Passenger's Fall Aboard Bus Nets $1.06 Million in Hudson
A $1.06 million settlement was paid on Feb. 4 in Donoso v. Universe Transportation Corp., a Hudson County injury suit filed against a bus company by…
March 11, 2020 at 09:00 AM
6 minute read
A $1.06 million settlement was paid on Feb. 4 in Donoso v. Universe Transportation Corp., a Hudson County injury suit filed against a bus company by a passenger who fell while in transit.
On July 24, 2017, plaintiff Lourdes Donoso boarded a small private transit bus owned by Universe Transportation Corp. of Fairview and driven by company employee Justino Basora at 69th Street and Bergenline Avenue in Guttenberg. After boarding the bus with her daughter, the bus began moving before she had taken her seat, and then stopped abruptly, causing her to fall backwards onto her back and sustain back and neck injuries, said her lawyer, Luis Martinez of LaBarbiera & Martinez in North Bergen.
The bus traveled 12 more blocks before Basora heeded passengers' calls to stop the vehicle, and after stopping, Basora, currently 64, of New York, was arrested for driving on a suspended license, according to Martinez.
Donoso's suit claimed she sustained injuries requiring pain injections, a laminectomy that was not successful, and ultimately surgical implantation of a spinal stimulator, Martinez said, adding that Donoso, currently 42, continues to have pain.
In a settlement reached Dec. 15, 2019, following mediation with retired judge Mark Epstein of Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas in New Brunswick, Universe, insured by Topa Insurance Co., agreed to pay its $250,000 personal injury protection limit, as well as another $805,830, according to Martinez.
The parties were through discovery and had a May 2020 trial date. The defendants had no expert and didn't appear to contest liability, Martinez said.
Thomas Licata of Malapero, Prisco, Klauber & Licata in Paramus, representing the defendants, confirmed that the case settled but declined to comment further.
— David Gialanella
|$750K Condemnation Verdict in Union
399 Route 22 LLC v. Department of Transportation: A Union County jury awarded $750,000 on Jan. 22 to the owner of a used car dealership whose property was subject to a partial condemnation action by the state Department of Transportation. The state sought to expand its right of way by acquiring a strip of land that was 300 feet long, and ranged from one to five feet deep, that fronted on U.S. Route 22. Prior to trial, the state offered $94,000 and the property owner sought $1.08 million for the land, said Timothy Duggan of Stark & Stark in Lawrenceville, who represented the landowner.
The condemned property amounted to 1,100 square feet or 0.02 acres, but the property owner claimed the taking severely reduced the property's value because the dimensions of the remaining property and the placement of a building meant the property's tenant, a used car dealership, could no longer park a row of vehicles facing the highway, Duggan said.
The case was tried for five days before Union County Superior Court Judge Robert Mega. At trial, the state's lawyers argued that the property owner should not be reimbursed for losing the ability to display cars along the front of the property because the property owner never received the town's approval to do so, according to Duggan. The amount of property that was taken was negligible, but the inability to display cars along the roadside reduced the property's value by 15%, Duggan claimed. The property was used as a car dealership for more than 40 years, and cars had been displayed along the front of the property that entire time, Duggan asserted.
Deputyt Attorneys General Nonee Wagner and Alexander Falciani represented the state. A spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, Lee Moore, confirmed the verdict and the amount of the state's offer.
— Charles Toutant
|No Cause in Burlington Bad Faith Case
Izin v. GEICO: A Burlington County jury on Dec. 19, 2019, returned a defense verdict in the case of a GEICO policyholder who claimed the insurer committed bad faith in delaying payment of a claim.
According to counsel, in June 2017, plaintiff Hasan Izin submitted a property damage claim to his insurer, Geico Indemnity Co., after rear-ending a vehicle in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. In December 2018, Geico paid the property damage amount of $11,505.22. Izin and his wife, plaintiff Senel Izin, a named insured, claimed that Geico delayed processing the claim. The Izins sued Geico Indemnity, a subsidiary of Government Employees Insurance Co.
The Izins, who were residents of Burlington County, presented a claim to Geico in March 2017 and then withdrew that claim. The claim was resubmitted in June 2017. Geico sought to investigate whether there was ride sharing of the vehicle, since it was registered in New York with taxi and limousine plates. The Izins claimed that they were not using the vehicle for ride sharing at the time of the accident. Their counsel argued that Geico did not process the claim within 30 days as required by New Jersey law.
A Geico claims adjuster testified that she had attempted but failed to set up an examination under oath, to confirm the findings of Geico's investigation. The Izins' expert opined that GEICO's actions constituted egregious bad faith and violated the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act. The defense maintained that there was no delay in processing the Izins' claim and that the situation had been handled appropriately. Any perceived delay was due to the Izins' failure to disclose that Hassan Izin had gotten a commercial policy with another insurer for the purpose of using the vehicle for ride sharing, the defense maintained.
The Izins sought to recover $18,897.63 in damages. The court bifurcated punitive damages. After a four-day trial before Superior Court Judge Aimee R. Belgard, the jury by a 7-1 vote found that the Izins failed to prove that there was no valid reason for Geico's processing delay, or that Geico knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that no valid reasons supported the delay.
The plaintiffs were represented by Mark J. Hill of Mark J. Hill & Associates; Geico, by Darren C. Kayal of Rudolph & Kayal in Manasquan.
*Editor's Comment: This report is based on information that was provided by defense counsel. Plaintiffs' counsel did not respond to the reporter's phone calls.
— Adapted from VerdictSearch reports
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 AllAmid Growing Litigation Volume, Don't Expect UnitedHealthcare to Change Its Stripes After CEO's Killing
6 minute readJudge Approves $667K Settlement Against Independence Blue Cross for Unpaid, Pre-Shift Computer Work
4 minute readTurning the Tables: Defense Litigators Embrace Lawsuits, Alleging Fraud at Plaintiffs Shops
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Tuesday Newspaper
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-85
- 3Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 4Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 5Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
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