Case Results From Our San Diego Auto Accident Lawyers

Disclaimer: All of the Case Results listed below were based upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case and all results will differ if based upon different facts. See disclaimer, below. None of the following Case Results are a warranty or guaranty of future results or an outcome in a different case. No dollar amount listed below should be viewed or considered as a valuation for any other case or a guaranty of future results.


Case of EB – Client’s pick-up was totaled when it was struck on the freeway by a construction vehicle. Client sustained injuries to his knee and low back, both of which required surgery. Prior to his second surgery, Client lawsuit settled shortly after the insurance defense doctor’s deposition for $375,000.

Case of MK – Client was involved in a front end collision when the defendant over-steered during a left-hand turn into client’s lane of travel. Client’s medical treatment was slow, inconsistent, and minimal until a bone scan revealed a pars fracture and related lower spine injury. At that time, the client was being represented by separate counsel who encouraged the client to accept a $19k settlement offer from the defending insurance company. Client was referred to us for trial. After the conclusion of the defense doctor’s deposition, the insurer doubled their offer which we rejected (despite the recommendation from the judge to accept). On the eve of trial, the insurance company agreed to pay their $100,000 policy limit and the case settled.

Case of JD – Client was involved what initially appeared to merely be a low impact, rear-end collision. Client developed chronic neck pain with an underlying cervical disc herniation. Initially, the defendant’s insurance company denied that the accident could have injured Client at all. During her lawsuit, Client attended a Mandatory Settlement Conference where the Judge recommended settlement. We rejected the defense’s $75,000 and shortly after the insurance defense doctor’s deposition, the insurance company settled for their $250,000 policy limits.

Case of NB – Client was traveling straight when an oncoming car made a turn in front of her at an intersection and caused a collision. The investigating police and her insurance concluded that client was primarily at fault for the accident. We investigated the scene and the accuracy of the officer’s accident reconstruction. After the commencement of litigation the other driver’s insurance company agreed that their driver was at fault and paid the Department of the Navy for our client’s medical treatment as well as a cash settlement to our client as compensation for her injuries and pain.

Case of EP – Client was involved in a car accident with a Mexican national who did not have US car insurance and was not covered for the accident in the US. We investigated and determined the defendant had assets in the US. We filed suit and served the lawsuit in Mexico. The defendant realizing that we would seize the US property agreed to pay a confidential sum.

Case of JK – Victim was involved in an off-road, rollover accident where his hand was crushed outside of the vehicle. A court judgment was proven up in excess of $300,000.00

Case of CM – Client was involved in a minor rear end collision resulting in major neck injuries. Client had been diagnosed with disc bulges in her neck previously. After collision, the responsible insurance company denied the claim, stating that the damage to the vehicles was too insignificant to cause the change in the client’s symptoms and chronic pain diagnosis. However, after approximately 10 months, the insurance company was convinced that the accident was the legal cause of her chronic pain and it paid full policy limits of $100,000.

Case of AA – Client was a passenger in a vehicle driven by a friend when the defendant broadsided their vehicle. At that time, Client was an employee of a well known defense insurance company. Client chose our firm out of hundreds of other personal injury attorneys with which she was familiar. Her case was successfully settled.

Case of MT – Client was involved in major broadside collision in which the defendant who driving a vehicle while intoxicated. Client injured his shoulder and eventually received surgery. Case was litigated and resolved for $350,000.

Case of FM – Client was visiting San Diego from Mexico on an education visa when the vehicle she was driving was struck by an out of control vehicle. Her claims were resolved for the insurance policy limits despite her return to Mexico during the pendency of her case.

Case of ST – Client was a passenger when her car was rear-ended. The defendant driver’s insurance company argued that the force of the impact was too minimal to cause injury to anyone. Client’s medical bills were only $4,200 and defendant’s insurer refused our pre-trial settlement demand of $4,900. Mr. Gnau tried the case and obtained a favorable result for the client in excess of $28,000.00.

Case of LH – Client was rear-ended by another car on the freeway. The defendant driver’s insurance company argued that the force of the impact was too minimal to cause injury to anyone and refused to pay any of her medical bills or settle her claim. Litigation was instituted and client rejected the insurance company’s pre-trial offer. Mr. Gnau tried the case and obtained a result twelve times greater than the carriers settlement offer.


Case of DJ – Client was crossing a downtown intersection when a tour bus turned into her a ran over her foot. As a result of the serious injuries sustained, the trauma physicians amputated her leg below the knee. Client was fit with a permanent prosthetic and walking within nine months of the incident. After the commencement of litigation which included depositions of eye witnesses out of state, the insurance company settled with client for a lifetime cash annuity and lump sum payment worth a guaranteed minimum of $1,950,000.00.


Case of RO – Client was peddling his bicycle to work when a drunk driver failed to negotiate a turn and struck client causing internal injuries. Referring attorney felt the case was too medically challenging. We collected all of the client’s medical records and obtained policy limits settlements from the drunk driver’s insurer as well as our client’s under-insured motorist coverage.

Case of CF – Client was peddling legally through an intersection controlled by a 4-way stop. Defendant drove into the intersection before client cleared the intersection, struck him and drug him causing a broken shoulder and broken leg. Client was briefly hospitalized for his injuries and the related road burns. Defendant’s insurer paid his $100,000 policy limits before the start of litigation and the client’s own auto policy paid his coverage limits as well. Total recovery: $254,000.00

Case of MO – Client was riding a bicycle with her grandson when a motorist failed to stop at a stop sign causing facial injuries to client. Defendant denied claim initially stating that client did not have a lamp/light as required by the vehicle code. After our investigation, defendant’s insurance carrier paid their policy limits. We also found and collected our client’s under-insured motorist policy.


Case of SP – child accompanied his older sister while she tended to the animals on a neighbor’s property. An otherwise playful and gentle dog bit the child on the face causing a puncture would into his mouth. The child had one doctor visit for four stitches and had a full recovery from the incident except for a dimple scar that was only visible when he smiled. The case settled for an annuity payable during his college years for a current value of $70,000.

Case of AA – woman was working as a nurse taking care of a woman who had a well behaved guide dog. Unfortunately, dog bit client’s inner thigh. Client believed she didn’t have a claim against owner. However, attorneys were able to discover a homeowner’s policy that covered the incident. Case settled.


Case of RK – Client injured his ankle on an off-road vehicle and went to his doctor who thought it was an ankle sprain but shot an x-ray to rule out a fracture. The x-ray which was personally taken by the doctor in his office was over exposed. The doctor misdiagnosed the injury as a sprain and when in reality it was a fracture. Client had to undergo surgery to re-break and set the bone. The defendant doctor settled for a confidential sum.

Case of MV – Client had total joint replacement surgery where the surgeon failed to verify correct placement of an arthrodesis. The surgery was a failure and the doctor settled under terms of confidentiality.

Case of EP – Client was seen in the emergency rule for a crush injury to her finger. The physician failed to rule-out injury criteria in his differential diagnosis and failed to refer the patient for care and treatment by a specialist. Client sustained permanent injuries. The doctor’s insurance company negotiated a settlement before litigation commenced.

Case of DD – Client sustained ulna and radius fractures which were diagnosed by the ER physician. The patient was referred to his primary care physician who was to coordinate additional treatment by an orthopedic specialist. However, the primary care physician refused to refer the patient to a special and instead interceded by placing the patient in a short arm cast that did not immobilize the fractured radius. The patient suffered a non-union requiring surgical intervention. The primary care physician confidentially settled after his deposition.


Armstrong vs. Breslin, et al. – Motorcycle versus motorcycle accident. Daniel Tamez tried the case before the San Diego County Superior Court – El Cajon district and obtained a six digit judgment that included the recovery of many of our client’s litigation costs. As a result, Mr .Tamez was recognized by the Consumer Attorneys of San Diego as an Outstanding Trial Lawyer of the Year for 2007.

Case of DR – Client, an officer in the United States Navy, was enjoying some ROR in San Diego riding his motorcycle with a friend when a car pulled out in front of him to make a turn. To avoid collision, client laid down his motorcycle and injured his shoulder. The SDPD concluded the accident was client’s fault. We investigated and disagreed with the police and filed suit against the driver when her insurance company rejected our pre-litigation demand. After the depositions of the respective parties and a brief investigation of the scene, the insurance company agreed with us that the police officer’s conclusion was incorrect and issued a policy limit payment to our client. Client had been deployed and stationed overseas at the time of settlement.


Case of JT – Client was eating lunch at a food court. When he left his table to go to the condiment counter, he slipped on a wet, soapy tile floor causing serious injury to his lower back, spine, and legs. During our investigation, we identified an eye witness who testified that the floor was being mopped by a worker who, after seeing the client fall, ran away to obtain and put up “slippery when wet” yellow safety signs instead of coming to the aid of the victim. The witness (and the defendant’s insurer) were appalled by the attempted cover up. Case settled after the commencement of litigation but before trial for a confidential, six figure sum.

Case of CB – Client had complained to the complex manager about the deterioration of the metal and cement staircase leading to his apartment. The condition was not repaired and after further, avoidable deterioration, the bent, broken, and rusty metal caused him to fall and break his foot. Client had an unusually difficult recovery, including an infection, which prolonged his recovery period. The apartment refused to assist his with his medical bills and loss of income. We filed suit after their refusal to review the claim with us and obtained a confidential settlement that enabled the client to repay the tax-payer medical assistance programs that paid for his care as well as a satisfactory amount to cover his loss of income and general damages claims.

Case of ST – Client was walking near La Jolla with some friends when she tripped on an uneven sidewalk that had been partially uprooted by neighboring trees. Client sustained facial fractures including a broken nose. After litigation against the homeowners and the City, case settled.


Client purchased a cheap bicycle manufactured in China. While properly operating the bike, the pedal broke off causing him to fall, a concussion and a puncture wound to his leg. We investigate the case and determined the manufacture and the distributor in China and prosecuted a claim against both which lead to a successful settlement that provided repayment to the Department of the Navy for our client’s medical care costs and also a cash settlement to our client.


Case of W – Client brought a survivorship claim on behalf of her husband who was killed in a bus while he was a passenger. An uninsured drunk defendant had negligently struck the bus causing the bus to tip over on its side. Case was brought as a survivorship claim. Case settled in litigation for approximately 1 million.


Case of EB – Client’s vehicle was rear ended on the freeway, when defendant construction company’s pickup failed to slow for merging traffic. Despite his vehicle being a total loss, client was able to “walk away from the scene.” However, persistent low back pain caused him to seek care and after many months of medical treatment, he was diagnosed with serious injuries to his low back and spine that required surgery. Due to the extent of the injury and his youth, his doctors recommended disc replacement surgery which he could not afford. After the commencement of litigation but before trial, we resolved his claim for $375,000.


Case of MM – Clients were family members of a passenger killed in a high speed, single car accident on the freeway. Policy limits settlements were obtained against both the policy of the driver and the passenger without litigation enabling the family to put this matter to rest without court involvement.

Clients were the relatives of two deceased who were killed in a motor vehicle roll over incident. Case was brought for product liability, tire defect, roof crush and instability against auto makers and tire companies. After months of negotiating and litigation, case settled for high six figures.

Disclaimer: All of the Case Results listed on this website were obtained based upon the specific facts and circumstances of each individual case. Please note individual results will differ since each case is based upon specific and unique facts and circumstances. Case Results on this website are merely past occurrences. Case Results on this website should neither be construed to be an expectation of future results nor any prediction or guarantee about any future results. Cases with similar facts may not obtain similar results. However, we work hard to maximize the obtainable result in each individual case.

All cases and representation are limited to cases property brought in the State of California. Attorneys are only licensed to represent claims in California. Traffic Accident Law Center, does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this website in a state where this website fails to comply with all laws, regulations, and ethical rules of that state. This website is not meant to provide legal advice. Rather, this website is to provide potential consumers with general information about the Traffic Accident Law Center and the types of case and claims we accept for representation. This website and its contents are provided “AS IS” without any warrantee of any kind either express or implied, including but not limited to the implied warrantees of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement.

No attorney-client relationship can be formed by or through this website, include forwarding to us facts and circumstances pertinent to you or your potential matter, without the commencement of an attorney-client relationship reduced to a fully executed retainer agreement in compliance with the California Business and Professions Code.

Information provided on this website is not a warranty or a guaranty of future results or any outcome in a different case. Case results differ and results in other cases do not constitute a warranty or guarantee of any particular or expected result in your case. Key facts and circumstances that frequently cause case results to differ include, but are not limited to: evidence of liability, witnesses’ veracity, witnesses’ ability to testify, witnesses’ availability, documentation of injuries and medical treatments, medical bills, existence and type of health insurance, type of insurance(s) available and type pursued, individual insurance company parameters, defense counsel, litigation costs, prognosis, need for future medical care, income loss, loss of earning capacity, jurisdiction, venue, and risk adversity of individual client as well as others.