Georgia Woman in Coma Wakes Up After $3.25M Settlement
It's a rare happy ending in litigation—although it's not like in the movies, according to the attorneys, Mike Weaver and Dan Parr of the Weaver Law Firm.
December 03, 2018 at 02:09 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Report
A small law firm in Gainesville negotiated a $3.25 million prelawsuit policy-limit settlement for the family of a stay-at-home mom in a coma after being hit by a car while walking out of a grocery store last year.
And then she woke up.
It's a rare happy ending in litigation—although it's not like in the movies, according to the attorneys, Mike Weaver and Dan Parr of the Weaver Law Firm. Their client did awaken after 100 days in a coma, but it has been a slow recovery. When she first opened her eyes, she was still unable to speak or walk. But then after doctors reattached a part of her skull they had to remove because of swelling, she began to improve dramatically.
“It was like someone flipped a switch,” Parr said Thursday.
She was able to begin rehabilitation and is now at home with her family—able to talk and walk with assistance and still improving.
While she was sleeping, her medical bills grew at the rate of about $100,000 a week, Parr said. The hospital put a lien on any future damages recovery, and her lawyers made a policy limit demand for settlement from the driver who hit her—a man in his 70s who said he accidentally hit the gas instead of the brake in his Cadillac when he saw a lady pushing her grocery cart out of the store ahead of him.
He was insured by State Farm but had only $250,000 in automobile accident coverage, Parr said. Lawyers were able to access the $3 million personal liability umbrella attached to his homeowner's policy.
“He felt horrible,” Parr said.
Weaver and Parr declined to name the client, citing concerns for the family's privacy. They said they worked out the settlement as soon as possible, without having to file a lawsuit.
State Farm's lawyer, Mary Trammell of Waldon Adelman Castilla Hiestand & Prout, reviewed the details of the settlement but declined to offer more. “I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in but believe no additional response is needed,” Trammell said by email Thursday.
The demand, often referred to as a “Holt demand,” is statutorily defined (O.C.G.A. 9-11-67.1) as a settlement offer that can be used as evidence of bad faith against an insurer if not accepted, Weaver noted. In Southern General Ins. Co. v. Holt, 262 Ga. 267, 416 S.E.2d 274 (1992), the Georgia Supreme Court held that, where the insurer has full knowledge of the insured's liability and damages exceeding policy limits, the insurer can be subject to bad-faith damages if its failure to settle within policy limits subjects the insured to a judgment in excess of those limits. With the majority of automobile insurance policies, the insurer possesses exclusive control in deciding whether or not to settle a case—and protect its insured against a potential excess judgment. Accordingly, Georgia courts have held that the insurer has a duty to give equal consideration to its insured when making decisions regarding whether or not to settle a case, Weaver said.
Weaver and Parr said that at the time they made the Holt demand, the medical bills totaled $700,000 and their client was still comatose. It wasn't hard to argue that the total could go well beyond the policy limits, they said.
“This was a case of clear liability where the damages were going to exceed the policy limits—which is the exact scenario that was contemplated in the Holt ruling,” Weaver said. “State Farm acted quickly and professionally to protect their insured's interest. If they had not accepted this demand, we were fully prepared to take this case to trial and expected that a verdict would have greatly exceeded the policy limits. And because the hospital agreed to accept a significantly discounted amount to satisfy their lien, our client was left with a sizable recovery.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Travis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250