Colorado Trial Practice Blog : Colorado Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Mac Hester : Personal Injury, Auto Accident, Medical Malpractice : Serving Denver, Colorado Springs, Aurora

In a rear end auto collision case, the Defendant is presumed by law to be at fault. The Defendant can overcome that presumption by proving, for example, that the Plaintiff slammed on the brakes and the Defendant couldn't stop in time.

However, in the case where the Plaintff was at a complete stop and the Defendant rear-ended the Plaintiff, the Defendant will not be able to overcome the presumption of liability. Nevertheless, Defendants rarely admit liability in litigation. They, or rather their attorneys - puppets of the insurance company, file an Answer admitting that the front of the Defendant's car struck the rear of the Plaintiff's car but they deny that the Defendant was at fault. After a year or more of litigation the case goes to trial. The Defendant has denied liability the entire way. Then, on the first day of trial the Defendant admits liability, says he's sorry, and says that he will be happy to pay what's reasonable.

The judge will not allow the Plaintiff to tell the jury that the Defendant has been denying liability from the start all the way to trial.

Q. Why would the Defendant deny liability all the way to trial and then admit liability?

A. (1) To punish the Plaintiff for filing a lawsuit by causing the Plaintiff to incur litigation expenses, delay, and frustration (Remember, the insurance company is paying for the attorney and litigation expenses, not the Defendant); (2) To teach the Plaintiff's attorney a lesson (If you file lawsuits you will be punished); (3) To advance the insurance industry agenda of punishing and preventing people from trying to recover for their injuries and damages; and (4) so that when the case goes to trial they can portrary the Plaintiff as greedy and the Defendant as magnanimous - admitting fault and being willing to pay a fair amount of damages (hoping of course that the jury is going to punish the Plaintiff by awarding little or no money damages - or at least not enought to have made the litigation economically productive).

Fort Collins Colorado Auto Accident Attorney Mac Hester

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Defendant has insurance and his or her insurance company is paying for the defense attorney and all litigation expenses.

The Defendant is not going to have to pay the verdict out of his or her own pocket.

The Defendant's insurance company will pay the verdict up to the amount of the Defendant's insurance coverage.

If the verdict exceeds the insurance coverage, then it is possible - but still unlikely - that the Defendant will have to pay some of the verdict out of his or her own pocket. It is unlikely because the insurance company will often pay the entire verdict to avoid being sued by its own insured (Defendant) for failing to settle the case for an amount equal to or less than the insurance coverage. That lawsuit by the insured against his own insurance company is called "Bad Faith Failure to Settle."

If the Plaintiff loses (verdict for the Defendant) then the Plaintiff gets nothing and is responsible for paying his or her own litigation expenses - which, in an average auto collision injury case, will be in the range of $20,000 to $40,000. AND, the Plaintiff will have to pay the litigation expenses of the Defendant - which may also be in the range of $20,000 to $40,000.

Fort Collins Auto Accident Lawyer Mac Hester 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

At common law, compensation paid to the injured person from a collateral source, independent of the tortfeasor, did not reduce the damages owed by the tortfeasor.

Now, by statute (C.R.S. 13-21-111.6), the trial court will reduce the verdict by the amount of collateral sources - except that the verdict cannot be reduced by compensation paid to the plaintiff as a result of a contract entered into and paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff. Quite often this "contract exception" swallows up the general rule of the statute, as shown in the cases below.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks