St Louis Personal Injury and Car Accident Demand Letter to Progressive Insurance and Fireman's Fund (UM Claim)
Dear Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Woytus:
This letter is written in an attempt to settle and compromise the above-referenced claim. The information contained in this letter and the supporting documentation attached hereto is a summary of the facts of the case, as I understand them and which will, in substance, be presented before a jury in the event that an amicable resolution of this matter cannot be reached. The information and the attached materials are provided for the purpose of settlement negotiations only.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
On 6/10/2006 my client was traveling east on I-44 near its intersection with Antire Road around the same time Progressive’s insured driver, Oscar L. Pittman lost control of his vehicle and struck the vehicle operated by my client; additionally, there is some fault of an unidentified vehicle that fled the seen.
As you know, the Progressive insured driver has refused to give a statement as to his version of the facts. Everyone in my client’s vehicle agrees that Progressive’s insured was involved with a tractor trailer and he lost control and then was rear ended by the unidentified vehicle that left the scene. This caused the tire and wheel assembly to come free and strike my client’s vehicle causing massive damage and injury to every occupant.
Both vehicles sustained heavy damage to multiple sides of the vehicles and both vehicles were towed from the scene as they were inoperable. Additionally, the reporting police officer cited the probable contributing circumstances to the collision were Progressive’s insured’s improper lane usage and driving too fast for the conditions. See attached report # 06100601365. I am aware that Progressive has accepted 50% liability and that Fireman’s fund has accepted 50% liability under their UM coverage for the unidentified driver.
INJURIES AND TREATMENT
On 6/10/2006, the date of the collision, Kevin reported to the St Anthony’s Medical Center Emergency Room with primary complaint of pain in his left knee. He was diagnosed with a sprained knee and advised to follow up should his symptoms persist. Shortly thereafter, Kevin followed up with his primary care physician Dr Ghandi, MD who noted continued pain in the left knee from the MVA and ordered an MRI. Kevin underwent an MRI at St Alexius Hospital 7/18/2006 and the MRI image showed a meniscus tear in the left knee.
Due to his persistent symptoms and the MRI result showing a meniscus tear, Kevin was directed to the care of an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Strickland, MD. Kevin was first seen by Dr Strickland, MD on August 25, 2006. Dr Strickland, MD opined that the tear was “directly and causally related to the accident that he was involved in on 6/10/06” and based on his examination and the diagnostic results he recommended surgery.
On 9/5/2006 Kevin underwent arthroscopic surgery performed by Dr Strickland, MD at St Joseph’s Hospital. Dr Strickland, MD removed over one half the posterior horn of the medial meniscus. This acts as a pad pad between the tibia and the femur and its removal is a permanent condition, which will greatly increase the development of further arthritic changes
Kevin underwent physical therapy with Dr James Bryden, D.C. and ProRehab and had several post op evaluations by Dr. Strickland, MD and he was discharged on 3/20/2007.
Summary of Medical Bills: 1. Family Medical Center – Dr Ghandi, MD 380.00
2. St Louis Orthopedic Institute – Dr Strickland, MD 6,080.00
3. James W. Bryden, D.C. 524.55
4. St Anthony’s Medical Center 1,234.58
5. St Joseph’s Hospital 6,305.57
6. Kirkwood Pathology 100.00
7. ProRehab 180.00
TOTAL: 14,804.70
CONCLUSION
As you may know, Dr Strickland, MD has a very conservative reputation and does work for insurance companies in liability cases. He has personally committed to giving a video deposition in this matter wherein he will opine to causation, damages, and the likely need for future treatment. My client does not have a prior history of left knee complaints and it is clearly a result of the collision. The knee complaints were immediate after the collision and continuous until after the surgery and recovery.
Based on Progressive’s insured’s admitted 50% liability and 50% UM liability to Fireman’s and my clients injuries, a jury will find liability on the part of Progressive’s insured and the UM and will return a verdict in favor of my client, against and individual and named insurance company, likely well in excess of $150,000. Therefore, my client’s demand for settlement is $150,000 or the combined policy limits, whichever is less. Please respond within 30 days.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
Benjamin J. Sansone
