Experts Battle In Sacramento Car Accident Lawsuit, Part 3 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.)

Shortly after this accident occurred, XYZ, Ins. Co. retained ABC Engineering, Inc., and directed them to conduct an inspection of both of the involved vehicles. As the report from defense counsel confirms, an inspection by ABC’s engineer of the defendant’s 2008 Nissan 350Z occurred on August 4, 2009. Thus, despite the fact that XYZ, Ins. Co. was aware of a serious injury claim within weeks of this accident, and was obviously aware of the importance of having engineers inspect the involved vehicles, a conscious decision was apparently made to destroy the defendant’s vehicle and make it unavailable for inspection by plaintiff’s expert. Consequently, the specific purpose of this motion is to preclude any defense experts from testifying as to an accident reconstruction of the subject accident because of their significant advantage in having their engineers personally inspect the defense vehicle, while depriving plaintiff of a similar opportunity.


June 17, 2009: Date of the subject accident.

July 17, 2009: Multiple telephone conversations between XYZ, Ins. Co. and Robyn Black’s parents about the accident and her severe injuries.

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

July 17, 2009: Date of first correspondence from XYZ, Ins. Co. to plaintiff asking for authorization to obtain the medical records for plaintiff.

July 24, 2009: Written request from XYZ, Ins. Co. to take recorded statement from plaintiff.

July 31, 2009: Correspondence from XYZ, Ins. Co. requesting permission to have an accident reconstruction engineer inspect your 2007 BMW 325i.

August 4, 2009: Inspection of defendant’s 2008 Nissan 350Z by ABC Engineering, Inc., retained by XYZ, Ins. Co..

August 5, 2009: Inspection by defendant’s engineer of plaintiff’s BMW

August 7, 2009: Correspondence sent to XYZ, Ins. Co. Insurance Company by this law firm, at which time a request was made to preserve your insured’s vehicle for inspection purposes.

September 15, 2009: Telephone conversation between plaintiff’s counsel and XYZ, Ins. Co. Insurance adjuster Gayle Smith, at which time Ms. Smith stated that her insured’s vehicle (Nissan 350Z) was sold as salvage and had never been inspected by their experts and was not available for inspection by plaintiff’s experts.

October 23, 2009: Complaint filed.

February 6, 2010: Demand for Inspection of defendant’s vehicle served.

March 18, 2010: “Maria” of defense counsel’s office advised car was a total loss and would not be produced as it was not in XYZ, Ins. Co.’s possession. (See Part 4 of 7.)

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

Contact Information