The Freibott Law Firmrecently secured a very large settlement on behalf of one our clients. Our client was traveling northbound on I-495 when another driver was traveling in the opposite direction of the northbound lanes causing a severe collision. A lawsuit was filed alleging that the defendant driver, besides traveling in the wrong direction on the northbound lanes of I495, was driving in a reckless, willful, and wanton matter entitling our client to punitive damages. The defendant driver was given a traffic citation for traveling the wrong way on the highway and he pled guilty to that ticket. At the defendant’s deposition, he refused to answer many questions regarding his actions before the collision and subsequent to the collision. The defendant asserted numerous “rights and privileges” in order to justify his non-response to our questions. In this case, the defendant utilized the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination; the doctor-patient privilege; the spousal privilege; the attorney-client privilege; and his “right to privacy.” A Motion to Compel further answers was filed by our firm and the trial judge ordered the defendant to answer questions regarding areas to which he previously did not respond. A second deposition ensued and it was videotaped. After asking the first question, as ordered by our trial judge, the defendant, again, relied upon numerous rights and privileges and made it clear that he would not answer any further questions for which he was ordered by the trial judge. A second motion, a Motion for Sanctions, was then filed by our office. Previously, on behalf of the defense, the attorney representing the defendant and State Farm Mutual Insurance Company conceded that the defendant was negligent and there was no comparative negligence on behalf of our client. Therefore, the only issue that remained was that of damages, including punitive damages. In our Motion for Sanctions, we asked the Court to hold the defendant in contempt for refusing to answer Court ordered questions. Moreover, we further asked the Court to sanction the defendant in that his conduct waswillful, wanton, and reckless and resulted in the motor vehicle collisioncausing injuries to our client andto preclude this defendant from introducing any evidence at trial to the contrary. The parties also received a letter from our trial judge instructing that the defendant be present for our Motion for Sanctions against him and ordered his attended. Subsequent to the filing of the Motion, a demand for settlement was sent by letter to the defense attorney. The letter contained a demand to resolve the case once and for all. The letter made it clear to the defense that if it wasn’t accepted by noon on the day before our Motion for Sanctions was to be heard, the offer would come off the table and the matter would proceed to trial. Our law firm received a phone call from defense counsel prior to our deadline accepting our demand for settlement. (DiRusso v. Givey, C.A. No.: N15C-03-030 CLS)
Related posts