Langdon & Emison Obtains Seven-Figure Settlement in Auto Collision Case - 2012-01-11

In a case before the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Langdon & Emison attorney Brett A. Emison led a successful legal team in obtaining a $1.2 million settlement for firm client Gene Pierce, after a dispute with insurance companies over a 2007 car crash in Kansas. The Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Eugene H. Pierce.

This is another successful outcome for Brett in the past 12 months, who in 2011 was selected as one of the top young attorneys in the state of Missouri, and was elected to the Executive Committee of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys.

Gene Pierce was severely and permanently injured on February 8, 2007 when his vehicle was run off of Interstate 435 in Overland Park, Kansas by a flatbed semi-truck.  Mr. Pierce attempted to steer his vehicle back onto the highway, but his vehicle lost control, hit a second box-style truck and then traveled off of the highway and overturned in the median. Neither the flatbed semi-truck nor the box-style truck remained at the scene and were unable to be identified.

The firm client sustained multiple trauma injuries including an incomplete cervical spinal cord injury resulting in quadriparesis, sensory and gait disturbance, poor coordination, and neurogenic bowel and bladder.

Mr. Pierce had three separate Uninsured Motorist policies that applied to this collision.  The applicability of these policies, however, was disputed vigorously by the insurance companies involved. The investigating officer was unable to independently verify the existence of the “phantom” semi-truck. Witness statements to the reporting officer were inconclusive and deposition testimony was unable to either confirm or deny the existence of the tractor trailer.  Damage to Pierce’s vehicle, though, was consistent with a collision and his own testimony provided prima facie evidence of the phantom vehicle’s existence. Additionally, the collision with the box-style truck (which also fled the scene) also fell within each policy’s definition of “uninsured” vehicle. 

Application of the Shelter policy was hotly disputed regarding the enforceability of a workers’ compensation exclusion.  The policy language at issue was precisely the same as language in issue before the Missouri Supreme Court in Rice v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company 301 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. banc 2009).  The parties entered into an agreement permitting the Missouri Supreme Court to resolve the enforceability of the exclusionary language in Rice and apply that determination to Mr. Pierce’s uninsured motorist claim. The Supreme Court ultimately determined that the exclusionary language at issue was ambiguous and the insured was entitled to the full amount of insurance under the policy, after which Shelter paid the full policy limits of its uninsured motorist coverage.

The Cincinnati Insurance Company also vigorously contested coverage under its uninsured motorist coverage, which provided coverage for an ancillary company owned by Mr. Pierce.  Mr. Pierce produced evidence that he was performing business for this ancillary company at the time of the collision, thus bringing him within the coverage of the policy.  In addition, Cincinnati disputed the existence of the phantom semi-truck and claimed Mr. Pierce was solely responsible for the collision.  Cincinnati filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri seeking a declaration that its policy did not provide coverage for Mr. Pierce’s claim. 

Pierce counter-claimed for his uninsured motorist benefits and vexatious refusal to pay insurance proceeds. He and Cincinnati Insurance engaged in mediation with mediator Bill Russell, at which the parties successfully resolved the case.