Salisbury v. City of Seattle, No. 82474-1-I, 522 P. 3d 1019 (2023)
Jan 17, 2023
OUTCOME: Reversal of the trial court and ordered entry of judgment on the verdict for $1,215,000.00, plus ordering a new trial adding the amount of lost earnings. Defendant's final settlement offer before trial was only $90,000.
In Mr. Traverso's case of Salisbury v. City of Seattle, the Court of Appeals established and clarified the law in key areas of trial evidence and personal injury litigation. This includes the law rega...rding proof of lost earnings and the defense of alleged failure to mitigate damages. In doing so, the Court of Appeals reversed the superior court, vacated the verdict finding damages for failure to mitigate, and remanded the case for a trial on past and future economic damages which the superior court had erroneously dismissed.
OUTCOME: History-making appellate court decision establishing that insurers must pay non-economic damages they cause their customers due to an unreasonable denial of insurance benefits or coverage under the Insurance Fair Conduct Act.
In Mr. Traverso's case of Beasley v. GEICO General Insurance Company, 2022 WL 1151426 (Wash. Ct. App. 2022), the Washington Court of Appeals made a historic decision concerning the state's Insurance Fa...ir Conduct Act ("IFCA), RCW 48.30.015. The issue on appeal was whether IFCA permitted insureds to recover non-economic damages as “actual damages” when their insurance companies unreasonably deny benefits or coverage. The Court of Appeals in Beasley clarified the law and held that non-economic damages are, in fact, recoverable under IFCA and subject to trebling. This decision is binding on all future state and federal court cases brought against insurance companies under IFCA. This means that upon an unreasonable denial, insurers must pay both the policy benefits they owe plus the inconvenience, stress, embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, and other non-economic damages they caused the claimant due to the denial of benefits, and all of these damages owed can then be tripled by the trial court. The Court of Appeals therefore remanded the case back to the trial court for consideration of trebling of Mr. Beasley's non-economic damages.
Litigation
Jury verdict in insurance bad faith conduct case
Feb 19, 2020
OUTCOME: Jury verdict and judgment for $1,204,298.00. The insurer's settlement offer was only $10,000, forcing the lawsuit to be filed, and its final settlement offer before trial was $45,000.
SEATTLE, Feb. 19, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Trial Lawyer Terence F. Traverso, founder of the Seattle-based law offices of Terence F. Traverso, announced today a judgment of $1,204,298 for a client who was s...truck and injured by an underinsured motorist in a case in which GEICO violated its duty of good faith and the Washington Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA).
The client, an active personal trainer, was involved in a motor vehicle accident on January 8, 2014, in which he was struck by an underinsured motorist who carried only $25,000 in coverage for bodily injuries. The client was insured by GEICO. On his behalf, Mr. Traverso sent a settlement demand for underinsured motorist benefits in February 2015. GEICO ignored the evidence of injury and their effects on the client, such as disputing radiological findings of a T7 spinal fracture. GEICO was aware of the various ways the injuries affected the client's life and activities, yet GEICO refused to assign any dollar amount to those losses or offer to pay benefits for them, as it was required to do.
An Insurance Fair Conduct Act notice was sent to GEICO, demanding it pay its underinsured motorist policy limits of $100,000. Several months later, in October 2016, GEICO made an offer to settle the claim for $10,000. This was the only offer GEICO ever made in the case. Three years later, GEICO requested a settlement demand immediately following opening statements at trial, to which the demand was set at $1,000,000. GEICO never responded to the demand.
Following trial, the jury determined that the damages caused by the underinsured motorist were $261,496, well in excess of the $100,000 underinsured motorist policy limits. The jury also found that GEICO violated IFCA and the duty of good faith and fair dealing by denying payment of benefits. The jury set damages at $84,000 for violating the act, with additional non-economic damages at $400,000. The judge later trebled the actual damages to $252,000 to deter insurers from engaging in similar misconduct in the future, and awarded reasonable attorney's fees of $388,200, IFCA litigation costs of $61,636, and taxable costs of $2,461 resulting in a total judgement of $1,204,298, which GEICO later paid.
"This is a classic example of a case where a responsible motorist was covered for underinsured motorist benefits, and upon filing a claim with the insurance company, was unfairly denied those benefits," added Terence Traverso, lead trial lawyer in the case. "In the end, our firm was able to not only gain those benefits for our client, but due to GEICO's violations of the law, help our client secure additional compensation for the frustration and humiliation the insurer's actions caused him. The jury and trial judge acted to deter such misconduct, sending a clear message to insurers who don't keep their promises and pay benefits owed, that those insurers will pay much more in the end. Ultimately, justice was served in this case."
The Seattle-based law offices of Terence F. Traverso has been helping victims of personal injury for nearly thirty years. With several 7, 8, and even 9 figure verdicts or settlements, they stop at nothing to achieve justice for their clients. For more information or to schedule a consultation, visit TraversoLaw.com or call 425-453-0115. For media and press inquiries, visit TraversoLaw.com
Case Number 16-2-00320-0
Personal injury
Record jury verdict in drunk driving catastrophic injury case
Nov 02, 2017
OUTCOME: Jury verdict for $131,000,375.00. THIS IS THE HIGHEST INDIVIDUAL JURY VERDICT IN WASHINGTON HISTORY.
PRESS RELEASE, November 2, 2017: The Law Offices of Terence F. Traverso, P.S., is pleased to announce a record jury verdict of $131,000,375.00, obtained on behalf of its client, Melissa Blaylock.
...The verdict, announced today by a King County jury, stems from a lawsuit against a drunk driver and a restaurant/bar. Melissa Blaylock, a mother of four, was a passenger in her own car. The driver, her estranged husband, had a blood alcohol level over .21. After driving only two miles after leaving a restaurant, they were involved in a horrific accident on their way home. Following the accident, Melissa suffered a spine fracture, which resulted in her being rendered a quadriplegic. Melissa cannot move her body but feels chronic pain and is trapped in a prison of her own body.
“This is a case of negligence and multiple poor decisions and irresponsibility which resulted in forever changing Melissa’s life,” said Mr. Traverso’s co-counsel, Nick Rowley. “Melissa will never walk again, will require constant aid for basic everyday tasks, will continue to incur medical bills, and will remain a prisoner of her own body due to this horrific incident. This could have all been avoided had someone with a BAC of nearly 3 times the legal limit not been behind the wheel.”
The jury deliberated for nearly two days before reaching a record-setting verdict of $51,000,375 in economic damages and $80,000,000 in non-economic damages. The verdict apportioned fault against all parties in the case, 44% against the restaurant and bar, 39% against the drunk driver, and 17% against Melissa Blaylock.
Personal injury
Rios v. Normandy Park Assisted Living, L.L.C.
Jan 10, 2017
OUTCOME: Jury verdict of $1,000,000.00 less 25% comparative fault. Defendant made a settlement offer of only $30,000, forcing the lawsuit, and defendant made a final offer before trial of $400,000.
Defendant Normandy Park Assisted Living operates an assisted living facility. Plaintiff Sanjuana Rios was an employee there. Ms. Rios arrived at the property one morning before her shift. She slippe...d on ice in the parking lot and fell to the asphalt, breaking her wrist. In the days before the incident, the weather had been very cold with occasional snowfall and ice. In the hours before the incident, snow had fallen and froze, and the National Weather Service issued a frost warning for the area. Additional evidence presented at trial included prior and subsequent falls by two other employees in the parking lot, and that the company lacked proper policies and procedures, failed to use ice melt during this period of cold weather, and failed to warn of the dangerous condition. Despite this evidence, defendant called former TV meteorologist, Jeff Renner, as an expert witness at trial to opine it was unlikely there was ice in the parking lot at the time of the incident. Defendant denied the existence of ice and denied all responsibility for the harm caused our client.
