Jose Ignacio Carrillo's Legal Cases (5)

Personal injury

Elderly care negligence

Mar 13, 2008

OUTCOME: Insurance company pd $100K pol.limits

Client was being transported from an assisted living facility to a medical provider and was involved in an automobile accident. The transport company was negligent in not securing the patient with a ... seat belt and as a result she suffered serious bodily injury. The transport company claimed that they couldn't get the seat belt on her when they got her on the vehicle. Guardianship was set up for client's benefit.

Personal injury

Utility company negligence

May 17, 2007

OUTCOME: Settled for over $4 mil

Client sued utility company for negligence in not taking proper/reasonable action to ensure properly working lighting at or near a city intersection. The lack of working lights contributed to an au ... tomobile accident, causing a brain injury and substantial medical expense (past and future) to our client.

Class action

Hospital/ balance billing

Aug 24, 2006

OUTCOME: Settled for $2 mil+ after several yrs of litig.

Represented a small class (approx. 100) of personal injury victims whom had paid hospital "balances" out of their personal injury settlements, although the hospital had previously received medicare pay ... ments. The federal court's ruling and eventual settlement where consistent with our position that the hospital is limited to the medicare payment and cannot "balance bill" the patient. Class members recovered an average of $5-10,000, with some receiving as high as six figures from the settlement.

Foreclosure

Foreclosure Defense

N/A

OUTCOME: case dismissed by the court

Client was sued on a foreclosure matter by a lender that couldn't prove on "chain of title" to be the rightful owner (party in interest) of the subject mortgage.

Insurance

Homeowner's claim

N/A

OUTCOME: Carrier paid "resulting" loss of approximately 85% of original claim.

Client (insured) was denied his claim for a "water loss". The company took a common position of "loss due to wear and tear", not sudden and accidental required for coverage, since it was and old and ru ... sted drain line. This is not uncommon in older homes which used cast iron (as opposed to today's PVC pipes) resulting in back ups which can flood your home. What the homeowner insurer failed to mention is that although the pipe repair is not covered, the subsequent damage; tearing up flooring to get to pipes, drywall, or cabinet damage, etc. which represented the vast majority of the claim/loss is covered many times.

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained