The Arnold Law Firm is pleased to report that our attorneys received a $10.2 million verdict handed down in Modesto. Defense counsel was Kevin Cholakian of San Francisco. The defense rejected a 998 within the $1 million policy limits three years ago. The highest defense offer was $350k.

The case involved a blind corner dirt fire road collision between a truck driven by the defendant and a motorcycle driven by the plaintiff Dan Nixon. THe plaintiff had no recollection of the collision. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff had too much speed for the corner and lost control. The plaintiff’s son (who identified the wrong curve in discovery) claimed that the defendant was on the wrong side of the curve, causing his dad to make an unsuccessful emergency maneuver. The jury assessed 70% fault to the defendant and 30% to plaintiff.

The plaintiff, now 50-years-old, suffered a dislocated right knee with popliteal artery rupture which has left him with an unstable knee, and permanently damaged lower leg. Because of vascular damage he is not a candidate for knee reconstruction or replacement. The plaintiff’s treating doctors testified that he will require an above knee amputation within 20 years. Past lost wages were $78,000 and past medicals were $570,000. The jury awarded $7.5 million in general damages (3 m. past and 4.5 m. future) as well as all future economic damages asked for by the plaintiff. The jury deliberated for 3 and a half hours.

Late one spring afternoon, the Arnold Law Firm received a call from Angela, a young mother of three. She was calling from the hospital where her husband Christopher had been air-lifted for treatment of severe injuries from a tragic motor vehicle accident earlier that day. Angela’s mother, a past client of our firm, had encouraged her to give us a call.

As it turns out, Angela’s prompt contact with us was a very important decision for their family. Immediate representation allowed our team to secure critical evidence right away — appropriate storage and analysis of the vehicle to avoid tampering, timely professional photography of the scene, and interviews of involved parties — which ended up being imperative to the details of Christopher’s case.

A commercial vehicle had failed to stop at a rural stop-sign intersection, colliding with the compact sedan driven by Christopher, an active 33-year-old father. The impact caused extensive damage to his spinal cord in the cervical area. Despite multiple surgeries, rehabilitation programs for physical and psychological therapy, and in-home care, his injuries rendered him a paraplegic, paralyzed from the mid-chest. In an instant, life as he had known it was gone forever.

At the time of the accident, the at-fault driver of the commercial vehicle was acting within the scope of his employment with a large corporation. With the employer being directly liable, as such, defense counsel fought hard to minimize Christopher’s damages, claiming that his being unemployed at that time devalued his losses. Our legal team made sure Christopher’s true losses were represented, including his potential income, his options and mobility, his ability to provide for and support his family, and the lifetime of care he now needed. Christopher’s injuries also dramatically affected his spouse’s daily life, resulting in a claim on her behalf.

Furthermore, the extent of Christopher’s injuries were, in part, due to defects involving the dual-restraint system in his own vehicle. Despite the manufacturer’s efforts to deny any responsibility, the Arnold Law Firm established negligence relevant to his case.

The result was a settlement of $8 million — the largest pre-trial settlement for this type of case in the region. Christopher now has the resources to receive the ongoing care he now requires, improve the quality of his life and take care of his young family.

The fatal collision between plaintiff’s Jeep Liberty and defendant’s Volvo truck left Ryan Eisenbrandt’s surviving wife and parents with a judgment of $3.9 million, but the defendant’s insurance company refused to pay. This resulted in a second, intense legal battle between Plaintiffs and Defendant’s insurance company.

During the pendency of the wrongful death case, Defendant’s insurance company had filed a federal court action to rescind the defendants $1,000,000 insurance policy, claiming that defendant had made misrepresentations when applying for that policy. Initially, the federal court agreed with the insurance company, granting summary judgment that effectively denied recovery to the Eisenbrandts given the defendant was otherwise insolvent. The Arnold firm and the Eisenbrandts refused to accept this unfair outcome. They appealed the federal judge’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court and sent the case back to the same federal judge for a trial on the merits.

Christine Doyle of the Arnold Firm tried the case in February 2011 in front of the same judge who had previously thrown out the Eisenbrandt’s case. A unanimous advisory jury and the trial judge, after hearing the true facts about the insurance company’s effort to avoid responsibility, found in the Eisenbrandts favor.  After four years of fighting for what is right, the insurance company was ordered to pay up.

A 20-year-old man who had been married for just 12 days left home on his way to work. He was driving on Pleasant Grove Road in Sutter County in the early morning when he came upon a slow-moving truck. As he pulled out to pass the truck, the truck driver turned left in front of him. The young man attempted to steer back into his lane but his vehicle struck an un-flagged piece of metal extending from the back of the truck. He died in the resulting crash.

Expert witnesses brought in by the Arnold Law Firm proved that the truck, owned and operated by a hauling firm, should never have been on the highway that morning. Specifically, the rear and side turn signals did not work and the rear-view mirror was in a poor state of adjustment at the time of the collision. As a result, the driver, who had failed to properly inspect the vehicle before setting out that morning, couldn’t see the young man’s vehicle as it attempted to pass.

The poor condition of the truck, its lack of maintenance and the manner in which it was operated were found to be substantial factors in causing the collision that killed the young man. The testimony also established that the man had been making a lawful pass at the lawful speed limit and acted reasonably when he attempted to avoid the collision.

The man’s 20-year-old widow was awarded $3,767,000.77, his parents were awarded $185,131 and the family was reimbursed $11,899 in funeral expenses. Though money is a poor substitute for a young man’s life, this verdict demonstrates that drivers who endanger the lives of others will be held accountable for their actions.

40-year-old Earl Bode and his wife Christine walked into the Arnold Law Firm with three garbage bags of medical receipts and insurance documents handed to them by their prior attorney. Accused of causing an accident that was not Earl’s fault and with his own insurance company claiming he was uninsured, Mr. Bode was dazed and hurt. He had suffered a permanent brain injury and multiple other physical injuries when two Sacramento County probation officers, speeding without cause down the center turn lane of a busy Sacramento thoroughfare during rush hour, struck Earl Bode’s vehicle broadside at 50 miles per hour as Bode attempted to make a lawful left turn. Despite a police report (authored by acquaintances of the probation officers) that blamed Bode 100% for the collision, the Arnold Law Firm believed Earl’s version of how the collision occurred and undertook his representation.

The Arnold Firm first succeeded in suing Earl Bode’s own insurance company to establish the coverage necessary to sue the County. In the ensuing lawsuit against the County of Sacramento, Earl was wrongfully accused of faking his brain injury, an injury that kept him from his life’s work as a commercial construction site supervisor. The Arnold Law Firm and its experts proved through accident reconstruction that Earl’s version of the collision was in fact what happened, and that the County probation officers were at fault. Using sophisticated medical technologies, including EEG and PET scan, to show the damage to Earl’s brain, plaintiffs forced the County’s medical experts to take back their charges that Earl was faking. After four, hard-fought years of battle for redemption and compensation, Earl and Christine Bode settled their lawsuit against the County of Sacramento for $3,500,000, an amount sufficient to provide Earl with the care and replace the financial opportunities taken from him and his family.

Adam H. had been a mortgage loan officer (MLO) in California for an established Missouri-based financial institution for four years and was growing frustrated with the company failing to reimburse him for business expenditures that he incurred while performing his work.

The company policy clearly outlined expenses eligible for reimbursement, but Adam’s expense report submissions were routinely denied and/or delayed. His coworkers lamented about similar problems with expense reimbursement.

Reaching out to management failed to resolve the issue, so Adam came to the Arnold Law Firm for help. The bank acknowledged that Adam submitted expense reports, but claimed that he didn’t fill out the forms properly as an excuse for failing to pay for his expenses.

The legal team at the Arnold Law Firm found that Adam’s employer had violated California wage and hour laws by failing to reimburse MLOs for incurred daily business expenses required to carry out their duties, such as mileage, toll charges, parking charges, and cell phone use.

The company expected their MLOs to spend more than half of their working time away from corporate branch locations. As such, they were required to use their own personal motor vehicles for work-related travel and other home office expenses, such as a cell phone and printer.

However, despite written policy, the bank did not fully pay for work-related office expenses or personal motor vehicles use, including liability insurance, mileage, gas, parking, and tolls. Expenses that the company did reimburse often took several months to process.

The financial institution initially offered Adam a paltry $5,000 settlement, arguing that there was no uniform policy consistently applied to a group of employees in violation of wage and hour laws to justify a class claim.

Evidence for over 100 class members demonstrated otherwise. The employer clearly failed to abide by their own written reimbursement policy. Further investigations revealed that the MLO position was misclassified, resulting in substantial unpaid overtime and paid rest periods.

The Arnold Law Firm settled the class action suit against the bank for $3,500,000.