How a $4,000 Offer Became a $130,000 Judgment
This video discusses the “Paglio vs. The Bad Guys” verdict, a case handled by Ramos Law, specifically by attorneys Jessica McBryant and Madeline Robbins. Mary Paglio, the client, was injured in a rear-end collision where the at-fault driver fled the scene. The defendant’s insurance company, notorious for low offers, initially offered only $4,000, despite Paglio’s economic losses totaling $68,000. Paglio had lingering back and neck pain from the crash, and her doctors recommended future treatment, including potential surgery. Due to the minimal insurance limits of $25,000 in Colorado, she had to stop treatment at one point.
Despite initial hesitations and a young, hard-to-read jury, the Ramos Law team presented evidence including medical records and expert testimony. The jury ultimately awarded Paglio $93,333, significantly more than the policy limits and the defendant’s offer. This verdict led to a judgment of $130,000, as the insurance company had exposed their insured to an excess judgment by not settling within policy limits when they had the chance. The case also saw an “off-color” comment from the defense attorney, who suggested the lawsuit was racially motivated, which was rebutted by the plaintiff’s team. The client was ecstatic with the outcome, feeling grateful that Ramos Law took on what she considered a “small case”.
- Case Overview: The case, Paglio versus the bad guys, involved Mary Paglio, who was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision. The at-fault driver hit her car with enough force to cause injury and then fled the scene.
- Insurance Company’s Low Offer: The defendant’s insurance company, notorious for offering minimal amounts, initially offered only $4,000, which was significantly below Mary’s past medical expenses and other potential damages.
- Client’s Injuries and Treatment: Mary Paglio experienced lingering back and neck pain after the crash. Her doctors recommended future treatment, including physical therapy and potentially surgery. However, she had to stop treatment at a certain point due to the minimal insurance limits.
- Trial Team: Jessica McBryant tried the case with Madeline Robbins, who was in her first trial as second chair. Jessica noted that working with Maline was a great experience.
- Verdict Details: The jury awarded Mary Paglio a total of $93,333, which included:
- $68,333 in economic losses.
- $20,000 in non-economic losses.
- $5,000 for impairment.
- Discrepancy in Economic Losses: Although the verdict included $68,000 in economic losses, only about $9,000 were past economic losses, with the rest being for recommended future treatment.
- Trial Strategy and Support: Randy Manning, the managing attorney, observed the opening statements and provided feedback on key points to focus on and distractions to ignore. Jessica found this objective perspective helpful, as it’s easy to get “buried in the documents” when deeply involved in a case.
- Defendant’s Conduct and Arguments: The defense initially wouldn’t admit liability despite it being a rear-end collision where the driver fled the scene. During closing arguments, the defense attorney made an “off-color comment” suggesting Mary brought the lawsuit because she was racist, which Jessica rebutted by stating Mary brought the case because she was injured and the defendant hadn’t made it right.
- Post-Verdict Feelings: Jessica felt hesitant about the outcome during deliberations, especially with a young and hard-to-read jury, and was convinced they had lost or would only get past medical expenses. However, she felt “amazing” when the verdict was read, as it significantly exceeded expectations.
- Judgment Exceeding Policy Limits: Although the policy limits were $25,000, the judgment turned into $130,000. This occurred because the insurance company failed to pay the policy limits pre-trial without a reasonable basis, exposing their insured to the excess judgment. This can lead to a bad faith case against the insurance company by their insured.
- Client’s Gratitude: Mary Paglio was ecstatic and grateful for the outcome, especially since she felt her case was small and insignificant compared to others, yet Ramos Law was willing to take it to trial.
FAQ Frequently Asked Questions
What was the nature of Mary Paglio’s injury and the accident? Mary Paglio was injured in a motor vehicle collision where her car was rear-ended by a driver who was going so fast that he caused a chain reaction involving two other cars, all of which hit her vehicle. The impact was forceful enough to cause her injuries, and the at-fault driver also fled the scene. She experienced lingering back and neck pain for several years after the crash.
What were the challenges with the insurance company in this case? The at-fault driver was insured by a company known for offering minimal or zero amounts, often below past medical expenses. This led to Mary Paglio having no choice but to take the case to trial. The insurance company’s highest offer before trial was only $4,000, despite her economic losses being significantly higher.
What were the policy limits and the final verdict amount? The defendant’s insurance policy had minimal limits, which in Colorado is typically $25,000. The jury awarded Mary Paglio $68,333 in economic losses, $20,000 in non-economic losses, and $5,000 for impairment, totaling $93,333.
How did the judgment amount exceed the policy limits? The final judgment turned into $130,000, significantly more than the $25,000 policy limit. This occurred because if an insurance company fails to pay a reasonable pre-trial offer within policy limits and the judgment at trial exceeds those limits, they expose their own insured to the excess judgment. This can lead to a “bad faith” case against the insurance company by their insured for not protecting them.
What was the role of the trial team and their strategy? Jessica McBryant was the first chair attorney, and Maline Robbins was the second chair, in her first trial. A unique strategy involved the managing attorney, Randy Manning, sitting in on the opening statements without prior deep involvement in the case to provide an objective perspective on what points were persuasive and what needed to be addressed. The team focused on presenting clear evidence, including medical records and expert testimony, and telling the client’s credible story.
Were there any unusual or “off-color” comments made during the trial? Yes, the defense attorney made two notable “off-color” comments. First, when discussing the defendant fleeing the scene, the defense attorney stated that he had “already been punished for that” and had to do community service. Second, during closing arguments, the defense attorney suggested that the client, who was white, brought the lawsuit because she was racist against the Hispanic defendant, which was a shock to the legal team and the judge.
