Sacramento Insurance Bad Faith Lawyer

FREE EVALUATION (916) 777-7777

Individuals will often file personal injury lawsuits after an insurance company has acted in bad faith. The fraudulent deception of another person or the intentional or malicious refusal to perform some duty or contractual obligation is referred to a bad faith. California drivers pay car insurance premiums so that in the event of an accident, they will receive coverage for the damages.

However, insurance companies are in the business of making money and will often offer victims inadequate compensation for their losses. At Arnold Law Firm Accident & Injury Attorneys, we have over 50 years of experience helping clients stand up to bad faith insurance tactics and fight for the compensation they deserve. Our results speak for themselves — just take a look at our Case Results and Testimonials to see how we’ve helped clients in similar situations recover what they’re owed.

If you believe that your insurance company is acting in bad faith, contact our Sacramento personal injury lawyers to explore your legal options and protect your rights.

"*" indicates required fields

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

What Is Insurance Bad Faith?

When you file an insurance claim, you expect the company to treat you fairly. Under California law, they’re required to act in good faith—which means being honest, reasonable, and prompt. If they don’t, and instead drag their feet, deny your claim without a valid reason, or twist the policy terms, that may be considered insurance bad faith.

This kind of behavior goes beyond a simple disagreement. A delay or denial alone isn’t always bad faith, but when your insurance company ignores clear evidence, fails to explain its decision, or puts its own profits ahead of your claim, that’s a problem. In these cases, it helps to speak with a Sacramento bad faith attorney to figure out what went wrong and what you can do next.

A bad faith insurance claim in California often starts with confusion. You paid your premiums. You followed the process. Then your claim was pushed aside or wrongly denied. That’s when it’s time to get answers. A Sacramento insurance denials lawyer can look at the details and tell you whether your rights as a policyholder were violated.

If you’re feeling ignored or pressured by your insurer, you’re not alone. Bad faith happens more often than most people realize—and you may have legal options to hold the company accountable.

"*" indicates required fields

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

What Is a Bad Faith Insurance Claim?

A bad faith insurance claim is a legal action you can take when your insurance company treats you unfairly. It’s not just about a disagreement over coverage—it’s about misconduct. If the insurer denies your claim without a valid reason, delays payment on purpose, or refuses to properly investigate, you may have grounds for a bad faith claim.

This is different from a routine dispute. For example, if a check was delayed due to a clerical mistake, that’s frustrating—but it’s not necessarily bad faith. On the other hand, if your insurer ignores clear evidence, misstates what your policy covers, or tries to pressure you into accepting less than what you’re owed, that’s something more serious.

There are many examples of insurance bad faith in California. These include failing to respond to a claim, refusing to explain the denial, or offering a lowball settlement with no real justification. When that happens, you may be entitled to seek more than just the original claim amount—you can also pursue additional damages for the harm caused by an unreasonable insurance denial.

Bad faith claims hold insurers accountable when they cross the line.

Common Bad Faith Insurance Lawsuits

Whenever an accident victim files an insurance claim, by law, the insurance company has duty to behave in good faith, regardless of the state where the accident occurred. The insurance provider should not look for loopholes to avoid its obligation to investigate the claim or pay the individual the compensation that they are entitled to.

An insurance providers failure to negotiate a settlement or its denial of coverage can result in a bad faith claim.

Some of the most common reasons that an insurance provider may be sued for bad faith include:

  • Failure to disclose policy limits
  • Unjustified denial of coverage
  • Failure to disclose important information to the claimant
  • Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation of the claim
  • Failure to respond to a time-sensitive demand
  • Offering significantly less money to settle the claim than the true value
  • Refusal to pay the claim without a proper investigation
  • Failure to enter into negotiations for the settlement of the claim
  • Failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the claim denial
  • Failure to attempt to come to a fair and reasonable settlement when liability is obvious
  • Failure to confirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time frame.

If you believe that your insurance company committed any of the actions above after you filed a claim, you may be eligible to file a bad faith lawsuit.

To find out how our attorneys can help you with your insurance claim, fill out the contact form on the right-hand side of the page.

WE FIGHT FOR YOUR MAXIMUM INJURY COMPENSATION

How Much Can You Sue an Insurance Company for Bad Faith?

Bad faith lawsuits can lead to compensation far beyond your original policy benefits. If your insurer acted dishonestly or unreasonably, you may be entitled to additional damages.

What You Can Recover

A Sacramento insurance denials lawyer can help you pursue:

  • The original policy amount: what the company should’ve paid to begin with.
  • Emotional distress damages: for the stress and hardship their actions caused.
  • Punitive damages: in cases of extreme or intentional misconduct.
  • Attorney’s fees and court costs: so legal expenses don’t come out of your pocket.

A Larger Recovery Than You Expected

For example, if you were owed $20,000 but the insurer delayed payment without cause, a court could award you $50,000 or more depending on the facts.

An experienced insurance claim dispute lawyer in Sacramento can walk you through your options and help you calculate what your case may truly be worth.

Types of Insurance Claims That May Involve Bad Faith

Insurance companies are expected to handle all claim types fairly. But in some cases, they fall short—and that’s when bad faith may come into play. Here are common types of insurance where these issues can arise:

  • Auto Insurance: Denying coverage after a crash without investigating or undervaluing your repair costs.
  • Homeowners Insurance: Refusing to pay for fire, storm, or theft damage despite clear coverage in the policy. 
  • Life Insurance: Delaying payouts to a beneficiary or disputing the cause of death without proper justification.
  • Health Insurance: Denying approval for necessary procedures, medications, or hospital stays without valid medical review.
  • Disability Insurance: Dismissing legitimate disability claims or cutting off benefits without explanation.
  • Business Insurance: Denying COVID-related claims or loss of business income after disruptions covered under the policy.

If you’re experiencing this kind of treatment, searching for a bad faith insurance lawyer “near me” is a smart first step. These patterns are more common than people think—and they’re often worth challenging.

What Damages Can I Recover in a Bad Faith Insurance Case?

If your insurance company acted in bad faith, you may be entitled to more than just what they originally owed. California law allows victims to seek several types of damages based on how the insurer’s actions affected them.

Contract Damages

This is the amount your insurance company should’ve paid in the first place under the terms of your policy.

Consequential Damages

You can also seek compensation for financial harm caused by the delay or denial—such as out-of-pocket medical bills, missed rent, or damage to your credit.

Emotional Distress

In many cases, the stress and disruption caused by bad faith is significant. You may be able to recover damages for emotional suffering tied to the insurer’s conduct.

Punitive Damages

If the insurer’s behavior was especially reckless or dishonest, the court may award additional damages to punish that misconduct and prevent it from happening again.

How much you can recover depends on what happened, how severe it was, and how clearly the evidence shows bad faith. An attorney can help you assess what might apply in your case.

How to File a Bad Faith Insurance Claim in California

If you believe your insurance company acted unfairly or dishonestly, it’s important to take the right steps early. Here’s how to protect your rights and build a strong case:

  1. Review Your Policy: Start by reading your policy closely. Look at the coverage limits, exclusions, and deadlines.
  2. Document Everything: Keep records of every call, letter, or email with the insurer. Save denial letters and take notes on phone conversations.
  3. Gather Supporting Evidence: Pull together all related documents—photos, receipts, repair estimates, medical records, and anything showing your loss or how your claim was handled.
  4. Talk to a Lawyer: A Sacramento insurance denials lawyer can help you understand whether you have a valid bad faith case and what it might be worth.
  5. Consider Legal Action: If your attorney sees signs of misconduct, you may be advised to file a formal complaint or a civil lawsuit.

Navigating these claims without legal guidance can put your rights at risk. Legal guidance can make all the difference when the stakes are high.

How Do You Prove Bad Faith by an Insurance Company?

To win a bad faith case, you have to show that the insurer acted unreasonably or without a valid basis when handling your claim. It’s not enough that they denied your claim—there must be evidence that their actions were unjustified, dishonest, or done with disregard for your rights as a policyholder.

Here’s how to prove bad faith insurance in California:

  • Internal claim handling notes: These can reveal delays, lack of investigation, or bad instructions behind the scenes.
  • Denial letters without proper explanation: If your insurer refuses your claim but won’t say why, that’s a red flag.
  • Conflicting or misleading communications: Emails or letters that contradict each other can point to deceptive behavior.
  • Policy language vs. insurer’s reasoning: If the denial doesn’t match what’s written in your policy, the insurer may be in the wrong.

In more complex disputes, your lawyer may bring in an expert to review industry standards and compare them to how your claim was handled.

Attorneys are critical in identifying this evidence, organizing it clearly, and presenting it in a way that holds the insurer accountable.

How a Sacramento Bad Faith Insurance Lawyer Can Help

If you’re facing an unreasonable denial, delay, or underpayment from your insurer, working with a Sacramento insurance denials lawyer can make all the difference. Whether you were involved in a car accident, rideshare accident (Uber or Lyft), truck accident, or motorcycle crash, a skilled attorney won’t just review your paperwork—they’ll help you build a strong legal case from the ground up.

Reviewing Your Policy and Claim

A bad faith lawyer starts by carefully going through your insurance policy, claim history, and all communication with your insurer. This helps identify whether your rights were violated.

Determining Whether Bad Faith Occurred

Not every denial is illegal. Your attorney will look for signs of misconduct, like delays without reason, denial letters lacking explanation, or sudden reversals of coverage.

Gathering Evidence and Negotiating

Your lawyer will collect key documents, organize evidence, and approach the insurer to seek a fair outcome—often without filing a lawsuit.

Filing a Lawsuit When Necessary

If the insurer refuses to resolve things fairly, your lawyer can take them to court and fight for full compensation.

At Arnold Law Firm Accident & Injury Attorneys, we’ve earned the trust of Sacramento policyholders by standing up to insurance companies and holding them accountable. We know the local courts and understand what it takes to win these cases.

How to Find the Best Bad Faith Insurance Lawyer in California

Not every attorney has the background or focus to handle bad faith insurance claims effectively. When searching for the right lawyer, start by checking their experience with these specific cases—not just general insurance disputes. A strong candidate will have a proven record of taking cases to trial, not just settling.

Also look at client reviews. Positive testimonials can tell you a lot about an attorney’s responsiveness, communication, and results. It’s smart to choose a lawyer who offers free consultations and works on a contingency basis, so you don’t pay unless they win your case.

At Arnold Law Firm Accident & Injury Attorneys, we’ve helped countless Californians hold insurance companies accountable. We understand how frustrating these situations can be, and we make it a point to treat every client with honesty, care, and personal attention.

We check every box—and we’re ready to help if you think your insurer crossed the line.

"*" indicates required fields

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

Do You Need a Sacramento Insurance Denials Lawyer or a Bad Faith Attorney?

Not every insurance denial breaks the law—but some cross a clear line. Understanding the difference can help you figure out what kind of legal help you need.

When a Denial Is Frustrating—But Not Illegal

Insurance companies can legally deny claims when there’s no coverage under the policy or when exclusions apply. For instance, if your claim falls outside your policy terms, the company might have a valid reason to say no. In these cases, a Sacramento insurance denials lawyer may be able to challenge the decision and fight for a fair outcome.

When the Denial Crosses the Line

If your insurer denies a valid claim without a proper investigation, delays payments with no reason, or changes its story, that could be bad faith. In these situations, a Sacramento insurance bad faith lawyer can step in. You may even be able to sue the insurance company for bad faith and pursue damages beyond the value of the original claim.

If you’re facing a denied insurance claim in California and don’t know where it falls, don’t guess. Talk to a lawyer who can review your case and explain your options.

Can I Sue My Insurance Company for Bad Faith in California?

Yes—if your insurance company denied your claim unfairly or acted dishonestly, California law gives you the right to sue for bad faith. This type of lawsuit is separate from your original claim and can allow you to recover extra compensation for the harm caused by the insurer’s misconduct.

To win a bad faith insurance case, you’ll need to show that the company didn’t have a reasonable basis for its actions—whether that’s a wrongful denial, unnecessary delay, or refusal to investigate. It’s not enough that they made a mistake. There has to be evidence of dishonest or unreasonable behavior.

In California, most bad faith lawsuits based on tort law must be filed within two years from the date of the violation. That deadline can come fast, so it’s best not to wait.

If you’re unsure whether your case qualifies, speaking with a Sacramento insurance bad faith lawyer is the right place to start. An experienced attorney can review what happened and help you figure out if legal action makes sense.

It’s not just about the money—it’s about holding the company accountable for the way they treated you.

"*" indicates required fields

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

Why Choose Our Sacramento Bad Faith Insurance Lawyers?

At Arnold Law Firm Accident & Injury Attorneys, we’ve been fighting for policyholders for over 50 years. Since opening our doors in 1975, we’ve built a strong reputation as one of Sacramento’s most trusted firms for handling insurance bad faith claims. We understand how insurance companies operate locally—and we know how to push back when they cross the line.

Every client who comes through our doors gets one-on-one attention from a team that truly cares. We don’t take shortcuts, and we don’t back down. Our lawyers bring decades of courtroom experience, and we won’t hesitate to take your case to trial if that’s what it takes to get justice.

We also work on a contingency basis. That means you won’t owe us anything unless we recover money for you.

Let our Sacramento insurance denials lawyers fight for the fair treatment you deserve. Schedule your free case review today—and let’s hold your insurer accountable.

Contact Our Sacramento Bad Faith Attorneys Today

If you believe your insurer has acted in bad faith, don’t wait to take action—California has a statute of limitations on bad faith claims, which means your time to file may be limited.

Call Arnold Law Firm Accident & Injury Attorneys at (916) 777-7777 to have your claim reviewed by an experienced member of our legal team. We represent individuals throughout Sacramento and the surrounding communities who have been unfairly treated by their insurance providers.

There are no upfront costs, and your initial consultation is completely free. Let us help you understand your rights and fight for the compensation you deserve.

LATEST NEWS

Treble Damages in California Trucking Cases

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

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

Punitive Damages in California Personal Injury Cases

What Are Punitive Damages? Punitive damages are extra money a court can order a wrongdoer to pay, on top of the money that compensates an injured person for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. The main goal of punitive damages is not to repay the victim, but to punish especially bad behavior and to discourage similar conduct in the future. Think of punitive damages as a financial penalty for conduct that is much worse than ordinary carelessness. In California, punitive damages are not common. They are reserved for cases where the defendant’s conduct is particularly harmful, intentional, or shows a conscious disregard for the safety or rights of others. Most personal injury cases involve simple negligence (for example,

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.