Automotive Defense - Fraudulent Repair Estimates

Client Situation:

In a case where insurance coverage was denied, Smith Freed & Eberhard represented a driver in a much contested case alleging property damage, diminished vehicle value, and personal injury.  Our client had admitted liability, but disagreed with the asserted damages in excess of $50,000.  An arbitration hearing resulted in a moderate award for the plaintiff, which our client appealed.  After appealing the arbitration award, and four months before trial, our client extended a settlement offer to resolve all claims. Claimant rejected the offer. This case went to trial in Multnomah County. 

Consideration & Analysis:

The opening statement highlighted the claimant’s fraudulent property damage estimates, the vehicle’s fair market value, and claimant’s personal injuries. During opening statement Smith Freed & Eberhard proposed that, given the claimant’s fraudulent representations, the jury should return a no-dollar verdict. 

Result:

Immediately following the opening, claimant inquired if our client’s prior settlement offer was still available.  Although the prior offer was no longer available, due to the persuasive opening presentation, claimant accepted an amount which was a fraction of the pre-trial offer and all claims were settled.