Texas Legal Action Concludes in Auto Insurance Coverage Dispute

A plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit in Dallas County, Texas, alleging that on April 2, 2012, a defendant negligently operated a vehicle. The plaintiff claimed the defendant failed to yield while making a turn, causing a collision with the plaintiff's car. The plaintiff alleged injuries from the incident. The lawsuit was filed on April 1, 2014, in the District Court, 14th District Court, Dallas County, Texas. The parties later reached a settlement agreement on June 26, 2015. Under the terms, the plaintiff accepted $7,000 in full settlement of all claims. On July 9, 2015, the court entered an agreed order dismissing the case with prejudice based on the parties' joint motion.

A civil case involving a plaintiff, who also acted as next friend for a second individual, and a defendant concluded in Texas on April 30, 2015. Few details were available regarding the specific incident that led to the lawsuit, the legal claims presented by either side, or the ultimate resolution of the dispute.

In Dallas County, a plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit following a rear-end collision that resulted in a soft tissue neck injury. The plaintiff sought compensation for medical expenses totaling $9,901, along with damages for physical pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment. During the proceedings, both sides presented evidence regarding the plaintiff's injury and treatment, including testimony from chiropractic experts. The plaintiff argued for comprehensive damages related to the collision, while the defendant disputed the extent or causation of certain claimed injuries and their associated costs. A jury subsequently found the defendant negligent in causing the collision. However, the jury's award for damages was limited. It included $9,901 for past medical care, matching the plaintiff's claimed expenses, but awarded no damages for past or future physical pain and mental anguish, past or future physical impairment, or future medical care. The verdict, reached by an 11-1 vote, effectively recognized liability but restricted the scope of recoverable damages.

On July 9, 2013, a vehicle operated by the defendant allegedly rear-ended a car driven by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed the defendant negligently failed to yield and ran a red light, sustaining personal injuries in the incident. On April 8, 2014, the plaintiff filed a negligence petition for damages against the defendant in the District Court, 44th District Court, Dallas County, Texas. On February 10, 2015, the parties informed the court they had reached a settlement. The agreement provided that the plaintiff would accept $7,100 to resolve all claims. An agreed order of dismissal with prejudice was entered on February 20, 2015.

In September 2009, a plaintiff, then 68, was involved in two separate rear-end collisions in Houston. The first incident occurred on September 13 when a vehicle driven by a first defendant rear-ended the plaintiff's stopped car after a light changed. On September 21, a second defendant, operating a vehicle for an employer, rear-ended the plaintiff's car during rush hour traffic. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against both drivers, alleging negligence for failing to maintain a proper lookout or control speed. The suit also included claims of respondeat superior, negligent entrustment, and gross negligence against the employer, though the latter two claims were later nonsuited by the plaintiff during trial. The plaintiff claimed a lumbar injury or exacerbation of a pre-existing condition, which necessitated the implantation of a spinal cord stimulator and led to early retirement. Damages sought included physical pain, mental anguish, physical impairment, and lost earning capacity. The first defendant argued a low impact speed, while the second defendant claimed a sudden emergency and noted that neither police nor ambulances were called after their collision. Defendants presented expert testimony asserting the plaintiff's symptoms were pre-existing and unrelated to the collisions, highlighting prior medical conditions, a 2008 accident, and a pain management regimen predating the 2009 incidents. The defense also noted the plaintiff did not present medical testimony. At the close of all evidence, the court granted a directed verdict against the first defendant on negligence. However, the jury found no negligence on the part of the second defendant and ultimately awarded zero damages to the plaintiff. The outcome reflected the jury's acceptance of the defense's arguments regarding the lack of causation between the collisions and the plaintiff's claimed injuries.