Morrison Mahoney Associate Jordan Sasa recently obtained a defense verdict in binding arbitration.
Plaintiffs alleged that their vehicle was sideswiped, at highway speeds, by our clients’ vehicle on Route 4 in East Greenwich, Rhode Island. The clients denied being involved in any accident. Plaintiffs brought suit against our client for negligence and the plaintiffs’ own automobile insurance carrier for uninsured motorist benefits given the indication that our clients were improperly identified as the involved vehicle. At arbitration, the plaintiff driver testified that her vehicle was struck on the front passenger’s side, and that her vehicle was pushed into the median of the highway. After regaining control of the vehicle, she allegedly observed our clients’ vehicle driving away at a high rate of speed. Plaintiff driver purportedly gave chase to our clients’ vehicle and reported the license plate to the Rhode Island State Police.
On cross-examination, Jordan questioned whether the plaintiff driver saw the actual contact of the vehicles and whether our clients’ vehicle was responsible for the accident. Jordan probed the time it would have taken for the plaintiff driver to react to the accident, regain control of the vehicle, and look ahead to see our clients’ vehicle. Jordan argued that the plaintiff driver merely assumed that our insureds were at fault, as their vehicle was likely the first one that the plaintiff driver observed after the accident.
Jordan submitted the deposition testimony of a trooper who contacted our clients following the alleged accident, inspected our insureds’ vehicle for damage, and testified that there was no damage on the vehicle consistent with the nature of the alleged motor vehicle accident. Jordan also presented photographs of our insureds’ vehicle taken by the trooper, which showed no damage to the driver’s side.
The arbitrator rendered an award against the plaintiffs’ automobile insurance carrier, and a defense verdict for our clients. The arbitrator stated that the lack of damage to our clients’ vehicle controlled his decision and determined that “the only logical conclusion was that the impact was with another phantom vehicle.”
