Persistent Legal Work Pays Off - Injury In An Accident Whos held Liable?

Persistent Legal Work Pays Off - Injury In Anthis, we had to rely on a theory of law called the
Accident Whos held Liable?relation back doctrine. This legal doctrine holds, in
Here is an example of how extra effort andpart, that if a party who is not named in the lawsuit
attention to detail can substantially raise the value ofis closely related to the parties that are and, that
a personal injury case.party is aware of the claims and, that party knows it
Taxi owners in New York consistently createshould have been named, in the first place, it can be
individual corporations for each taxi medallion/taxicab,added to the lawsuit, even if the statute of
even if they own dozens. This case involved a verylimitations has run out. Here, we argued that not only
sophisticated businessman who owned approximatelywere those elements met but, that if it weren't for
a dozen taxi cab companies, each of which operatedthe sneaky way the companies were set up, we
as part of a larger enterprise but, appeared to thewould have known they were viable defendants
public to be individual operations. At the time I tookfrom the outset.
over the case, it appeared that our client, who hadThe second problem was that even after we named
lost his leg from the knee down as a result of theall these different companies it was unclear to what
accident, would be limited to the minimal (twenty fiveextent each one would be responsible for our client's
thousand dollar) policy on the car that hit him.injuries and, it was also unclear how much insurance
Fortunately, after some hard work and effectivecoverage they would have to satisfy his claims. To
motion practice we were able to negotiate acomplicate matters, several of the companies had
settlement of close to one million dollars, still less thanbeen dissolved and, it was unclear what, if any
what the injury would have been worth in a clearassets any of them actually owned. Here we got
liability case but, almost forty times what he stood tolucky.
get before the work was done.In the time between the accident and the addition of
The cornerstone of the revised strategy arose atthese other parties to the lawsuit, the owner of the
the defendant's deposition. The witness, a dispatcher,companies had sold all of them, lock, stock and
testified that she was employed by the samebarrel, to Coach Transportation, the giant Canadian
company that owned the cab but, when I pressedbus company. While this still left open the issue of
her to produce a pay stub, which she had in herwhether we could actually prove Coach was liable, it
pocket, we found out she was actually employed byeliminated the questions about whether there would
one of the other companies owned by the samebe any money available at the end of the day to
man. We then learned that the dispatch office,compensate our client.
garage, book keeping staff, etc., were all sharedUltimately, after some further discovery, including a
among the various companies.long, intense deposition of the former owner that
My research turned up a New York State Supremerevolved mainly around the maze of corporations he
Court case from a few years earlier that dealthad created and the way they worked together, we
favorably (for our purposes) with a similar situation.settled for close to a million dollars.
The court in that case held that when a group ofAs I noted above, this was a discount for a below
companies operates as a single entity but, presentsthe knee amputation, even in a conservative venue
itself as discrete corporations, it constitutes a "fraudlike Nassau County but, even though we won on
upon the public" which can be redressed by holding allsome important procedural issues that allowed us to
the companies and maybe even the principals liable,add the other companies and, ultimately Coach, as
instead of limiting the injured party's right to recoverydefendants, there was a serious question as to
to just the one, small corporation with no assets andwhether, when push came to shove, the case could
minimal insurance coverage. The theory wasactually be proven against them. If it couldn't, our
applicable but, there were several obstacles toclient would be stuck with the same twenty five
overcome.thousand dollars that was on the table from the get
The first problem was that the statute of limitationsgo. In the end, he made the right decision. He would
had long since run out on the case, meaning that ithave been taking too big a risk by taking the case to
was too late to start a new lawsuit naming the othertrial.
corporations as defendants. In order to overcome