Case Study: Settlement for a Multivehicle collision

Case Overview

We represented an individual who suffered serious injuries in a multi-vehicle collision involving a major interstate trucking carrier. The company transported freight throughout the lower 48 states and internationally and maintained a large national logistics footprint.

The case involved disputed crash dynamics, layered insurance coverage, and extensive corporate-safety issues. It ultimately resulted in a recovery through exhaustion of multiple insurance layers.

The Incident

Our client was injured in a multi-vehicle collision involving a commercial tractor-trailer operated by the defendant carrier.

Although the carrier later conceded basic liability, it disputed the severity of the impact, the truck’s speed, and the forces involved. The defense attempted to characterize the crash as a low-force event with limited injury potential.

Immediately after the collision, our client was evaluated in the emergency department and discharged with basic imaging. The carrier relied on this early medical record to minimize the claim’s value.

As symptoms progressed, however, the client required further treatment, including surgery.

Key Legal Challenges

A central challenge involved overcoming the carrier’s effort to downplay both the mechanics of the crash and the resulting injuries. The defense questioned:

• The speed of the truck
• Braking patterns
• The forces involved in the collision
• The extent of vehicle deformation
• The medical connection between the crash and the client’s later treatment

The insurance structure also presented significant complexity. 

A separate wrongful death claim arising from the same collision, handled by another firm, did not exhaust even the first layer of commercial coverage. This created resistance to moving beyond primary limits.

In addition, the carrier maintained multiple layers of insurance involving several adjusters and defense teams, requiring coordinated and sustained pressure.

How Giddens Law Firm Built the Case

We conducted a complete download of the truck’s onboard safety systems and electronic control module. This was followed by a full engineering reconstruction of the vehicle’s approach, braking pattern, and collision dynamics.

This analysis ruled out a low-force event and confirmed the significant structural deformation documented in the crash report.

On the medical side, we developed a detailed causation case through longitudinal treatment analysis, imaging review, and injury-collision force correlation. This work addressed and overcame early defense efforts to minimize the injuries.

We also pursued targeted discovery and strategic depositions to reach beyond the primary insurance layer. By presenting clear liability and damages exposure to multiple adjusters and defense counsel, we accessed umbrella coverage sitting above the primary policy.

Our corporate safety depositions revealed inconsistencies in how the carrier enforced internal safety practices and gaps in driver oversight that contributed to the crash. We compelled production of internal data and vendor-held safety records that the carrier initially resisted producing, including systems marketed as tools to reduce crash severity and frequency.

We also uncovered failures in pre-employment screening. These included discrepancies between the driver’s application and his actual driving history that should have been identified by both the carrier and its screening vendors.

The Result

At the federal settlement conference, the carrier’s opening position was zero. Only after we presented the engineering findings, medical causation analysis, and corporate safety evidence to multiple layers of insurers did the defense recognize the full scope of the exposure.

The case resolved with a 7-figure confidential settlement, exhausting both the primary and umbrella layers of coverage.

Through engineering reconstruction, medical analysis, and sustained corporate-safety discovery, we converted a no-offer case into a full multi-layer policy recovery and secured greater compensation for our client than was obtained in the separate wrongful-death claim arising from the same collision.