Armstrong v. Breslin, et al.

Nov 15, 2006

OUTCOME: $147,606.36 Verdict/Judgment for Plaintiff

Daniel Tamez was the lead attorney from our law firm who tried the case before a jury (to verdict and ultimately an enforceable judgment) was and the 2nd chair (assistant attorney) was Ric Militello, w ... ho were both recognized that year by the Consumer Attorneys of San Diego as Trial Stars of the Year! They deeply cared about the client and did a phenomenal job. Our client was severely injured with multiple fractures and other injuries when another motorcycle driver drove directly in front of our client. The responsible party, Breslin, was a 777 airline pilot and argued that our client was speeding and had veered into him and that our client was the sole cause of the motorcycle accident. To make matters worse, our client did not have liability insurance as required by California law and therefore his recovery was limited to his actual and future medical bills and loss of earnings ... nothing for pain and suffering. To our surprise, the responsible party's insurance company, USAA, engaged in what we viewed as "dirty tricks" in trying to score a profit on our client's medical bills. The case was very expensive and risky for our law firm to take to trial, but, out of concern for our client and principal, our law firm paid all of the costs of trial. The case went to trial and the verdict was for our client. The jury awarded the full amount of our client's damages without any reduction. The trial court, Judge Sturgeon, disallowed what we viewed as USAA's unlawful tactics and caused them to incur an additional cost of about $35,000 (this benefit went directly to our client). Finally, early on, our law firm also sent the responsible person's attorneys an offer to settle this case, have a judgment entered, for $80,000, which was rejected. Accordingly, the responsible party had to pay all of our expert witness fees, litigation costs and legal interest. Disputed liability. Verdict for Plaintiff. One important issue was the defendant’s "purchase" of Plaintiff's CCP3045 Hospital Lien prior to trial. After exhaustive motions, judge ruled that Defendant was not entitled to any set off after judgment.