for a guy who used to live in Raleigh

Quote :

"RALEIGH, N.C. — American International Group, the insurance giant rescued by $85 billion in federal loans last month, has agreed to an $18 million settlement with the father of a disabled former Raleigh man. AIG's decision to conclude the settlement with accident victim Mark Pellegrin's father comes after a judge ordered the company to pay $75 million when a subsidiary failed to defend the case in Wake Superior Court. Such settlements rarely become public, but the details were discussed earlier this month in an open court session before U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle attended by a reporter for the News & Observer of Raleigh. Lawyers for both sides asked to keep the settlement confidential, but Boyle did not take up their request. Lawyers also said they were moving to settle quickly because of AIG's financial condition. In September, the Federal Reserve saved the imperiled company with a two-year, $85 billion credit line in return for a 79.9 percent stake in AIG. The lawsuit settlement appears to be one of the largest in the state's history for a personal injury case, local lawyers said. "That's huge," said Dan Hartzog, a Raleigh attorney who specializes in civil cases and was not involved in the case. "It would be a big jury verdict, but it's a really big settlement." In May, state Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson granted the request by Pellegrin's attorneys to order the company to pay damages of $75 million. No one representing National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, an AIG subsidiary, showed up for trial to defend the company that owned the pickup truck involved in the incident and the employee who drove it. National Union then asked that the case be taken up by the federal court. The company also began settlement talks with Pellegrin's attorneys. One of National Union's attorneys, Jim Exum, told the federal court that the insurance policy had a maximum payout of $21 million. The lawsuit was filed last year against KCI Technologies and one of its employees, Kelly Joe McKiernan, 29, who maintained the company's cell phone towers. McKiernan said in a deposition that on New Year's Eve 2005, after drinking beer and Jagermeister, he jumped into his company-issued truck. He was ready to leave Pellegrin's apartments after some roughhousing between the two friends left McKiernan upset. But as McKiernan put the truck in gear, Pellegrin ran in front of the vehicle to try to get him to stop. The truck hit Pellegrin, who suffered severe brain injuries that left him with limited movement and speech. Pellegrin, 29, is being cared for at his father's home near Houma, La. Pellegrin's father, Jerry, said he was satisfied with the settlement, which pays $6 million immediately, invests another $6 million for future costs, and pays $6 million to Pellegrin's attorneys, who took the case on a contingency basis. Boyle accepted the settlement but postponed judgment on the attorneys fees."

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/3823161/

1) it sounds like dude jumped in front of the guys truck. i'm guessing he wasn't stone cold sober when he did it either. i wonder what the witnesses said (if there are any)

2) holy crap, 6 million to the attorneys?

3) what's this postponed judgment stuff? does that mean the lawyers might not get all that money?

10/27/2008 8:54:18 AM

Yeah, Personal injury cases (and a lot of other kinds of cases) get a standard 33.3%

10/27/2008 8:59:16 AM

So this had nothing to do with AIG other than the fact that the truck he was driving was issued by the company?

10/27/2008 9:00:44 AM

usa#1

10/27/2008 9:38:13 AM

Quote :

"So this had nothing to do with AIG other than the fact that the truck he was driving was issued by the company?"

Looks like AIG insured the company the truck belonged to?

10/27/2008 10:12:24 AM

haha, or

the company owning the truck was insured by National Union Fire Insurance Co., which is a subsidiary of AIG.

10/27/2008 10:15:14 AM

It sounds like a lot of the judgment was based on the insurance company's failure to properly handle the case in the first place. The article says that the policy limits were only 21 mil. The only way AIG pays more than that is if they didn't do what they were supposed to do. Which they didn't. If he had run the guy over and killed him that still only worth a million or 2. Maybe a little more because he was drunk.

10/27/2008 7:21:22 PM

i'm just wondering why the guy jumped in front of some other guys truck. doesn't sound very smart.

10/27/2008 8:05:02 PM

Quote :

"McKiernan said in a deposition that on New Year's Eve 2005, after drinking beer and Jagermeister, he jumped into his company-issued truck. He was ready to leave Pellegrin's apartments after some roughhousing between the two friends left McKiernan upset. But as McKiernan put the truck in gear, Pellegrin ran in front of the vehicle to try to get him to stop. The truck hit Pellegrin, who suffered severe brain injuries that left him with limited movement and speech."

maybe he didn't want a friend to get on the road behind the wheel after he had been drinking, or wanted to apologize since it sounds like they were fighting over something.

10/27/2008 8:20:20 PM

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that even if I was drunk I'd be smart enough not to jump in front of a moving vehicle.

10/27/2008 8:42:13 PM

i'll be damned...this will definitely be the water cooler talk tomorrow

10/27/2008 8:58:25 PM

for those lawyers, it must be nice to have a 6 million dollar payday.

10/27/2008 10:00:54 PM

Quote :

"Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that even if I was drunk I'd be smart enough not to jump in front of a moving vehicle."

10/27/2008 10:18:04 PM

Quote :

"i'm just wondering why the guy jumped in front of some other guys truck. doesn't sound very smart."

Quote :

"Joe McKiernan, 29, who maintained the company's cell phone towers. McKiernan said in a deposition that on New Year's Eve 2005, after drinking beer and Jagermeister, he jumped into his company-issued truck. He was ready to leave Pellegrin's apartments after some roughhousing between the two friends left McKiernan upset."

10/28/2008 7:46:41 AM

I'm actually in the midst of a settlement with National Union Fire Insurance Co. because a guy rear ended me hard as fuck driving a company truck. i wonder how much i'll get.

10/28/2008 10:10:27 AM

were you hurt sparky? i dont know if its about the same across the board, but something similar just happened to someone i know. so this info may help (or be worthless)

this girl from work got rear ended (HA) and she settled for car damage + medical bills + 2000 or 2500 bucks. the extra $$$ was basically for her pain/suffering. the person was driving a company vehicle too, but i dont think that made a difference in the case.

it was just like muscle spasms or some crap, no broken bones.

10/28/2008 10:25:27 AM

yeah i was hurt. i had to go to urgent care, get x-rays and 3 months of physical therapy. they already paid for fixing my car but I have a lawyer and we are working on a settlement price for pain and suffering, missed work plus medical bills. we'll see how it goes. a couple extra grand will be nice.

10/28/2008 11:12:22 AM

oh yeah, the person in my story didnt even miss any work and she got a couple of G's.. sounds like you'll get hooked up

10/28/2008 11:27:32 AM

Now, here's something I wonder about--I know the magnitude of the payout here is partially based on the fact that AIG (or National Union Fire) did not even send anyone to the original trial. That, I can understand. What I don't understand is why, when some employee decides to drive drunk and runs over some fool, and just happens to be in a company truck, the company who provided the truck is liable. They did not provide the truck for his dumb ass to drive drunk, they provided it for company business. Even if he was allowed to use it for personal business, it seems to me that when he decided to break the law, it's no longer intended use and the company should not be at fault.

Am I missing something here? Was the only reason KCI (the man's employer and the truck's owner) was sued because their insurance company wasn't being reasonable, i.e. the plaintiff was trying to get a fair settlement out of the insurer of the truck because drunk guy probably doesn't have a vast personal fortune? Or is this the same breed of bullshit that drives people to sue gun manufacturers when their weapon is used in a murder?

10/28/2008 12:18:20 PM

a company truck is covered under the employers insurance, and the insurance is responsible when any accident happens in the truck.

For jobs you have to drive for, you must pass a background check, drug screening, and have a clean driving record.

10/28/2008 12:25:22 PM

regardless if he was driving under the scope of his employment or not, in any automobile accident the order of liability is the owner of the car first, then the driver second. so he could've been driving his buddy john doe's truck, and john doe's insurance company would've been sought after first, then the driver's--IF he has any.

BUT--had the insurance company showed up, their attorneys certainly would have argued that he wasn't "driving under the scope of employment" so the passing of agent to employer is moot, and Pellegrin was contributory negligent b/c he jumped in front of the truck. if a jury found contrib, he would've walked away with nothing. if they didn't, he more than likely would have still gotten a a decent settlement, but the settlement would have been similar to what Phelps said above. since no one showed to argue, the judge laid his mighty gavel.

*squeak!*

10/28/2008 1:42:24 PM

I'm with elkaybie. This country has gotten so fucking ridiculous that you can have a common sense law like "if your company gives you a truck to drive for company business, they have to insure it" getting morphed into "at any point in time if a company truck is abused whether on or off duty by a drunken employee the company is responsible"

I really want to know how some judge sleeps at night knowing he's violated the laws of common sense and logic because of some technical bullshit that was written in fine print somewhere by a flawed human being. What does he think law is, RELIGION?

10/31/2008 3:31:27 PM

so what, the guy that got hit should just be screwed for the rest of his life? while i can agree that the driver is ultimately at fault, it's highly unlikely he has any assets that will compensate for the victim's expenses and losses. furthermore, a lot of company vehicles are allowed to be driven home and/or for personal use. i didn't see anything saying this truck was only for work related duty.

bottom line, auto insurance exists for exactly this reason. the policy should have paid out without any court case in the first place if it was clear the driver was at fault, this is just another example of an insurance company playing hardball in an effort to save some money. when a company agrees to insure someone, it's for anything. same thing when a company gives someone a company vehicle. they're taking a certain risk that the person could screw up. could be speeding, could be falling asleep at the wheel, could be drunk driving. can you imagine the horror if we started allowing insurance companies to write in exclusions like "we won't pay if you're drunk driving" or "we won't pay if you speeding" or whatever?

10/31/2008 3:54:51 PM