(323) 658 8077

Auto Accidents

$14,500,000 Insurance Bad Faith

$14,500,000 Insurance Bad Faith

Many attorneys talk about insurance bad faith but few have actually successfully litigated bad faith cases through trial and appeal. The Homampour Law Firm has and is considered one of the go to firms for bad faith issues and cases.

We buy insurance to have piece of mind. While we hope that disaster never strikes, life happens and as humans we are bound to make mistakes. Auto insurance is designed to protect us in the event of a mistake or a lawsuit. Insurance companies like Allstate collect our hard earned premiums with our expectation that Allstate will use its enormous resources to protect us in the event of an accident or mistake. This case is a sad but all too common example of how insurance companies can act unreasonably but ultimately be held accountable  - in this case held accountable by the Homampour Law Firm.  Read more...

To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658-8077. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.

$10,000,000 Auto Versus Motorcycle | Wrongful Death

This tragic case involved a fatal vehicle vs. motorcycle left turn accident at the intersection of Exposition Blvd. and Bundy Dr. in West Los Angeles.

Investigating officers assigned fault with the 16 year old left turning driver. Our amazing co-counsel Karen Gajewski and Ed Baughan determined that left turns were to be prohibited at this intersection as a result of Metro Line construction. Even the officers missed that there were supposed to be 3 no left turn/u-turn signs with 2 elevated on the N/W and N/E light poles and 1 in the median. The sign in the median was missing.

Imagery used at trial to demonstrate signage being present and absent.

Imagery used at trial to demonstrate signage being present and absent.

We were brought in to bring a claim against the Construction Co and other entities responsible to make sure that median sign was present. These defendants contended that they did nothing wrong and that the accident was the exclusive fault of either the inexperienced 16-year-old driver who had been driving for 6 months (he admitted he knew it was a no left turn intersection, but turned anyway claiming the path was clear) and/or the decedent on the motorcycle (who defendants claimed was heavily impaired from marijuana use.)

The Homampour Law Firm handled this case through trial and convinced a jury that the construction company, Skanska-Rados Expo 2 Joint Venture, was responsible and that decedent did nothing wrong. The jury awarded $10 million in wrongful death general damages to Plaintiffs (the wife and mother of decedent) and apportioned 55% against the construction company.


If you'd like to receive more articles like this, sign up for the Homampour Attorney's Email. We publish articles written by Arash and his team of attorneys that deliver real insight into different areas of the law.

To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658-8077. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.

$2,800,000 Auto Versus Truck | Wrongful Death

In April, 2017 Attorneys Arash Homampour and Armine Safarian settled an Auto versus Truck | Wrongful Death case for $2.8 million against the Defendant.

Facts

On Dec. 6, 2013, the Plaintiff and her husband were traveling southbound on US 93 when they attempted to pass a truck driven by the Defendant which was owned by the Defendant's employer. After entering the northbound lane, the Plaintiffs collided head on with another Plaintiff, who was traveling northbound on US 93. Two of the Plaintiffs sustained fatal injuries. The other Plaintiff sustained serious injuries.

Plaintiff's Contentions

Plaintiffs contended that the Defendant would not allow them to pass his truck and was playing a dangerous cat and mouse game with the Plaintiffs, who in turn became frightened and tried to pass his truck to get away from the Defendant. Plaintiffs contended that the Defendant, as a professional truck driver, knew that motorists would be afraid to travel near his truck, that he could pull over and let them pass and that the Plaintiffs were attempting to pass him for miles. Although he admitted that he witnessed the deadly head on collision to his left, the Defendant did not stay at the scene and did not preserve evidence relating to his driving contained in the truck's event data recorder. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant's employer was liable for the actions of the Defendant and that it failed to preserve evidence.

Defendant's Contentions

Defendants contended the Plaintiffs were the sole cause of the incident when they decided to illegally enter the northbound lane into oncoming traffic. Defendants claimed they were not involved in the incident because the Plaintiff vehicle never made contact with Defendants' truck.

Injuries

The surviving Plaintiff suffered a concussion that resolved, orthopedic injuries, emotional distress, and loss of consortium due to her husband's death. The Plaintiff's children suffered the loss of their father.

Result

The Homampour team were able to settle with the Defendants for $2.8 million. Although this allowed the Homampour team to secure a sizable figure for the Plaintiffs, it can not replace the loss of a husband and father.


If you'd like to receive more articles like this, sign up for the Homampour Attorney's Email. We publish articles written by Arash and his team of attorneys that deliver real insight into different areas of the law.

To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658-8077. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.

$8,000,000 Auto Versus State | Dangerous Public Property

$8,000,000 Auto Versus State | Dangerous Public Property

$8,000,000

In March, 2014 Attorney Arash Homampour settled an Auto versus State / Dangerous Public Property case for $8 million against the Defendant.

Incident

On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at approximately 3:20 a.m., Plaintiff, an accountant, was driving home from work and traveling on the Venice on-ramp to get onto the I-10 eastbound Santa Monica Freeway. Plaintiff's vehicle veered to the right for reasons unknown and went down a steep embankment where Plaintiff hit a tree and sustained life altering injuries...

To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658-8077. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.

$2,500,000 Auto Versus Auto | Dangerous Roadway

$2,500,000

In October, 2016 Attorneys Arash Homampour, Scott Boyer settled an Auto versus Auto / Dangerous Roadway case for $2.5 million against the Defendant and the State of California.

Defendants

The Defendant contended that the public property that the Plaintiff's vehicle crashed into was not a dangerous condition and that the other drivers’ carelessness was the cause of the collision.

Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 10.01.50 AM.png

Incident Location

The As-Built plans for the subject location make it clear that the Defendant oversaw the design and construction of the subject location. The location and all of its features were designed and built by the Defendant in approximately 1978. Defendant admits that there have been no changes to the location since it was built.

Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 10.13.45 AM.png

 

Westbound SR 118 at the incident location is a 4 lane freeway with a 3 lane connector ramp to Interstate 5, 2 lanes which go to southbound I-5 and 1 lane to northbound I-5.

Between the lanes of westbound SR 118 and the I-5 connector ramps there is a gore area. A gore area is defined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual as “The area immediately beyond the divergence of two roadbeds bounded by the edge of those roadbeds.” Within this gore area is a large sign post which has guide signs that span over the lanes of the I-5 connector ramp. Around the pole is a metal beam guardrail.

Between the westbound travel lanes of SR 118 and the guardrail is an asphalt concrete curb or “dike”. The dike is approximately 10 feet north of the number 4 SR 118 travel lane. This ten foot width is a paved shoulder for emergency use. This dike is approximately 6 inches high and at least 5 feet away from the guardrail.

Incident

This tragic two-vehicle accident occurred on westbound State Route (“SR”) 118 on November 18, 2012. At the time, Plaintiff's mother was driving a 2001 Kia Rio in the number 4 lane. The Plaintiff, a minor, was a passenger in the back seat on the left hand side .

Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 10.13.31 AM.png

Plaintiff's vehicle came into contact with Defendant's vehicle during a lane change, causing her vehicle to move out of the traffic lanes to the north toward the gore area where there was a dike, guardrail and post. Plaintiff's vehicle struck the dike and then the guardrail which caused her vehicle to leave the roadway and become airborne until the roof of the vehicle struck the post, killing Plaintiff's mother instantly.

Defendant Caltrans designed and otherwise had jurisdiction over SR 118 at the incident location. The dike/guardrail/post design configuration that Defendant constructed and maintained at the location violated Defendant’s own design manual and acted to vault Plaintiff's vehicle directly into a 12,210 pound post of structural steel. Thankfully, Plaintiff survived the harrowing ordeal with only minimal injuries. But now he faces the life ahead of him without the mother he loved.

Result

The Homampour team were able to show evidence that the State of California was liable for the configuration of the curb, guardrail and pole, claiming it was dangerous and created a trap which caused the death of the Plaintiff's mother. Although this allowed the Homampour team to secure $2.5 million for the Plaintiff, it can not replace the loss of his mother


If you'd like to receive more articles like this, sign up for the Homampour Attorney's Email.  We publish articles written by Arash and his team of attorneys that deliver real insight into different areas of the law.

Name *
Name

To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658-8077. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.

$4,500,000 Auto Versus Truck

$4,500,000 Auto Versus Truck

In April 2017 Attorneys Arash Homampour and Scott Boyer settled a particularly tough Auto versus Truck case for $4.5 million against the City of Los Angeles.

Plaintiff, a 53 year old man (at the time of incident), had a great career and life that he loved. Prior to the incident, he was active and enjoyed working as a union truck driver for television and motion pictures. However, all of that changed when Defendants failed to use due care by parking their City tractor and 43 foot long trailer illegally in the middle of Los Feliz Blvd.

To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658-8077. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.