Parking Lot Collision Caused Spine Damage, Plaintiff Argued
On Oct. 15, 2013, plaintiff Karin Kady, 42, owner of a restaurant-staffing business, was driving in the parking lot of a restaurant, in King of Prussia.
April 12, 2018 at 04:48 PM
4 minute read
Kady v. Encompass Insurance
$800,000 Verdict
Date of Verdict: March 1
Court and Case No.: C.P. Montgomery County No. 2016-10340
Judge: Gail A. Weilheimer
Type of Action: Insurance coverage
Injuries: Spinal injury
Plaintiffs Counsel: Timothy G. Daly and Michael A. Clemente, Daly & Clemente, King of Prussia.
Plaintiffs Expert: Dr. Mark Kurd, orthopedic surgery; Bryn Mawr.
Defense Counsel: Andrew J. Kramer, Kane, Pugh, Knoell, Troy & Kramer, Norristown.
Defense Expert: Scott Rushton, orthopedic surgery; Wynnewood.
Comment:
On Oct. 15, 2013, plaintiff Karin Kady, 42, owner of a restaurant-staffing business, was driving in the parking lot of a restaurant, in King of Prussia. As she approached the valet line, the driver's side of her sedan was broadsided by a sport utility vehicle that had been traveling through an aisle. She claimed back injuries.
Kady settled with the driver, Rachel Wallen, whose insurer agreed to pay $45,000 from a policy that provided $50,000 of coverage.
Kady then sued her insurer, Encompass Insurance Co., alleging breach of contract and seeking to recover her underinsured-motorist policy of $100,000.
Kady's counsel argued that Wallen failed to see her car and failed to avoid striking it.
Wallen testified that it was Kady who failed to see her vehicle, and that Kady should have yielded to her in order to prevent the collision.
Following the accident, Kady drove home and then presented to an urgent-care facility, where she was examined and released.
Two weeks later, Kady, complaining of headaches and pain to her neck and low back, presented to an orthopedic surgeon, who, through MRIs, diagnosed her with cervical, thoracic, and lumbar sprain and strains; an aggravation of a prior cervical laminectomy and extensive cervical degenerative disc disease; aggravation of pre-existing spondylolisthesis at L5-S1; post-traumatic headaches; and post-concussion syndrome; and post-traumatic occipital neuralgia.
In the ensuing years, Kady had an epidural injection and physical therapy, which included massage and exercise, and consulted with an orthopedic surgeon. She was examined by Encompass' expert in orthopedic surgery, who confirmed her injuries and attributed them to the accident.
The physician determined that Kady required surgery, and elected to oversee her care. In April 2016, Kady underwent a fusion at L5-S1 by the surgeon. In the ensuing months, she consulted with her surgeon, treated with physical therapy, and later performed home exercises.
Kady's surgeon causally related her injuries and treatment to the accident, and opined that her condition was permanent.
Kady testified that it has been difficult running her restaurant-staffing business because of her injuries. She had started the business shortly before the accident. Kady claimed that her ongoing neck and back pain had also made it difficult sleeping, sitting and standing for long periods, and walking long distances. She sought damages for past and future pain and suffering.
Encompass' expert in orthopedic surgery, who reviewed Kady's records, testified that her surgery, overall treatment, and ongoing complaints were directly related to her longstanding, degenerative cervical and lumbar condition. The expert determined that Kady only had suffered a strain and sprain to the low back from the accident, which later resolved.
The jury found that the tortfeasor was negligent and her negligence was a factual of Kady's injuries. Kady was found not negligent. She was determined to receive $800,000, which the court later molded to $750,000, to reflect the tortfeasor's $50,000 insurance policy payment.
This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiffs counsel. Defense counsel did not respond to calls for comment.
—This report first appeared in VerdictSearch, an ALM publication
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 AllPa. High Court to Weigh Parent Company's Liability for Dissolved Subsidiary's Conduct
3 minute readDon’t Settle for the Minimum: Finding Constitutional Claims Closer to Home
7 minute readMatt's Corner: RPC 8.4(d)—Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice
2 minute readPa. Judicial Nominee Advances While Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden Picks
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Year That Was
- 2Employment Law Changes Expected From Second Trump Administration
- 3Decision of the Day: Sri Lanka Granted Stay of Litigation Over Defaulted Sovereign Bond Debt
- 4AI Adoption, Data Center Building Boom Opening More Doors for Cybercriminals, Many of Them Teenagers
- 5Mayor's Advisory Committee To Hold Hearing on Fitness of Judicial Candidates
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