Auto insurance companies frequently refuse to offer fair compensation to victims injured in car crashes. Nora* experienced this reality after a rear-end collision in San Antonio left her with lasting pain and mounting medical bills.
Thankfully, she called Crosley Law. With an experienced, aggressive, and knowledgeable legal team on her side, she got the compensation she deserved.
* Name changed for privacy.
A “minor crash” causes significant injuries
Nora was driving in her silver Nissan Pathfinder with her three young children in the back seat. She slowed down due to heavy traffic, but the vehicle behind her sped up, rear-ending her vehicle. According to police, the other driver admitted fault at the scene.
Nora’s children were thankfully unharmed. However, although Nora’s vehicle didn’t show much visible damage, the impact caused significant injuries to her lower back. The pain radiated into her hip, buttocks, and leg, forcing Nora to seek medical attention that included:
- Chiropractic care
- An orthopedic evaluation
- An MRI
Nora’s doctors discovered a herniated disc, among other injuries. In addition to chiropractic care, doctors also tried to relieve her pain through epidural steroid injections (ESIs). These injections, administered through large needles into the lower back, are designed to reduce inflammation near the spinal cord.
Despite these treatments, Nora continued to suffer.
The insurance company’s games begin
Crosley Law gathered Nora’s medical records and bills, totaling about $25,000. We sent a settlement demand to the at-fault driver’s insurance company, Fred Loya Insurance, requesting its policy limit of $30,000—a reasonable demand to settle given Nora’s injuries and expenses.
Instead of negotiating in good faith, the insurance company decided to stall, claiming they didn’t have enough information to evaluate the claim. Even after we filed a lawsuit and sent a second demand seven months later, the insurer still refused to make an offer.
Stalling is a relatively common tactic with insurers. Whether it is intentional or not, delayed action can pressure an injured person to settle for a lower amount than they might otherwise receive, just to have something they can use to pay the bills. Delaying can also increase the chances that evidence related to the case, such as video recordings, documents, and witness memories, are lost or become less credible.
The insurance company did not act in good faith to settle Nora’s case
Under Texas law, insurers must act in their policyholder’s best interest. That means they must accept reasonable settlement offers within policy limits, protecting their client from a potentially higher verdict at trial. When insurance companies fail to do so, as in Nora’s case, an insurer can be held responsible for judgments exceeding the policy limits. Texas personal injury lawyers refer to this as the Stowers Doctrine.
Crosley Law recognized the insurer’s bad-faith tactics and prepared to take Nora’s case to trial.
Evolving medical treatment raises the need for more compensation
As Nora’s case progressed, so did her medical treatment. Doctors determined her pain was coming more from her sacroiliac (SI) joint, which connects the pelvis to the lower spine, than the herniated disc in her lower back. The diagram shown below was an exhibit entered into evidence, showing the painful areas in red.
Although SI joint injections provided some temporary relief, Nora’s surgeon ultimately recommended an SI joint fusion (SIJF). This procedure requires about eight weeks of recovery time—something Nora couldn’t commit to immediately with the need to care for her three young children. She decided to delay surgery until her children were older and more independent. Instead, she would deal with the pain.
Crosley Law takes the insurer to trial—and wins big
In the weeks leading up to trial, Crosley Law made a third and final demand for $105,000. Surprisingly, the insurer raised its offer to $92,000. But given Nora’s ongoing pain and future medical needs, we rejected the offer and proceeded to trial.
Based on the verdict, Fred Loya Insurance agreed to pay Nora $250,000—more than eight times their original policy limit.
Our trial attorneys, Shawn Mechler and Madison Schultz, selected a diverse jury we believed would deliver justice for Nora. Over two-and-a-half days, we presented compelling testimony from four witnesses:
- Nora
- Her husband, an active-duty military member
- Her orthopedic surgeon
- Her pain management specialist
The jury awarded Nora $328,300.
To avoid a lengthy appeal, Crosley entered into a “high-low agreement” with Fred Loya Insurance just before closing arguments. Based on the verdict, Fred Loya Insurance paid Nora $250,000—more than eight times their original policy limit.
Insurance companies will almost always fight to make the lowest payments they can, but stalling ended up serving this company a costly lesson. If the insurance company had accepted Crosley Law’s initial $30,000 demand, the insurer could have saved $220,000. Instead, its delay tactics and refusal to fairly negotiate backfired against a law firm that wouldn’t back down.
Car Crash? Call Crosley
At Crosley Law Firm, we have the experience, skill, and courage to take cases to trial when insurance companies refuse to do what’s right. Nora’s case is just one example of how we fight to get our clients the compensation they deserve—even when the insurance company is being unreasonable and playing games.
If you or a loved one has been injured in a truck or car crash, contact Crosley Law Firm at (210) 879-1613 for a free case review. We will negotiate and fight on your behalf.
