Chet Hire was rear ended on Clayton Rd. in Concord Ca. in 2007.
He substantially recovered from bodily injuries but suffered traumatic brain injury which prevented him from earning at his full capacit...y as an insurance salesman.
The at fault driver's policy paid its $100,000.00 policy limit. Thereafter litigation commenced under Mr. Hire's underinsured auto policy, settling in mediation for an additional $330,000.00.
Following the settlments, Mr. Hire's disability insurance company contributed (settled) $170,000.00 following denial of benefits.
Personal injury
Taylor v. Doe Scaffold, Doe Refinery
Apr 30, 2009
OUTCOME: $1,500,000.00 Settlement
Court/Branch: Contra Costa Superior Unlimited Jurisdiction, Martinez, CA
Case Name: Taylor v. Confidential Refinery owner and Confidential Scaffold Contractor
Judge: Hon. Barbara Zuñiga, Dept 2
Me...diator: Hon. Raul A. Ramirez (Ret), Sacramento, CA
Type of case: Industrial/negligence
Settlement amount: $1,500,000.00 ($65,000.00 from Refinery Owner, $1,435,000.00 from Scaffold Co). This case settled following one full day of mediation. The settlement was a third party Compromise and Release wherein intervenor agreed to waive its $322,614.17 industrial lien.
Counsel:
Plaintiff counsel: Michael D. Goforth, Goforth & Lucas Law Partnership, 2300 Clayton Rd., Suite 1460, Concord, CA; Phone: 925-682-9500; Fax: 925-682-2353; email [email protected]. Mr. Goforth also represented the plaintiff in the workers’ compensation claim, filed October 26, 2006.
Facts
On August 3, 2006, plaintiff, then 51, was working as a pipefitter for Timec Company, Inc. inside of a Martinez, CA flexicoker reactor, during a refinery “turnaround†(shutdown).
The reactor is a multi-story cylinder with a circular metal dipleg (pipe) running vertically through its center.
The scaffold within the reactor consisted of steel planks connected in a rectangular configuration around the dipleg which left a gap between the metal planks and the dipleg. Scaffold Co. covered the gap with wooden planks and plywood to prevent workers from falling through the scaffold deck in the areas near the dipleg.
At the beginning of his shift plaintiff entered the reactor and began looking for a power source to connect his electric grinding tools. When plaintiff stepped near the dipleg, a wooden board gave way and plaintiff’s right leg plunged through the deck to waist level.
Plaintiff’s left leg hyperflexed under his weight. Plaintiff was able to halt his downward plummet by his elbows, shoulders, and large body size which kept him from passing entirely through to the floor below. Plaintiff fell forward with a twisting motion onto both hands and arms. He was able to get himself out of the hole and down a 7 foot ladder. First aid was rendered on site and plaintiff tried to continue working over the next several days, but noted progressive pain in his left knee. Within a few days of the accident plaintiff also complained of soreness all over as well as localized pain to his right shoulder.
Ultimately, plaintiff’s injuries were diagnosed as: left knee derangement, right and left shoulder ruptured tendons, and L2-3 and L4-L5 disc herniations. In November 2006 plaintiff underwent arthroscopic partial medial and lateral meniscectomy of the left knee. In December 2007 plaintiff underwent open rotator cuff repair of the right shoulder.
In February 2007 plaintiff returned to work for 43 days but stopped due to progressive pain in his shoulders, back and left knee. In January 2008 Plaintiff underwent left total knee replacement and did not return to work thereafter due to worsening back pain.
Docket/File No: FCS028686
Court/Branch: Solano Superior Unlimited Jurisdiction, Fairfield, CA
Case Name: FIDELIO AUTO GROUP, LLC. dba I-80 AUTO OUTLET (plaintiff/cross-defendant) v. RAZAVI AUTOMOTI...VE GROUP, INC., and AMIR RAZAVI (Goforth & Lucas client. defendants/cross-complainants)
Date of Settlement: Spring, 2009
Type of case: Real Estate/Commercial Lease dispute
Facts
In 2005 Plaintiff/Cross-defendant FIDELIO, lessee, entered into a commercial lease agreement with lessor, Defendant/Cross-Complainant RAZAVI. FIDELIO then commenced operation of its first used car dealership at the leased area, in Fairfield, California. The lease was guaranteed by the father of FIDELIO's owner.
The lease specified that the parcel would be a
minimum number of square feet and have a minimum number of parking stalls for vehicle display purposes. There was no representation of a specified number of “on-street” display stalls, because parking stalls for an adjoining tenant had not been configured when the lease was signed.
The City of Fairfield later required a landscaping strip between the FIDELIO area and the new area being leased by co-tenant, Meinke. This resulted in a landscaped barrier which added more parking spaces to Meinke and took away approximately 4 on-street vehicle display stalls from FIDELIO, while increasing FIDELIO’s overall leased space.
At the time of the change, FIDELIO had no objection to the difference because FIDELIO still
had 10 out of the original 14 on-street parking stalls and FIDELIO had more square footage, and the same total display areas.
Six months into the lease landlord, RAZAVI observed that FIDELIO was not able to fill its existing display stalls with vehicles, or pay its rent, or its share of the utilities.
FIDELIO was five months behind in rent at the time that it filed suit against Goforth & Lucas' client, RAZAVI claiming that it was entitled to a rent rebate due to the 4 lost frontage spaces.
FIDELIO, through the son of the lease guarantor, then extended and renewed the lease for three years in December, 2007 even though FIDELIO
was then out of business and was subleasing to another car sales business for less than the rent owed to RAZAVI.
Plaintiff/Cross-defendant contentions:
1.FIDELIO was entitled to a “rent rebate” because it lost 4 frontage spaces when the City of Fairfield added a planting strip.
2.FIDELIO’s used car business failed because it had less frontage display spaces.
3.The three year lease extension was unenforceable against the lease guarantor because the guarantor did not consent in writing to his son’s lease extension.
Defendants’ contentions:
1.FIDELIO failed in its new used car business due to its poor business practices including its failure to replenish its dwindling used car inventory.
2.Landlord RAZAVI was entitled to recover all arrearages plus the value of the lease extension.
