Butler Kahn recently obtained a $1,500,000 settlement in a motorcycle accident case. Despite limited coverage and a vigorous defense by the at-fault driver, we were able to get a great result for our client, Mr. Simmons*. The case was in Augusta, GA, and we were fortunate to have Augusta lawyer Sam Nicholson join us to work on the case as co-counsel.
Here’s more about the case.
Facts of the Motorcycle Wreck
On the morning of the accident, Mr. Simmons was riding his motorcycle down a rural highway in McDuffie County, Georgia. At the same time, the at-fault driver was at a stop sign waiting to turn left onto the highway. Just as Mr. Simmons was about to reach the intersection where the at-fault driver was stopped, the at-fault driver pulled out in front of Mr. Simmons. Mr. Simmons tried to avoid the collision, but it was too late. Mr. Simmons’ motorcycle collided with the at-fault driver’s truck.
Police diagram showing the point of impact
Damage to at-fault driver’s vehicle
Damage to client’s motorcycle
The responding officer cited the at-fault driver for failure to yield in violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-70. The at-fault driver eventually pled guilty to that charge.
Personal Injuries Sustained by Our Client
Mr. Simmons was visibly and severely injured. He was bleeding profusely from his left wrist, and he couldn’t stand, despite numerous attempts. A bystander applied a tourniquet to Mr. Simmon’s left wrist to stop the bleeding and directed Mr. Simmons to lay down.
An ambulance took Mr. Simmons directly from the scene of the collision to the hospital. At the hospital, doctors found Mr. Simmons suffered numerous broken bones. He had multiple pelvic fractures, a broken left wrist, a broken right wrist, a broken heel, and a broken tibia. His injuries required a two-week hospital stay, including two days in the ICU. Mr. Simmons had three surgeries to implant hardware into his heel, right wrist, left wrist, and tibia.
Illustration of Mr. Simmons’ surgical hardware
Mr. Simmons’ treatment did not stop at the hospital. For the next year, he treated with an orthopedist and physical therapists. Approximately a year after the collision, Mr. Simmons needed to undergo an additional surgery to remove the hardware in his left wrist. After all of this treatment, Mr. Simmons’ medical bills exceeded $450,000.00. However, the defendant hired “billing experts” to claim Mr. Simmons’ medical bills were worth significantly less.
Reasonable Medical Expenses and Collateral Sources
In Georgia, an injured party is entitled to recover their reasonable medical expenses from the person or company that caused their injuries. The reasonable medical expenses are for the full amount of the bill, without any reduction for health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or self-pay discounts. For example, if an injured party is billed $50,000 for a hospital stay, the injured party should recover the full $50,000 from the at-fault party, regardless of what their health insurance paid or what the injured party had to pay out of pocket. This is because Georgia does not allow evidence of collateral sources. Collateral sources are sources of compensation that an injured person receives from a third party, other than the defendant. This can be health insurance, disability payment, Medicare, Medicaid, or worker’s compensation payments. None of those collateral sources will come in at trial.
While this should be a pretty cut-and-dry concept, some defendants hire “experts” to claim that an injured party’s bills aren’t reasonable. That’s what happened in this case. The defendant in Mr. Simmons’ case hired three different “billing experts.” Despite Georgia law being clear that collateral sources cannot come into evidence, these billing experts used databases with claims submitted to health insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid to claim that Mr. Simmons’ medical bills weren’t reasonable. These “billing experts” were expected to testify that Mr. Simmons’ $450,000 of medical expenses were only worth somewhere between $90,000 and $200,000.
While we didn’t think a judge would allow these “billing experts” to testify and we didn’t think a jury would believe these “billing experts”, there was still a chance that a jury could agree with the defendant’s “billing experts” and discount Mr. Simmons’ medical bills. This was a risk we had to take into account when considering whether to settle the case and for how much.
Difficulties in Motorcycle Cases
While Mr. Simmons was not at fault for the wreck, we knew that some potential jurors would have a bias towards Mr. Simmons simply because he was on a motorcycle. We learned through mock juries that people have strong opinions about motorcycles and tend to be willing to put blame on motorcycle drivers, even when they don’t bear any fault. This was a threat to the case we had to keep in mind, especially because the defendant intended to claim Mr. Simmons was speeding (going five to ten miles per hour over the speed limit), hard to see as he came down the road, and violated the Georgia Motorcycle Driver’s Manual by failing to wear bright colored clothing.
To combat these arguments and to show a jury just how easily Mr. Simmons could be seen, we hired experts to conduct a reenactment of Mr. Simmons driving on the highway where the wreck occurred. The experts dressed their motorcycle driver in the same clothing Mr. Simmons wore on the day of the wreck, used the same brand and color motorcycle Mr. Simmons rode, and the driver was the same height and build as Mr. Simmons. The reenactments showed Mr. Simmons was visible for over ten seconds as he came towards the defendant. In other words, there was no reason why the defendant couldn’t see Mr. Simmons as he approached the intersection.
Screenshot from reenactment
Failure to Settle and Independent Counsel
Early in the case, we offered to settle the case for the liability insurance limits. Our offer allowed the liability carrier to protect the defendant’s personal assets by settling the case with Mr. Simmons for the defendant’s insurance policy limits. Our offer required the insurer to respond to our offer within a certain time frame. We did not hear from the insurer until days after the deadline. This meant that the insurer failed to accept our offer and failed to protect their insured.
In most personal injury lawsuits, the defendant’s attorney is hired and paid for by the insurance company. That attorney represents the defendant but reports to and takes orders from the insurance company. In this case, the defendant had an attorney hired by the insurance company, but the defendant also hired his own independent attorney. This was a big deal because the defendant had an attorney who only had a duty to him, and not the insurance company. In cases where an insurance company fails to settle a case when it should (like this one) a defendant having his or her own independent counsel can put pressure on the insurance company to take responsibility for its mistake.
$1,500,000 Motorcycle Accident Settlement
Mr. Simmons had a strong case. He was seriously injured and the police officer found the other driver at fault. But there were some risks going to trial and Mr. Simmons was ready to settle the case.
We discussed the case with our client and decided to make a demand. An offer pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-68 (“a Rule 68 Offer”) is an effective tool to settle a case. A Rule 68 Demand allows a plaintiff to make a demand and requires the defendant to accept the demand within thirty days. If after trial, the plaintiff obtains a judgment that is 125% over the demanded amount, then the plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation. See O.C.G.A. § 9-11-68.
We decided to make a Rule 68 Offer for $1,500,000. This meant if we were to proceed to trial and we obtained a judgment over $1,875,000, the defendant would be on the line for Mr. Simmons’ attorney’s fees and expenses. Twenty-seven days after making our offer, the defendant accepted.
Excerpt from letter accepting Rule 68 Offer
Our client was delighted with the result and very grateful for his personal injury settlement.
* The names in this writeup have been changed for the privacy of those involved
