Auto Accident Leaves Sacramento Woman With Brain Injury, Part 2 of 7

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Within approximately two weeks after this accident, defendant Brown’s insurance company, XYZ, Ins. Co., made contact with plaintiff’s parents. XYZ, Ins. Co. was advised as to the serious injuries suffered by plaintiff during numerous telephone conversations that took place with the Black family and XYZ, Ins. Co.’s adjuster at that time, Kyle Hill. Additionally, Mr. Hill sent correspondence on behalf of XYZ, Ins. Co. to the Black family requesting authorizations to obtain medical records, thus further evidencing the fact that XYZ, Ins. Co. was fully aware that injuries were sustained. XYZ, Ins. Co. obviously recognized the importance of inspecting the involved vehicles, as reflected by their correspondence of July 31, 2009, to the plaintiff asking permission to have their “accident reconstruction engineer” inspect the Black’s 2007 BMW 325i that was involved in this accident.

In early August of 2009, this law firm was retained to represent Robyn Black. Correspondence was sent to the adjuster Kyle Hill, which contained a paragraph as follows:

“I also request that you preserve your insured’s vehicle for inspection purposes. I am sure you will do all within your power to preserve any relevant evidence for this case, as required by California Penal Code section 135.”

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The subject letter of representation was not responded to until September 12, 2009, by a new adjuster assigned to the file, Gayle Smith. In her letter of September 12, 2009, no mention was made as to XYZ, Ins. Co.’s agreement to preserve the defendant’s vehicle for inspection.

On September 15, 2009, plaintiff’s counsel had a telephone conversation with XYZ, Ins. Co.’s adjuster, Gayle Smith, to further discuss this accident. During that conversation, Ms. Smith stated that her insured’s vehicle had been sold as salvage and had never been inspected by their experts and was therefore not available for inspection by plaintiff’s experts. Unfortunately, this proved to be a false statement. (See Part 3 of 7.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information