Atlanta, Georgia Rear-End Collision Settles for $100,000

A Fannin County resident and former employee filed a lawsuit against the insurer of her former employer's employee welfare benefit plan, seeking long-term disability benefits. The plaintiff ceased working in 2020, alleging an inability to work due to medical conditions, including right hip osteoarthrosis, shoulder, neck, and back pain, which she attributed to a 2014 motor vehicle accident and subsequent hip surgery. She also claimed disabling post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder. The defendant insurer denied the benefits, asserting the plaintiff did not meet the plan's definition of disability and could perform sedentary work. The insurer presented medical evaluations indicating the plaintiff could exert up to 10 pounds of force, walk and stand for up to 2.5 hours per day, and sit for up to 5.5 hours per day. It contended she could perform alternative occupations, such as Information Clerk or Gate Guard, which would exceed the plan's earnings threshold, and argued she did not suffer from any disabling psychiatric impairment. On May 9, 2025, the Court granted the defendant's motion for judgment on the administrative record. The Court determined that the insurer's denial of long-term disability benefits was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious, concluding there was no improper claim denial under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The judgment resulted in no damages awarded to the plaintiff.

A motor vehicle accident involving a Ford Super Duty truck resulted in the deaths of its occupants when the vehicle's roof crushed. The incident also involved an alleged tire load capacity issue. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, contending that the truck's roof was defectively designed and failed to protect the occupants, leading to fatal injuries. The plaintiff argued that the vehicle's roof structure was inadequate and contributed to the deaths. Expert testimony for the plaintiff covered forensic pathology, biomechanics, accident reconstruction, mechanical engineering, and vehicle crashworthiness to demonstrate the alleged design defect and its role in causing the fatalities. The defendant disputed the allegations, maintaining that the vehicle's design was not defective or that other factors were responsible for the occupants' deaths. Defense experts presented testimony in fields such as anatomical pathology, mechanical engineering, metallurgy, and occupant kinematics to challenge the plaintiff's claims. Following a trial that concluded on August 19, 2022, a jury awarded the plaintiff $1,724,038,500. The verdict indicated that the jury found the defendant liable for the alleged defects contributing to the occupants' deaths.

In March 2012, a plaintiff was operating a stand-up rider forklift at a warehouse facility in Valdosta, Georgia, when the steering allegedly became inoperable due to a loss of power, causing the forklift to crash into a stationary object. The plaintiff claimed that an unsafe design of the forklift's operator compartment resulted in a leg being crushed, leading to injuries including a partial left leg amputation. The plaintiff and their spouse filed a complaint in May 2013 in the Georgia State Court for Lowndes County against the forklift manufacturer, alleging claims of strict product liability, negligence, punitive damages, and loss of consortium. The plaintiff sought damages for medical expenses and lost wages, and claimed a loss of working capacity. The manufacturer removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division. Later, the plaintiff's employer and its workers' compensation agent intervened, seeking reimbursement for indemnity benefits and medical expenses paid. At trial, the plaintiff contended the forklift's operator compartment was defectively designed due to insufficient protection on one side. The manufacturer argued that the forklift met all federal and industry standards and regulations, was state-of-the-art, and had no defects. Following a jury trial in July 2015, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the manufacturer, determining that the forklift was not defective in design. A judgment was entered for the manufacturer on the same date.