Bain disagreed, calling the jury’s findings “shameful” and referring to what he sees as grossly inadequate consequences for distracted driving in Minnesota as an “epidemic.”

“My daughter will go through her entire life without a mother. This is not justice,” Bain said. “This will continue to happen.”

In a statement, the Ramsey County attorney’s office said: “Despite a finding of guilt on the added count of careless driving, we are obviously disappointed with the not guilty verdicts for the felony counts but we respect the jury’s decision.”

Bain, then 37, and Miller, 31, were on their way to pick up their then-2-year-old daughter from her grandmother’s house when they got caught in traffic caused by bridge work on I-35W just north of County Road D.

The St. Paul couple were waiting at the back of the line of cars when Xiong, on her way to pick up her own three children in Brooklyn Center, smashed into the rear of their car.

The impact crushed the couple’s Honda Fit, forcing the vehicle into the car in front of it, which in turn hit another car.

Miller died three days later. Bain suffered a traumatic brain injury and broken ribs.

The prosecution and defense both agreed that Xiong’s distracted driving caused the crash.

She admitted to authorities that she just looked at a short text message from one of her children on her phone — the message read “Okay” — when she accidentally dropped it.

She had just retrieved it and was attempting to place it on her dash when she looked up and found herself crashing into the vehicle in front of her, according to legal documents.

Where the prosecution and defense differed was on whether Xiong’s actions amounted to gross negligence.

Assistant Ramsey County Attorney Margaret Samec argued that they did. Samec told the jury during her opening statement that Xiong was driving between 62 and 72 mph when she smashed into the line of cars and had traveled past five signs warning her of the upcoming bridge work.

But the defense argued that the state’s crash reconstruction expert made critical errors in estimating how fast Xiong was going that day.

None of the signs Xiong drove past urged drivers to slow down, the defense maintained. Most were detour signs, Gray said during his opening statement.

An expert hired by the defense testified that he estimated Xiong’s speed at the time to be between 51 and 64 mph. The speed limit was 60 mph.

Speaking after the trial, sometimes through tears, Bain said he has spent the past months trying to adjust to life as a single father to his and Miller’s now-4-year-old daughter, Isabel.

“She was the best mother I have ever seen,” he said of Miller. “That’s all she wanted was to be a mother, and that bond was broken when Isabel was 2 years old.”

Xiong works in human resources for the Minneapolis Police Department. She has no other criminal convictions on her record.

She had tears in her eyes as she left the courthouse holding hands with her husband Tuesday afternoon, her other family members following close behind.

She declined to comment on the verdict.

Xiong is expected to be sentenced on her misdemeanor conviction in April.

LINK: https://www.twincities.com/2018/02/13/hudson-woman-found-not-grossly-negligent-in-fatal-accident/
 
Gray, the defense attorney, is the same attorney who got an acquittal for the St Paul cop who shot the black diver during a traffic stop in June 2016. The driver said he had a legally possessed conceal and carry firearm and when reaching for his ID, the cop thought he was reaching for the gun and fired several times, killing the man.

As you can see here, he sounds like an "OJ" defense attorney:

“He aggressively attacks police and prosecutors for perceived mistakes in a criminal investigation,” Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom said in a 2006 published article about Gray. “He is very good at creating smokescreens out of nothing.”

LINK: https://www.twincities.com/2017/06/22/earl-gray-yanez-defense-lawyer-philando-castile-case-jeronimo/

.
 
Gray, the defense attorney, is the same attorney who got an acquittal for the St Paul cop who shot the black diver during a traffic stop in June 2016. The driver said he had a legally possessed conceal and carry firearm and when reaching for his ID, the cop thought he was reaching for the gun and fired several times, killing the man.

As you can see here, he sounds like an "OJ" defense attorney:

“He aggressively attacks police and prosecutors for perceived mistakes in a criminal investigation,” Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom said in a 2006 published article about Gray. “He is very good at creating smokescreens out of nothing.”

LINK: https://www.twincities.com/2017/06/22/earl-gray-yanez-defense-lawyer-philando-castile-case-jeronimo/

.
So the dude is good at his job.
 
Can't be......I've had far too many people in lower-management roles explain how "good" they are at "multitasking" (reality check: they are horrible at it, and constantly leave trails of messes others have to clean up).

Driving and texting/messing with your cellphone is "multitasking", so anytime someone lists that as a "strength" or "skill", they are FOS.

EDIT: fishing around for something in your car you dropped is also 'multitasking', and anytime I drop my phone, if I cannot reach it by 'feel' while keeping my head up and looking at the road, I pull over or look for it at a stoplight. I once had a coffee mug fly out of the cupholder and into the passenger seat floor area in my BMW - no latchable lid, so as I was sitting in the slow traffic, all I could do was sit and see it slowly leak the remaining coffee on the floor. I'm sure I'd have hit someone if I had tried to reach and pick it up.
 
Last edited:
This brings back bad memories for me. Ironically the same day. My wife and 3 daughters were traveling back from a wedding the day before. At 11:16 am I got a call at work from my oldest daughter. She informed me that they were involved in a bad accident. I left work immediatly and drove from Iowa City to Waterloo, accident was just West of Waverly. A 20 year old girl pulled out from a side street onto a 4 lane divided highway in front of my family traveling 65 mph. Thankfully everyone survived. My wife has had 2 reconstructive surgeries on her right ankle. Oldest has permanent nerve damage in her lower left leg. Middle has had 2 surgeries, 1 on her right ankle and on her right wrist. Youngest should be driving, but is still going through PTSD couseling. We are still waiting to settle with the 20 year old's insurance company. Our attorney has obtained the 20 year old's cell record. She was texting at the time she pulled out. Please put the mother F#$%ing phone down!!!!! It's not that important to not wait til you are off the road and parked.

And you are still awaiting a reasonable offer to settle. Isn't that just some bullshit. The "lawyers are frivolous-suit-filing-scum" posters never discuss this type of issue. I wish you the best of luck, and hope they come to their senses soon. You shouldn't have to continue to go through this.
 
And, again, the text message wasn't the cause of the crash.

Reading the text message was in fact part of a chain of events leading up to the crash. But if Xiong had simply read the text and then set the phone in the passenger's seat there would have been no crash. The crash occurred because she dropped the phone on the floor and then made the fateful decision to start rooting around for it while driving.

If she had dropped a water bottle on the floor and crashed while trying to retrieve it, would you say the accident occurred because she was drinking water?

It is reasonably foreseeable that rooting around looking for anything while driving may cause an accident. It is also reasonably foreseeable that texting and driving will cause an accident. If you engage in behavior where it is reasonably foreseeable that it could result in an accident, then you are negligent. On top of that, texting and driving is illegal in Minnesota.

I feel bad for everyone involved. But texting and driving has become a national health crisis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Franisdaman
You're horrible!! (in Chinese accent)
"You go now! You here four hour!"

Pinette1.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
And you are still awaiting a reasonable offer to settle. Isn't that just some bullshit. The "lawyers are frivolous-suit-filing-scum" posters never discuss this type of issue. I wish you the best of luck, and hope they come to their senses soon. You shouldn't have to continue to go through this.

You are able to conclude from his post that a “reasonable” offer to settle hasn’t been made?

At best, I’m able to conclude that no settlement has been reached.

For all you know, there hasn’t even been a settlement demand made. Just because an attorney is involved doesn’t mean that (a) a lawsuit has been filed yet or (b) a settlement demand has been made. Quite frequently, plaintiffs’ lawyers wait until all of the medical treatment is done before making a settlement demand.

Now ... it may be that the insurer is being stubborn. But there is nothing about his post that suggests that to be the case.
 
"You go now! You here four hour!"

Pinette1.jpg

True story- friend of mine's Mom loves ordering Chinese food from a local mom-n-pop restaurant that has the best stuff. After ordering and having them read the order back, they'd usually inform the customer that the order will be ready in "ten minutes", but the way the lady says it is "Tehhn meh".

So, every time her mom calls the place, if she doesn't get to hear that lady say "Tehhn meh" to her, she specifically will ask "when will that be ready?".....just so she can hear the "Tehhhn meh":cool:

Drives my friend crazy, because she thinks her mom is being mean...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJ8869
You are able to conclude from his post that a “reasonable” offer to settle hasn’t been made?

At best, I’m able to conclude that no settlement has been reached.

For all you know, there hasn’t even been a settlement demand made. Just because an attorney is involved doesn’t mean that (a) a lawsuit has been filed yet or (b) a settlement demand has been made. Quite frequently, plaintiffs’ lawyers wait until all of the medical treatment is done before making a settlement demand.

Now ... it may be that the insurer is being stubborn. But there is nothing about his post that suggests that to be the case.

I asked a question, it was the very first thing, although I now see I missed the question mark. But yes, I can confidently presume it to be true, based on my experience. If they've obtained discovery, a demand was made in the lawsuit itself. The insurance company has every ability to confess judgment, but they won't. And yes, there is a lawsuit, they've got discovery, how else do you think they got the text messages? And they can settle with ongoing treatment and injuries. Lastly, his post says, "We are still waiting to settle with the 20 year old's insurance company. " If no settlement demand has been made, and he isn't feeling the insurance company is stubborn, what exactly do you think that statement meant?

How about this, the poster probably won't go in to specifics, and he shouldn't, but would you bet money on the insurance not making a reasonable offer, or would you bet money that they are being reasonable, it just hasn't settled because "they are waiting for medical treatment to be done?"
 
It is reasonably foreseeable that rooting around looking for anything while driving may cause an accident. It is also reasonably foreseeable that texting and driving will cause an accident. If you engage in behavior where it is reasonably foreseeable that it could result in an accident, then you are negligent. On top of that, texting and driving is illegal in Minnesota.

I feel bad for everyone involved. But texting and driving has become a national health crisis.
Texting and driving can and does cause accidents. Texting and driving didn't cause this specific accident. Distracted driving caused this accident.
 
Last edited:
How about this, the poster probably won't go in to specifics, and he shouldn't, but would you bet money on the insurance not making a reasonable offer, or would you bet money that they are being reasonable, it just hasn't settled because "they are waiting for medical treatment to be done?"

I've seen all of the above - many times.

As it turns out, I'm handling a relatively small personal matter for my mother (settlement value likely ranges from $25,000-$40,000). She is still treating with a physician for residual issues. The statute of limitations runs at the end of April. I have yet to make a demand.

I've also seen more than my fair share of circumstances where an insurer's offer is eminently fair and reasonable and the demand is outrageous.

And, finally, I've seen instances where I felt that the insurer was likely undervaluing the settlement value of the case.

"Reasonable" is a state of mind and one of my favorite phrases is "reasonable minds can disagree."
 
I've seen all of the above - many times.

As it turns out, I'm handling a relatively small personal matter for my mother (settlement value likely ranges from $25,000-$40,000). She is still treating with a physician for residual issues. The statute of limitations runs at the end of April. I have yet to make a demand.

I've also seen more than my fair share of circumstances where an insurer's offer is eminently fair and reasonable and the demand is outrageous.

And, finally, I've seen instances where I felt that the insurer was likely undervaluing the settlement value of the case.

"Reasonable" is a state of mind and one of my favorite phrases is "reasonable minds can disagree."

Of course, which is why I asked you to "bet" on which is more likely, based on your experience? That the lawyer is "waiting" as you posited, or that there hasn't been a reasonable offer. Sure, we can differ on reasonable, but according to his post, multiple injuries, incidents of medical care and life-long repercussions, and the other person was, potentially, texting and liable. Want to bet whether they offered more or less than $40,000? I'll gladly take the under.
 
Can't be......I've had far too many people in lower-management roles explain how "good" they are at "multitasking" (reality check: they are horrible at it, and constantly leave trails of messes others have to clean up).

Driving and texting/messing with your cellphone is "multitasking", so anytime someone lists that as a "strength" or "skill", they are FOS.

EDIT: fishing around for something in your car you dropped is also 'multitasking', and anytime I drop my phone, if I cannot reach it by 'feel' while keeping my head up and looking at the road, I pull over or look for it at a stoplight. I once had a coffee mug fly out of the cupholder and into the passenger seat floor area in my BMW - no latchable lid, so as I was sitting in the slow traffic, all I could do was sit and see it slowly leak the remaining coffee on the floor. I'm sure I'd have hit someone if I had tried to reach and pick it up.

agree;

texting and driving is illegal; her actions killed someone and seriously injured someone else. And this is just a misdemeanor?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
Of course, which is why I asked you to "bet" on which is more likely, based on your experience? That the lawyer is "waiting" as you posited, or that there hasn't been a reasonable offer. Sure, we can differ on reasonable, but according to his post, multiple injuries, incidents of medical care and life-long repercussions, and the other person was, potentially, texting and liable. Want to bet whether they offered more or less than $40,000? I'll gladly take the under.

Assuming that an offer was made, my money is on the over. Two reconstructive surgeries? The amount paid by the health insurer likely exceeds $30,000.

The only way that an offer of less than $40,000 would be made is if the lawyer is demanding something outrageous. That is what often results in a less-than-enthusiatic response back from a defense lawyer.

I've mediated cases where the reasonable settlement value is between $300,000 and $500,000 and the opposing lawyer initially demands $2,000,000.

Under no circumstances would I respond to such an outrageous demand with an offer that is in the what I'd consider to be in the range of "reasonable settlement value."

Just settled a case at the end of January for $125,000. Unquestioned liability. Initial demand from the other lawyer was $1,250,000. I responded with an initial offer of $25,000. When all is said and done, how a defendant/insurer responds is quite frequently in direct proportion to what is initially demanded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HKI
It is reasonably foreseeable that rooting around looking for anything while driving may cause an accident. It is also reasonably foreseeable that texting and driving will cause an accident. If you engage in behavior where it is reasonably foreseeable that it could result in an accident, then you are negligent. On top of that, texting and driving is illegal in Minnesota.

I feel bad for everyone involved. But texting and driving has become a national health crisis.

She had her phone in her hand and read a text, which is texting and driving. And like you said, an illegal act.

She went to put the phone down and dropped it.

She just had to have that phone and went searching for it, resulting in the crash, a death, a guy with a brain injury and at least 3 cars damaged (hers, the victim's and the car in front of the victim's).

I think it's pretty clear it's the phone and not being able to keep one's hands off of it that caused this accident and many more across the nation.
 
Texting and driving can and does cause accidents. Texting and driving didn't cause this specific accident. Distracted driving caused this accident.

If she had left her phone alone and had never illegally texted and drove, this horrible accident would have never happened.

Instead she just had to break the law and read that text and soon thereafter she just had to get her hands on that phone that she dropped. Can't miss another text!

How this is just a misdemeanor is beyond me. And how you can say texting and driving didn't cause this accident is beyond me.
 
If she had left her phone alone and had never illegally texted and drove, this horrible accident would have never happened.

...and the thing is, IF kids learned to handle devices while driving - just like tuning in a radio station on a radio or adjusting the A/C or something, these accidents wouldn't happen.

Key rules of the road to learn are:
  • NEVER take your eyes off the road in busy traffic like construction zones, where there are controls/lights, heavy stop-go traffic when you are moving, pedestrians, etc.; you NEVER check your phone in those situations, period, just like you don't mess with the radio/onboard map screens or heat-A/C controls, mirrors, etc. You maintain 100% focus on the road.
  • WHEN you have clear driving (no observable hazards/controls for >5 seconds of moving), you ONLY check your phone or adjust things in the car when you can look away for about 1-second, max. You glance and read/see what you can, or you type in one or two letters of a message. That's all you get - ONE second of altering your attention, then back on the road
  • IF you need to look at your phone longer, you pull over or do it during a stoplight, and you only look away a few seconds at a time if you're at a light so you see when the signals change.
A phone is no different than any other controls in your car (radio, A/C, mirrors, etc); you don't shift your attention off the road for more than a second when you operate any of those while driving; don't do it with your phone or stare at your onboard maps or anything, either. Because those onboard screens with maps are the same thing when people cannot stop messing with them. And if you're using Google maps and get confused, you pull over to orient yourself.

I use my phone (mostly for maps or for tuning in radio stations or game broadcasts or earbud calls) when driving; I've never had anything remotely resembling a "close call", because if I use the phone it's the secondary task, and I don't look at it for more than 1s at a time. And if I use it, I make sure I'm in an area where I've got nothing around me for many seconds of travel and fully safe following distances so if someone in front of me slams on their brakes - even with the 1s delay I'll see it in time to react.

People who use their phones when driving are idiots not because they use the phone, but because they use it stupidly and for some crazy reason are unable to maintain focus on the primary task: driving.
 
Assuming that an offer was made, my money is on the over. Two reconstructive surgeries? The amount paid by the health insurer likely exceeds $30,000.

The only way that an offer of less than $40,000 would be made is if the lawyer is demanding something outrageous. That is what often results in a less-than-enthusiatic response back from a defense lawyer.

I've mediated cases where the reasonable settlement value is between $300,000 and $500,000 and the opposing lawyer initially demands $2,000,000.

Under no circumstances would I respond to such an outrageous demand with an offer that is in the what I'd consider to be in the range of "reasonable settlement value."

Just settled a case at the end of January for $125,000. Unquestioned liability. Initial demand from the other lawyer was $1,250,000. I responded with an initial offer of $25,000. When all is said and done, how a defendant/insurer responds is quite frequently in direct proportion to what is initially demanded.

Just to be clear, you are saying you wouldn't respond with a settlement amount, when you represent an insured party who was clearly liable, because the opposing attorney asked for "too much"? Is it any wonder people don't often trust their insurance companies to actually represent them? Using your anecdote, that means your insurance company valued the case at $125,000, yet you refused to offer that amount, in order to lowball, because you think he highballed. You readily admit you wouldn't even offer a "reasonable settlement value", shouldn't we see a problem with this, and doesn't it exemplify exactly what I posted?
 
  • IF you need to look at your phone longer, you pull over or do it during a stoplight, and you only look away a few seconds at a time if you're at a light so you see when the signals change.
.

Even this is illegal in some states...Probably because very few people (if any) have the self control to only look for a few seconds or only look when they’re actually stopped.
 
Even this is illegal in some states...Probably because very few people (if any) have the self control to only look for a few seconds or only look when they’re actually stopped.

If you cannot maintain the attention span to focus on driving while you're driving, you shouldn't have a license. Because it's not merely "cellphones" that are your problem - they probably exacerbate the problem, but they aren't the problem.
 
Just to be clear, you are saying you wouldn't respond with a settlement amount, when you represent an insured party who was clearly liable, because the opposing attorney asked for "too much"? Is it any wonder people don't often trust their insurance companies to actually represent them? Using your anecdote, that means your insurance company valued the case at $125,000, yet you refused to offer that amount, in order to lowball, because you think he highballed. You readily admit you wouldn't even offer a "reasonable settlement value", shouldn't we see a problem with this, and doesn't it exemplify exactly what I posted?

Based upon 20+ years of negotiating with other lawyers, I'm well aware of what is "communicated" during the demand/offer negotiation process. If a case has a settlement value range of $200K-$250K and my opposing lawyer asks for $3M, I'm not going to offer $200K because the other lawyer will think that I'm looking to settle closer to $500K-$600K.

And, just so I have this right, it seems to be OK for an a claimant or his/her attorney to highball but it is not OK for an defendant or defendant's attorney to lowball. I fully understand the perspective you bring to the "conversation." A one-way street.

And, no, what I posted doesn't exemplify exactly what you posted.

You claimed that the tortfeasor's insurer hasn't even provided a reasonable offer. I informed you that you don't have anywhere close to the amount of information that you needed to make that claim. You leapt to a conclusion based upon your pre-conceived notion of insurance companies. I identified that there are a number of reasons why a claim may not be resolved. First, the person is still seeing a physician and the attorney doesn't want to settle without having a firm grasp upon the scope and extent of medicals (taking an early settlement offer after a first ankle reconstruction could be malpractice if the client has another ankle reconstruction and has released the defendant of liability). Second, the attorney may be asking for the moon which will stall any effort at reasonable settlement. Third, there may be issues that are not covered by insurance that have no bearing on settlement value. For example, some insurance policies exclude punitive damages from coverage under the policy. If a demand includes a "punitive" component, no insurer is going to include that in an offer.

My practice has evolved in such a fashion that the vast majority of my product liability clients are self-insured or have such large self-insured retentions that insurance is implicated in only the most horrific of circumstances. But, in my experience, most insurers value certainty and finality and closing files. Paying for defense counsel is expensive and insurers have to maintain sufficient reserves for claims. While it doesn't fit nicely with your view of the world, there is a ton of motivation for insurers to get claims resolved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HKI
Based upon 20+ years of negotiating with other lawyers, I'm well aware of what is "communicated" during the demand/offer negotiation process. If a case has a settlement value range of $200K-$250K and my opposing lawyer asks for $3M, I'm not going to offer $200K because the other lawyer will think that I'm looking to settle closer to $500K-$600K.

And, just so I have this right, it seems to be OK for an a claimant or his/her attorney to highball but it is not OK for an defendant or defendant's attorney to lowball. I fully understand the perspective you bring to the "conversation." A one-way street.

And, no, what I posted doesn't exemplify exactly what you posted.

You claimed that the tortfeasor's insurer hasn't even provided a reasonable offer. I informed you that you don't have anywhere close to the amount of information that you needed to make that claim. You leapt to a conclusion based upon your pre-conceived notion of insurance companies. I identified that there are a number of reasons why a claim may not be resolved. First, the person is still seeing a physician and the attorney doesn't want to settle without having a firm grasp upon the scope and extent of medicals (taking an early settlement offer after a first ankle reconstruction could be malpractice if the client has another ankle reconstruction and has released the defendant of liability). Second, the attorney may be asking for the moon which will stall any effort at reasonable settlement. Third, there may be issues that are not covered by insurance that have no bearing on settlement value. For example, some insurance policies exclude punitive damages from coverage under the policy. If a demand includes a "punitive" component, no insurer is going to include that in an offer.

My practice has evolved in such a fashion that the vast majority of my product liability clients are self-insured or have such large self-insured retentions that insurance is implicated in only the most horrific of circumstances. But, in my experience, most insurers value certainty and finality and closing files. Paying for defense counsel is expensive and insurers have to maintain sufficient reserves for claims. While it doesn't fit nicely with your view of the world, there is a ton of motivation for insurers to get claims resolved.

Difference is, you have a duty to your client, not the insurer, and it appears you'd rather play the "Game", i.e. not give what you admit is a reasonable amount for settlement. Think of a hospital, or really any other business doing the same thing, "well, if you don't come down to the lowest possible, I'll just refuse to pay what I already admit is reasonable." And why do you do this? It is obvious, you want to settle as low as possible. For whose benefit? The insurance company, not your client. Funny that you claim I've leapt to a conclusion, yet you do the exact same in the other way. I asked a question, and using my experience and knowledge could presume things, precisely what you've admitted to doing here in your very first sentence. Your comparison of self-insured companies and product liability aren't equivalent, because they are your client, and you've presumably obtained instructions from them how to proceed. Let's try another bet, has the attorney even discussed what he think is reasonable settlement with the insured? What do you bet? Yes? No?

You once again posit that they could be waiting for medical to be completed, which is plausible, yet ignores the posters statement about waiting for settlement, which you aren't doing, if you are aware that you are waiting for medical to be completed. But, in a tl/dr, just boil down what you've said. In your expertise, with the huge amount of data insurer's have available, you've determined a range of "reasonable" value of the liability, yet you refuse to offer it, and lowball as far as possible. You ok with your doctor doing this to you? Employer? Bank? Doubt it.
 
Regardless of whether or not it was during a text, I don't see how fumbling around for a cell phone while going 55-60 MPH on a major roadway isn't being grossly negligent.

I hate 35W, there's no way I'd be doing anything other than paying attention to the road.
 
Let's try another bet, has the attorney even discussed what he think is reasonable settlement with the insured? What do you bet? Yes? No?

Has the defense attorney hired by the insurance company and paid by the insurance company consulted with the insured regarding what the insured considers to be a reasonable settlement?

If it is an automobile case and the insured is the "average Joe," the answer is more likely than not "no." I'd go so far as to predict that most of those attorneys don't even cc the insured on communications to the insurer.

If the insured is a business, my answer would more likely than not be a "yes."

And, FWIW, unless the insured assumes some risk in the face of a loss or claim, the insured cedes any control over how the case is defended and/or resolved.

In my experience, more insureds are disgusted by the amount that the insurer is willing to settle a case for as opposed to feeling that the insurer is being too stingy.

As for your other points, I've experience no shortage of situations where I've candidly shared what I feel a reasonable settlement value is and what I think that I could get to settle a case while telling the other lawyer that his/her demand is outrageous and making it difficult to get the case resolved.

I've had more insurers/clients suggest mediation in an effort to get cases resolved more quickly than plaintiff's lawyers suggesting mediation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HKI
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT