Each and every claim needs close attention, no matter how small. Below is a list of some
of the cases CDA has successfully participated in. To see a more extensive list, check out
our Litigation History PDF.
Pedestrian crossing the street in a crosswalk, when our driver was backing a vehicle. Plaintiff sought $90,000 for injuries and $29,000 in lost wages. The Insured adamantly wanted to defend the case, which went to trial. We argued, Phillips v. Stewart, 207 Va. 214, 218, 148 S.E.2d. 784 (1966) a pedestrian is “not entitled arbitrarily to assert their right of way crossing in the face of traffic dangerously close to him.” The judge ruled that there was no cause, in favor of defense and awarded the Plaintiff $0.
CDA was managing a claim on which both Prime Insurance Company (“Prime”) and Beazley Group (“Beazley”) were insurers. Beazley ignored CDA and Prime’s recommendations regarding the best defense strategy and they settled the claim for $6.5 million. Beazley then attempted to blame CDA and Prime for its poor decision and demanded that Prime and CDA repay them. Prime and CDA refused. Litigation ensued. Beazley’s efforts to forum-shop its claims were denied twice, with a Florida Court of Appeals affirming the district court’s ruling that Beazley’s actions against Prime and CDA were “wasteful.” Shortly thereafter, the Utah court granted Prime’s motion for full summary judgment, dismissing all of Beazley’s claims.
Plaintiff alleged neurological injuries after riding the defendant’s drop zipline while attending their water park. The evidence presented at trial showed that the drop zip line was not inherently dangerous, and the plaintiff did not follow the verbal directions or directions posted by the ride. After a two-week trial, the jury deliberated for less than 3 hours and came back with a defense verdict.
Plaintiff alleged that the insured’s trailer swerved into his lane, struck his vehicle which caused him to crash into the guardrail. Prior to trial, the plaintiff demanded $75,000 to settle the case. We did not make an offer. At trial, the evidence showed that the plaintiff did in-fact cause the accident. The jury came back with a defense verdict.
Claim was made against our insured due to the death of a woman in a vehicle that was hit head on by a man (the “allegedly intoxicated person” or “AIP”) alleged to have been overserved while drinking there. The appellate court ruled that our insured did not violate the Safe Harbor provision of Texas dram shop laws and reversed the verdict, granting a judgment in favor of our insured and awarding us the costs incurred in filing the appeal.
The plaintiff alleged that defendant’s employees breached the peace while they were attempting to repossess her vehicle. The trial judge granted insured’s motion for directed verdict on all counts, entering a judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, and dismissing the lawsuit, with prejudice.
An exotic car rental company insured by us was sued in a Wrongful Death action. Plaintiffs’ estate alleged that our insured was independently liable for Plaintiffs’ damages, based on a theory of negligent entrustment and/or supervision of the exotic luxury vehicle that they had rented to a customer. We partnered with our insured to fight, ultimately obtaining a great result.
A backcountry skiing outfitter insured by Prime was involved in an avalanche where one of the participants was killed. With the Insured’s help, we were also able to reach out to the family of the deceased person and resolve the claim for the approximate cost of funeral and travel expenses.
One of our policyholders believed he was being treated unfairly by us in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The jury unanimously agreed that we had been fair and rendered a defense verdict in our favor. This was the first jury verdict in Mississippi regarding Hurricane Katrina that was in favor of the insurance company.
The plaintiff had drowned while participating on a guided whitewater rafting trip offered by an insured. We defended our insured by arguing that the liability waiver form signed by the plaintiff barred his recovery. The court agreed with us and upheld the liability waiver. That determination was later upheld on appeal, creating new case law in California regarding the effectiveness of signed pre-accident liability waiver forms.