La Brea crash illustrates important insurance issues

Was she drunk? Was it a suicide attempt? Why didn't she stop?

By now we have all seen the video footage of Houston nurse Nicole Linton barreling through the intersection of La Brea and Slauson at speeds near 90 miles per hour. We all want answers to the horrible tragedy that killed six people, including an unborn child.

Besides these tragic deaths, seven people suffered serious injuries in the crash. The crash also caused a substantial amount of property damage.

Making sense of this tragedy will be difficult. We may never have the answers we want. The case is fresh, and the investigation is just beginning. What follows is a general overview of some of the insurance issues this case might present.

Auto Insurance Coverage for Negligence

When Driver A is negligent and injures Driver B or anyone else, the first question is whether Driver A was insured for the loss. California's financial responsibility laws require all vehicles to carry a minimum of $15,000.00 in liability insurance. This pitiful amount of minimum coverage has been the same since the early 1970s, yet millions of drivers on our roads are driving every day with just $15,000.00 in liability insurance.

Generally, the contract between the insurance carrier and the insured, including policy limits information, is confidential. The insurance carrier has an obligation to request permission from its policyholder when a third-party claimant requests the disclosure of the limits. The policyholder is not required to authorize the disclosure, but once suit is filed, this information is discoverable. See Boicourt v. Amex Assurance Co. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1390.

In this case, we do not know whether Ms. Linton carried liability insurance. Even if she carried more than California's minimum policy limits of $15,000.00, the sad reality is that she was likely underinsured for this loss. She rocketed through a red light, killed six people, injured seven, and caused significant property damage. Lawyers hate doing math, but this equation is straightforward. There is also the question of apportionment. How will all the plaintiffs - and their lawyers - agree on an equitable apportionment of Ms. Linton's policy limits? This will certainly be a difficult task.

Punitive Damages

California law allows an injured party to sue for punitive damages in some circumstances. Civil Code Section 3294 holds: In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.

Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890 is a key case that interpreted Section 3294 in the auto collision context. In Taylor, a driver who had a history of drunk driving convictions was sued for punitive damages in a subsequent DUI crash. The California Supreme Court ruled that the act of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated may constitute an act of "malice" under Section 3294 if performed under circumstances which disclose a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences.

Here, we do not know whether Nicole Linton was drunk or under the influence. News reports indicated that the light at La Brea and Slauson was red for almost 9 seconds before Linton ran it. She appears to have made no attempts to stop or slow down. At her arraignment, Linton's defense attorney stated that she suffers from mental health issues. Other outlets reported that she has tried harming herself in the past, and she has been associated with at least 13 previous auto collisions. Do these factors rise to the level of oppression, fraud, or malice as required by Section 3294? The court will weigh these factors and others if any of the plaintiffs seek punitive damages.

Underinsured Motorist Coverage

California, like other states, requires insurance carriers to offer uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage to policyholders. The two forms of coverage are usually lumped together and referred to as "UM/UIM." The purpose of UM/UIM is to protect policyholders in the event of a collision with an uninsured or underinsured motorist. This coverage acknowledges that millions of drivers in California are driving every day with no insurance, or not enough insurance.

The Uninsured motorist statute, Insurance Code § 11580.2, provides a lengthy list of requirements for both the carrier and the policyholder when making a UM or UIM claim. The policy limits of the offending driver must first be exhausted before a claimant presents a UIM claim to his or her own carrier. Furthermore, insurance policies do not stack. This means if Driver A has more liability coverage than Driver B's UM/UIM coverage, Driver B cannot present a UIM claim. If Driver A and Driver B have the same amount of coverage, Driver B cannot present a UIM claim either. Insurance Code § 11580.2.

The sheer magnitude of the loss caused by Ms. Linton, and the inevitable lack of insurance coverage begs the question whether the victims carried UIM coverage. Of course, no amount of money will bring anyone back. But as injury lawyers, we try to help our clients find some semblance of relief in bad and often tragic situations.

Vicarious Liability

Can victims hold Ms. Linton's employer liable for this crash? Ms. Linton worked as a traveling nurse, most recently at Kaiser Permanente in West Los Angeles. Her employment at Kaiser was through AMN Healthcare, the large staffing and nursing agency that places nurses in medical facilities across the country. An argument might be made to hold AMN or Kaiser vicariously liable for the crash, if for no other reason than to try and find any form of applicable insurance coverage.

A corporation may be held vicariously liable as a principal for the torts of its agents. Secci v. United Independent Tax Drivers, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 846. Nevertheless, at this early stage of the case, a vicarious liability argument will likely fail. It is all but certain that Ms. Linton's employment contract classified her as an independent contractor. While there are exceptions, the general rule is that a company is not liable for the negligent acts of its independent contractors. See Privette v. Superior Court (1999), 5 Cal.4th 689.

Intentional Act

Did Ms. Linton intentionally plow through the intersection? We are all shocked by this possibility and hope the answer is no. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that Insurance Code § 533 holds that an insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured. If the law enforcement investigation concludes that Ms. Linton intentionally drove through the intersection, her insurance carrier will probably deny coverage. This sad possibility would moot this entire discussion.

Conclusion

The tragic August 4th crash at La Brea and Slauson sent shock waves throughout the country. Nicole Linton is a nurse who worked to help heal members of our community. We all want to know what induced her to run a red light in broad daylight and kill 6 people. While this case is an extreme example, it does illustrate the importance of maintaining adequate UM/UIM coverage to protect against drivers who are uninsured or underinsured - of which there are too many. The case also shows that sometimes there just is not enough insurance to compensate all affected parties.