CALL 916-777-7777
Youtube Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in

Sacramento Car Accident Lawyer

FREE EVALUATION (916) 777-7777

Why Choose Arnold Law Firm for Your Sacramento Car Accident Case

A car accident can upend your life in seconds. Mounting medical bills, time off work, insurance adjusters who seem more interested in protecting their bottom line than helping you recover. It is a lot to face when you are also trying to heal. Arnold Law Firm has spent decades helping Sacramento drivers and their families take on insurance companies and at-fault parties, and we have recovered more than $250 million for our clients along the way. Our founder, Clay Arnold, built this firm on a single principle: people who have been hurt through no fault of their own deserve a real fight, not a quick settlement that leaves them paying out of pocket for years to come. Clay is a member of the State Bar of California and the Sacramento County Bar Association, and the firm has earned recognition across the legal community for the results we have achieved in serious injury cases. We handle every Sacramento car accident case on a contingency fee basis, which means you pay nothing upfront and nothing at all unless we recover compensation for you. Your initial case evaluation is free. There is no risk to finding out what your case is actually worth, and given how often insurance companies undervalue early offers, that conversation usually pays for itself. If you have been injured in a Sacramento or surrounding-area car accident, call (916) 777-7777 or request a free case evaluation online. We will review your situation, explain your options in plain language, and tell you honestly whether we believe we can help.

"*" indicates required fields

Address*
SMS*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

SETTLEMENT

$60,000,000

Data Breach

The Arnold Law Firm reached a settlement in the Morgan Stanley data breach class action lawsuit.

Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$18,276,000

Qui Tam / Whistleblower

A whistleblower case exposing fraudulent practices in the state of California resulted…
Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$17,000,000

Data Breach

The Arnold Law Firm reached a settlement in the Kemper and Infinity data breach…
Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$17,000,000

Data Breach

The Arnold Law Firm reached a settlement in the Kemper and Infinity data breach…
Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$8,000,000

Truck Accident

Late one spring afternoon, the Arnold Law Firm received a call from Angela, a young…
Learn More

JUDGEMENT

$3,900,000

Car Accident

The fatal collision between plaintiff’s Jeep Liberty and defendant’s Volvo truck…
Learn More

Am I Eligible for Compensation After a Sacramento Car Accident?

California law allows injured parties to recover the full measure of damages caused by another driver’s negligence. To bring a claim, you generally need to show three things: another party caused the crash (in whole or in part), you were injured as a result, and the harm you suffered is documented. Beyond those basics, what actually matters in a serious case is the depth of the documentation, the specific California laws that govern the claim, and the strategy used to value future losses that have not yet been incurred.

What Compensation Can You Recover Under California Law?

California law permits recovery of all damages proximately caused by the at-fault party’s conduct. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3281, 3333. These fall into three categories:

Economic Damages

Economic damages cover the financial losses you can prove with records: past and future medical expenses (emergency care, surgery, hospitalization, physical therapy, future treatment), lost wages and loss of earning capacity, property damage, transportation to and from medical appointments, and other out-of-pocket costs. Future damages require expert testimony to establish with reasonable certainty under California law. In serious injury cases, this usually means a life care planner, treating physicians, vocational experts, and an economist. The goal is to project the lifetime cost of injuries that are not yet healed, so you are not undercompensated for what comes years after the settlement.

Non-Economic Damages

Non-economic damages compensate the human cost of the injury: physical pain, emotional suffering, mental anguish, disfigurement, physical impairment, and loss of enjoyment of life. California does not cap non-economic damages in ordinary motor vehicle cases, which is significant because in catastrophic injury cases the non-economic component often exceeds the economic damages. Cal. Civ. Code § 3283 (recovery for future detriment).

Punitive Damages

Punitive damages may be available when the at-fault party acted with malice, oppression, or fraud, proven by clear and convincing evidence. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294. Conduct that can support punitive damages includes driving under the influence, street racing, and similarly reckless behavior that reflects a conscious disregard for the safety of others.

How California’s Comparative Fault Rule Affects Your Recovery

California follows a pure comparative negligence system. Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975). If the jury finds you partly at fault, your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault, but you are not barred from recovering even if you were partially responsible. For example, if you are found 20 percent at fault on a $1 million case, you recover $800,000. Insurance companies frequently try to attribute more fault to the injured party than the evidence supports, often based on early statements made before a person has had a chance to speak with an attorney. The right strategy can rebut those tactics with crash reconstruction, witness statements, and downstream evidence the insurer did not anticipate.

Wrongful Death and Survival Actions

If a car accident causes the death of a family member, eligible heirs may bring a wrongful death action under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 377.60, 377.61. Surviving spouses, domestic partners, children, and certain other heirs can recover for the survivors’ financial losses, loss of household services, and loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, and guidance.

A separate survival action under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 377.30, 377.34 may recover the decedent’s own pre-death economic losses. For deaths after January 1, 2026, the Legislature has revised the framework that previously allowed survival recovery of pain and suffering, so the law on survival damages should be reviewed at the time the claim is evaluated. These actions may be joined or consolidated. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 377.62. Learn more about California wrongful death cases.

Insurance Coverage in California Car Accident Cases

Effective January 1, 2025, California requires drivers to carry minimum liability insurance of $30,000 per person, $60,000 per accident, and $15,000 in property damage. Veh. Code § 16451. A further increase to $50,000/$100,000/$25,000 is scheduled for January 1, 2035. Those minimums frequently fall short in serious-injury cases. When the at-fault driver carries only minimum limits, your own Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM) coverage may be the most important source of recovery. UM/UIM is optional in California, so check your policy. The framework for UM/UIM claims is set by Ins. Code § 11580.2, including specific requirements for physical-contact in hit-and-run claims, the 24-hour reporting requirement, and the 30-day sworn statement requirement. See Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos., 46 Cal.3d 287 (1988), for the framework governing bad-faith claims handling by insurers.

"*" indicates required fields

Address*
SMS*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

How Long Do You Have to Report a Car Accident in California?

California law and your insurance policy impose separate reporting deadlines, and the rules differ depending on what happened.

Reporting to law enforcement. If anyone was injured or killed, California Vehicle Code §§ 20001, 20003, and 20004 govern your obligations at the scene. The duty to stop, render aid, and identify yourself is immediate. If property damage exceeds $1,000 or anyone is injured, a report to the California Highway Patrol or DMV (form SR-1) is generally required within 10 days. If the driver who caused damage to your vehicle is not present, Vehicle Code § 20002 requires you to report what happened without unnecessary delay.

Reporting to your insurance company. Almost every California auto policy requires “prompt” or “timely” notice of an accident. Most insurers consider 24 to 72 hours to be reasonable; some specify exact deadlines in the policy. Delay can give the insurer grounds to deny or reduce coverage, even if the delay did not actually prejudice their investigation. Report the accident to your own insurer as soon as you are physically able. You do not need to give a recorded statement during that initial report. Note the date and time you reported and to whom you spoke.

One important caveat. Reporting an accident is not the same as accepting fault, agreeing to a recorded statement, or signing anything. If the other driver’s insurance company calls you (and they will, often within hours), you are not required to speak with them. A polite “I will have my attorney contact you” is sufficient.

For the deadline on actually filing a lawsuit, see How Long Do I Have to File a Car Accident Lawsuit in California? below.

How Should I Handle Questions From the Insurance Company After a Car Crash?

In any serious-injury case, the at-fault driver’s insurance company will call you. Often within hours of the crash. The adjuster will sound friendly, and the questions will sound routine. They are not routine. The recorded statement an adjuster takes in the first day after an accident is one of the most common tools used to reduce or deny claims later on. Statements made before you fully understand your injuries, before you have the police report, and before you have spoken with an attorney can lock you into a version of events that does not reflect what actually happened.

The safe approach: politely decline to give a recorded statement to the other driver’s insurance company. You can confirm basic identifying information (your name, the date of the crash) without giving a statement of fault, injuries, or any narrative about the accident. Tell them your attorney will be in contact. Then call us.

With your own insurance company, the calculus is different. Your policy typically requires you to cooperate with their investigation, including potentially providing a statement. But even with your own insurer, you have the right to have an attorney present, and the timing of any statement should be coordinated so it does not undercut your claim. Apology or sympathy expressions at the scene are protected from being used as admissions under California Evidence Code § 1160, but other statements can be used against you, so silence is generally safer than improvisation in the immediate aftermath.

If you have already given a recorded statement before reading this, do not panic. The statement is one piece of evidence, not the whole case. Call us and we will work with what is on the record.

WE FIGHT FOR YOUR MAXIMUM INJURY COMPENSATION

Free Case Evaluation
CALL 916-777-7777

Types of Sacramento Car Accident Cases We Handle

Almost every car accident case turns on a negligence theory: another driver owed a duty of care, breached it, and caused harm. The details of how the breach happened, and what evidence is available to prove it, vary widely by the type of collision. Below are the most common categories of Sacramento car accident cases we handle.

Rear-End Collisions

Rear-end crashes are common, especially on I-5, I-80, US-50, and Hwy 99 during commute hours. The trailing driver is often the negligent party because California Vehicle Code § 21703 requires drivers to maintain a safe following distance. That said, rear-end cases are not automatic wins; the front driver’s conduct (sudden stops without cause, brake-check behavior, unlit vehicles at night) can shift fault. In serious rear-end cases, the strength of the case depends on speed data, sight-distance analysis, and the timing of brake application.

Intersection and Left-Turn Collisions

Intersection crashes often turn on right-of-way: who had the green, who was turning, and whether either driver was distracted. Surveillance footage from nearby businesses, traffic camera footage, and witness accounts are critical. Left-turn cases are especially fact-intensive because California law generally presumes the turning driver yields to oncoming traffic, but exceptions apply when the oncoming driver was speeding, ran a red, or was otherwise outside the rules of the road.

Distracted Driving Cases

California prohibits the handheld operation of wireless electronic devices while driving under Veh. Code § 23123.5, which covers more than texting. Cell phone records, app usage logs, and dashcam footage are the primary evidence. We work with experts who can extract handset data and reconstruct phone activity in the minutes before a crash.

Drunk and Impaired Driving Cases

DUI crashes often support both compensatory and punitive damages under Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 because driving while impaired demonstrates a conscious disregard for the safety of others. We coordinate civil claims with the criminal proceedings, which can be helpful but also tactical: timing of statements and discovery requests around the criminal case requires planning. Learn more about DUI injury claims.

Hit-and-Run Cases

Cal. Veh. Code § 20002 makes it a crime to leave the scene of an accident. Hit-and-run cases involve immediate practical steps (report to police, document the vehicle as well as possible, identify witnesses) and longer-term legal steps (uninsured motorist claims, since the responsible driver is unknown). Even when the driver is never found, your own UM coverage under Ins. Code § 11580.2 can fund recovery, subject to the physical-contact, 24-hour reporting, and 30-day sworn-statement requirements. Learn more about Sacramento hit-and-run cases.

Rideshare Accidents (Uber, Lyft)

Rideshare cases involve unique insurance complexities because Uber and Lyft provide tiered coverage depending on the driver’s status at the time of the crash: app off, app on but no ride accepted, ride accepted and en route, or passenger in the car. The applicable coverage limit can be $50,000, $100,000, or $1,000,000 depending on which tier was active. Learn more about rideshare accident cases.

Truck and Commercial Vehicle Accidents

Crashes involving semis, delivery trucks, and other commercial vehicles are governed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and often involve multiple potentially liable parties (driver, carrier, cargo company, manufacturer). The evidence preservation timeline is short. Learn more about Sacramento truck accident cases.

Motorcycle, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Accidents

When a car hits a vulnerable road user, the injuries are almost always serious. These cases involve a separate set of liability considerations: lane-positioning, conspicuity, helmet use (which does not bar recovery in California but can affect non-economic damages), and the specific traffic rules governing the user. Motorcycle cases | Bicycle cases | Pedestrian cases

Multi-Vehicle and Chain-Reaction Collisions

Multi-car pile-ups, especially on I-80 in Delta tule fog conditions, raise complex apportionment-of-fault questions. California’s pure comparative negligence rule means fault is allocated among multiple parties, and your recovery depends on how the percentages are calculated. These cases require careful accident reconstruction.

Common Injuries from Sacramento Car Accidents

The injuries we see most often in Sacramento car accident cases include:

Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI)

Concussions, cerebral contusions, and more severe TBIs can affect cognition, memory, personality, mood, and physical function for months, years, or permanently. TBIs are often under-diagnosed in the immediate aftermath of a crash because symptoms develop over time. Learn more about Sacramento TBI cases.

Spinal Cord Injuries

From herniated discs and chronic back pain to permanent paralysis, spinal injuries vary widely in severity. Outcomes depend on which segment of the spine is affected and the type of damage. Spinal cord injury cases routinely involve lifetime care planning. Learn more about spinal cord injury cases.

Broken Bones and Orthopedic Injuries

Fractures of the legs, hips, ribs, collarbones, and arms are common, particularly in high-speed crashes and rollovers. Many require surgery and extended rehabilitation. Complex fractures may not heal fully and can produce lifetime impairment.

Internal Injuries

Blunt force trauma to the abdomen and chest can cause internal bleeding, organ damage, and other life-threatening injuries that are not immediately apparent. This is one of the reasons emergency evaluation after a crash is critical even if you “feel fine.”

Soft Tissue Injuries and Whiplash

Cervical strain (whiplash) and other soft-tissue injuries can be persistent and disabling. Insurance companies routinely undervalue these claims because they do not show on X-rays. Documentation through proper imaging (MRI), consistent treatment records, and medical expert testimony is essential.

Catastrophic and Fatal Injuries

When injuries are catastrophic or fatal, the case is no longer about whether to call a lawyer; it is about how quickly and which one. These cases involve life care planners, economists, and expert testimony from day one. Learn more about catastrophic injury cases. | Learn more about wrongful death cases.

Common Causes of Sacramento Car Accidents

The causes we encounter most often in Sacramento cases include:

  • Distracted driving: phone use, GPS interaction, eating, in-car infotainment
  • Speeding and aggressive driving: particularly on freeway segments through Natomas, downtown, and the I-80 corridor
  • Impaired driving: alcohol, cannabis, and prescription medications
  • Drowsy driving: especially on long-haul corridors like I-5 through the Central Valley
  • Failure to yield: left turns, merges, and uncontrolled intersections
  • Weather and visibility: Delta tule fog in winter, glare, rain on poorly maintained pavement
  • Mechanical failure: brake failure, tire blowouts, lighting deficiencies; in some cases supports a product liability claim
  • Road defects: potholes, missing signage, poor maintenance; can support a claim against a government entity (subject to the six-month claim deadline)

"*" indicates required fields

Address*
SMS*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

How Long Do I Have to File a Car Accident Lawsuit in California?

The statute of limitations is the legal deadline by which a lawsuit must be filed. Missing it almost always means losing the right to sue, regardless of how strong the claim was. The deadlines for California car accident claims vary depending on what is being claimed and who the defendant is.

The General Personal Injury Deadline: Two Years

Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1, most personal injury claims arising from a car accident must be filed within two years of the date of the injury. This applies to claims against private individuals and private companies. It also applies to wrongful death claims, measured from the date of death rather than the date of the accident.

Claims Against Government Entities: Six Months

When the at-fault party is a government employee acting within the scope of their employment, or when the accident involves a government-owned vehicle, or when a road defect on public property is part of the cause, you must file a written government claim with the responsible entity within six months of the accident under California Government Code § 911.2. This is a hard administrative prerequisite that exists before any lawsuit can be filed.

If the government entity rejects the claim, you generally have six months from the written notice of rejection to file suit. Cal. Gov. Code §§ 912.4, 945.6. If the entity simply does not respond, the claim is “deemed rejected” after 45 days, and the same six-month suit deadline begins.

Property Damage: Three Years

Claims solely for property damage (vehicle damage with no personal injury) have a three-year statute under Code of Civil Procedure § 338. In practice, almost every serious case combines property damage with personal injury, in which case the two-year personal injury deadline controls.

When the Statute Can Be Tolled

California recognizes several circumstances under which the statute may pause or extend:

  • Minors: the limitations period generally does not begin until the injured person turns 18. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.
  • Defendant out of state: periods during which the defendant is absent from California may toll the clock. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 351.
  • Mental incapacity: in narrow circumstances, the statute may pause during a period of legal incapacity.
  • Discovery rule: for injuries that were not reasonably discoverable at the time of the accident, the clock may start when the injury was or should have been discovered.

These doctrines are fact-specific. Do not rely on them to extend the deadline without legal advice.

Why Filing Early Matters

The statute is the latest date by which a lawsuit must be filed. It is not the right date. Filing close to the deadline has several disadvantages:

  • Evidence degrades over time. Witnesses move and forget. Surveillance footage gets overwritten. Vehicles are repaired or scrapped. Skid marks fade.
  • Medical treatment that completes earlier provides clearer documentation of total damages.
  • Defendants pressed for time will often pay more to settle quickly. Cases filed at the last minute are easier to drag into prolonged litigation.
  • If the case involves multiple defendants (such as a vehicle manufacturer or a government entity), early investigation may surface defendants you would otherwise miss.

What If You Are Approaching the Deadline?

If the two-year mark is approaching and you do not yet have a lawyer, call us immediately. Even with limited time, we can usually file the necessary pleadings to preserve your rights, then build the case from there. Doing nothing because the deadline feels imminent is the worst possible response.

Is It Too Late to Hire a Lawyer for a Car Accident in Sacramento?

Probably not. The question we are most often asked by people calling weeks or months after a crash is whether they have already missed the chance to get good representation. In almost every case the answer is no, but the longer you wait the harder some things become. Here is how to think about it.

If You Have Not Yet Filed a Claim

If you are within the two-year statute of limitations and have not yet filed suit, an attorney can still take the case at almost any stage. We have taken cases on the eve of the deadline and obtained substantial recoveries. The work is more compressed, but the outcome can still be strong.

If You Have Already Talked to the Insurance Company

If you have given a recorded statement, signed a medical release, or had other early interactions with the at-fault insurer, the case is still workable. We have built strong cases around early statements many times. The statement is one piece of evidence, not the whole picture, and we can usually contextualize or rebut what was said with later evidence.

If You Have Received a Settlement Offer

You can almost always reject an early settlement offer and bring in an attorney. Most insurance offers in serious-injury cases are made before treatment is complete and undervalue the future medical, lost-earning-capacity, and pain-and-suffering components. If you have not signed a release, you have not closed the door. Even if a release was signed, there are narrow circumstances where it can be challenged.

How Sacramento Car Accident Claims Get Settled

Most cases settle without trial, but how and when they settle depends on the strength of the documentation, the credibility of the medical evidence, and the willingness of the carrier to evaluate the case fairly. The typical sequence is: investigation, medical treatment to maximum medical improvement (MMI), comprehensive demand letter, negotiation, mediation (often), and if necessary, litigation. Cases involving serious injuries are typically not ready to settle until the injured person has reached MMI, because settling earlier risks leaving future medical costs uncompensated.

If negotiations stall, filing suit in Sacramento County Superior Court is often what moves the case. The two-year statute under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 sets the outer limit, but most cases benefit from filing well in advance of the deadline so discovery can move on a normal schedule.

If the Other Side Has Already Filed Suit Against You

This happens when the insurance company believes you are at fault. You must respond within the deadline set by the summons (typically 30 days). Do not ignore it, and do not respond without representation. Call us immediately.

What to Do Right Now

Even if it has been six months, a year, or longer since the crash, call us at (916) 777-7777 for a free case evaluation. We will give you a candid read on what we think the case is worth and whether we can help. There is no cost to find out.

"*" indicates required fields

Address*
SMS*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Sacramento Areas We Serve

Arnold Law Firm represents car accident victims throughout the Sacramento region, including downtown Sacramento, Midtown, Natomas, North Sacramento, South Sacramento, Rancho Cordova, and Elk Grove, as well as surrounding cities including Roseville, Rocklin, Folsom, Citrus Heights, West Sacramento, and Davis. We routinely handle accidents on I-5, I-80, US-50, Highway 99, and State Route 160, including the Delta region.

Contact Our Sacramento Car Accident Lawyers Today

If you or a loved one has been injured in a Sacramento car accident, time matters. Insurance companies move quickly to limit their exposure. Evidence at the scene degrades. Witnesses become harder to reach. The sooner you have an attorney involved, the stronger your case will be.

Call Arnold Law Firm at (916) 777-7777 for a free, no-obligation case evaluation. We will review the facts of your accident, explain your options in plain language, and tell you honestly whether we believe we can help. There is no fee unless we recover compensation for you.

We have recovered more than $250 million for our clients. Let us help you fight for the recovery you deserve.

LATEST NEWS

Industrial chemical storage tank with emergency response equipment, illustrating the Garden Grove methyl methacrylate leak incident

Garden Grove Methyl Methacrylate Leak at GKN Aerospace: Legal Rights for Evacuated Residents

Patrick Luff May 23, 2026

May 24, 2026 UPDATE: Significant developments since this article was first published See “Major Developments Since the Leak Began” below for details. More than 50,000 Orange County residents have been ordered out of their homes since Thursday afternoon after a 34,000-gallon storage tank at the GKN Aerospace facility in Garden Grove began leaking methyl methacrylate, a highly flammable, toxic industrial chemical. Orange County Fire Authority officials have publicly warned that the compromised tank is expected to fail and may explode. If you live, work, attend school, or own a business inside the evacuation zone, you may be entitled to compensation for the costs and harms you have already incurred, and for those still to come. This page explains, in plain

Treble Damages in California Trucking Cases

justice4you January 30, 2026

California law provides a specific statutory remedy for victims injured by impaired commercial vehicle drivers when their employers fail to meet federal safety requirements. Understanding when treble damages apply—and how they differ from standard punitive damages—is crucial for truck accident victims seeking maximum compensation. What Are Treble Damages? Treble damages allow injured parties to recover three times their actual damages under specific legal circumstances. In California trucking cases, this remedy is narrowly defined and differs significantly from general punitive damages available in other personal injury cases. California Civil Code § 3333.7: Statutory Treble Damages Requirements for Recovery Under California Civil Code § 3333.7, injured parties may recover treble damages from a commercial motor vehicle driver’s employer when all of the

California Trucking Accidents: Standards of Care

justice4you January 29, 2026

California law establishes different standards of care for trucking operations depending on the type of service provided. While most commercial trucking companies transporting freight are subject to ordinary negligence standards, federal motor carrier safety regulations impose enhanced duties that can significantly affect liability in truck accident cases. Key Takeaways: Commercial carriers of goods generally DO NOT have the duty of “utmost care” Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) DO create heightened standards in specific situations Large truck drivers must exercise greater caution than ordinary motorists Licensed motor carriers have nondelegable safety duties Common Carrier Standard: When Does “Utmost Care” Apply? The Enhanced Duty for Passenger Transportation California Civil Code section 2100 requires carriers of persons for reward to use “the

Settlement - $3,900,000

Car Accident

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.

Settlement - $8,000,000

Truck Accident

Morgan Stanley Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

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.

Verdict - $10,200,000

Motorcycle Accident

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.

Settlement - $17,000,000

Data Breach

Infinity/Kemper Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

The Arnold Law Firm, along with co-counsel at Morgan & Morgan, and Mason, Lietz, & Klinger, and Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman, & Herz LLP, reached a settlement in the Kemper and Infinity data breach class action lawsuit, also known as Irma Carrera et al. v. Kemper Corporation and Infinity Insurance Company, filed in the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:20-cv-01883. The settlement is valued at over $17 million.

The Honorable Judge Martha M. Pacold granted Preliminary Approval of the settlement on October 27, 2021.

In addition to substantial injunctive relief, the class members will receive access to Aura’s Financial Shield Services for a period of 18 months, up to $10,000 for reimbursement of documented out-of-pocket losses reasonably traceable to the Data Breach, up to 3 hours of time spent remedying issues related to the breach at $18 per hour, and $50 for Class Members who are California residents.

History of the data breach: On April 8, 2021, the Arnold Law Firm and Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman, & Herz LLP filed the first class action complaint against Kemper and Infinity in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled Irma Carrera Aguallo et al. v. Kemper Corporation and Infinity Insurance Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-01883. The complaint asserted claims against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se, (3) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unlawful Business Practices, (4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unfair Business Practices, (5) violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, et seq., (6) violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq., (7) violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida Statute § 501.201, et seq., (8) breach of implied contract, (9) declaratory judgment, and (10) unjust enrichment arising from the data breach.

Settlement - $18,276,000

Qui Tam / Whistleblower

Whistleblowers Represented by Arnold Law Firm Expose Fraudulent Practices by the Pill Club, Case Settled With California DOJ

The Arnold Law Firm and the Hirst Law Group represented two whistleblowers who helped expose fraudulent practices by a start-up online pharmacy company called The Pill Club.

The company allegedly used fraudulent practices to bill California’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, for their services. The Pill Club is also alleged to have violated state laws by allowing nurse practitioners to prescribe contraceptive products to women without proper supervision or training from a licensed medical doctor.

For their part in blowing the whistle on the company they worked for, and as part of California Qui Tam laws, the whistleblowers and their attorneys recovered $4.9 million from the $18.275 million settlement paid to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and the California Department of Insurance (CDI).

Settlement - $60,000,000

Data Breach

Morgan Stanley Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

The Arnold Law Firm, along with co-counsel at Morgan & Morgan, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. and others, reached a settlement in the Morgan Stanley data breach class action lawsuit, also known as In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, filed in the United States District Court Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-05914-AT. The settlement resulted in a $60 million settlement fund to benefit class members.

The Motion for Preliminary Approval was filed on December 31, 2021 with the Honorable Judge Analisa Torres.

In addition to substantial injunctive relief, the 15 million class members will be provided access to Aura’s Financial Shield services for at least two years, which includes a $1 million insurance policy protecting each subscriber, credit monitoring, identity freezing, dark web monitoring, income tax protection and more services. The fund will also provide payments to people who submit valid claims for out-of-pocket expenses and/or up to four hours of lost-time incurred as a result of the data breach. Lost time allows victims of the data breach to be paid at $25 per hour for up to four hours of attested time spent dealing with the data breach. Out-of-pocket expenses can be claimed up to $10,000 if the costs or expenditures are fairly traceable to the data breach.

History of the data breach: On July 29, 2020, the Arnold Law Firm and Morgan & Morgan filed the first class action lawsuit against Morgan Stanley in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Sylvia Tillman et al. v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05914. The complaint asserted claims against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) invasion of privacy; (3) negligence per se; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unlawful Business Practices; and (6) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unfair Business Practices.

Settlement - $3,767,000

Truck Accident

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.