Partick and Lou Ann Crowe v. Continental Insurance Company, et al.
Published: Apr. 20, 1996 | Result Date: Jan. 12, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: V22577 – $3,060,000
Judge
Court
Solano Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Robert M. Peterson
(Carlson Calladine & Peterson LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Alan Paul Gooding
(technical)
James M. Moore
(medical)
Raymond G. Schultz
(technical)
Defendant
Vincent Anderson
(technical)
John Douglas Barr
(Barr & Mudford)
(technical)
Facts
In August of 1985, the plaintiff, Patrick Crowe, and his 10-year-old son, Bryan, were broadsided by an uninsured motorist while making a left hand turn on a green arrow. (The uninsured motorist was subsequently convicted of vehicular manslaughter for the wrongful death of Bryan Crowe.) Patrick Crowe submitted an uninsured motorist ("UM") claim to the defendants, Underwriter's Adjusting Company and Continental Insurance Company ("Continental"). The plaintiffs, Patrick and Lou Ann Crowe, claimed wrongful death of their son. Patrick Crowe claimed personal injury and made a Dillon v. Legg claim. Lou Ann Crowe claimed loss of consortium. The defendants' claim file substantiated that they had determined liability was 100% clear and rested with the UM within approximately one month of Bryan Crowe's death. The defendants made their first offer of settlement approximately sixteen months later on December 11, 1986. The Crowe's UM coverage was for $300,000 but the defendants offered $25,000 cash up-front and a structured annuity which would pay out over 25 years at a cost to the defendants of $27,000. The defendants offered the plaintiffs $52,000 (present value) total for the wrongful death of their minor child. The defendantsÆ claim file substantiated that the comparison jury verdict values were as high as $1,200,000, including seven other verdicts in excess of the $300,000 policy limits. The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendants based on breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and intentional infliction of emotional distress theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
Per the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $300,000 after the arbitrator's award in 1991, and the demand was increased to $2,000,000 against the defendant, Continental, before the second trial. The defendants made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $10,000 prior to the first trial, which was increased to $1,260,000 after the phase 1 trial verdict of $810,000 for the plaintiffs. Per the defendants, the initial demand following remand to the trial court from the Court of Appeals was $36,000,000. The plaintiffs collectively demanded $7,000,000 in settlement at a settlement conference prior to the compensatory phase of the case in November of 1995. The plaintiffs increased their settlement demand to $16,000,000 following the jury verdict in the liability phase of the trial. (The demand was in response to the $1,260,000 offer by the defendants). The plaintiffsÆ demand remained unchanged until the punitive damages verdict was rendered.
Specials in Evidence
$14,000 (psychological counseling)
Damages
The plaintiffs claimed $40,000 (in attorney's fees).
Injuries
The plaintiffs alleged that they suffered from emotional distress, depression, severe anxiety disorder and post traumatic stress disorder requiring counseling as a result of the defendantsÆ conduct.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately six years and eight months after the case was filed. Defense counsel, Long & Levit, associated in as attorney of record for Continental after the completion of the liability phase of the trial. They were associated in solely for the purpose of representing the defendants during the punitive damages phase of the trial. The plaintiffs discovered and introduced into evidence a memorandum from the defendants' regional office which substantiated that the defendants were waiting for the one year statute of limitations to run before beginning settlement negotiations on the UM claim. (Per the plaintiffs, this piece of evidence was the "smoking gun" that helped them to win their case.) Per the plaintiffs, the offer was made at a time when the defendants knew that the plaintiffs were emotionally vulnerable and anxious to put a down payment on a new house so that they could move away from the neighboring intersection where the fatal accident had occurred. The plaintiffs' treating psychologist testified that the plaintiffs had suffered depression as a result of their sonÆs death. He further testified that the plaintiffs' depression became major and prolonged and that they each suffered additional harm from a severe anxiety disorder and a post traumatic stress disorder resulting from the defendantsÆ delay in the handling of their UM claim.
Poll
12-0 (on all counts for the plaintiffs)
Length
3 weeks (liability -- phase 1) 2 days (p
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390