(323) 658 8077

Settlement

$20,000,000 Single Plaintiff Settlement On $1,500,000 Policy

As many attorneys know, The Homampour Law Firm (HLF) is very selective in the cases it takes. We say “no” more than we say “yes” so that when the right case comes along we are ready to go. We are also one of the few firms in the state that have actually litigated and taken to trial what are called “bad faith” cases (or cases where an insurance company refuses to pay a policy limits demand and the injured party Plaintiff is attempting make the insurance company pay the full value of the claim which can be substantially in excess of the policy limits.)

Recently, HLF was brought in to help an attorney representing a pedestrian hit by a car, with what appeared to be minor injuries, where the driver had $1.5 million in insurance coverage.

The 41-year-old Plaintiff from El Salvador was lawfully within a crosswalk when he was struck by Defendant’s car. There was no reported loss of consciousness but abrasions to the left side of his head. X-rays, CTs and MRIs were initially normal. A subsequent MRI showed a meniscal tear in his left knee. Plaintiff reported excruciating pain in his knee and Traumatic Brain Injury Symptoms. Months later, Plaintiff elected to have surgery to repair the tear. He was subsequently diagnosed with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). He underwent extensive treatment for CRPS, none of which was effective. HLF recognized that Plaintiff’s life time of damages (with a condition that effectively locked him into a prison of pain) was substantially more than $1.5 million.

Defendant contended the following:

  • That Plaintiff was at fault for this incident since Defendant began her left turn before Plaintiff was in the crosswalk, arguing that Plaintiff should have seen her turning;

  • That she never saw Plaintiff get struck by her vehicle and that the impact was a minor tap;

  • That Plaintiff did not strike his head, did not sustain a mild TBI, and was arguably faking his TBI symptoms;

  • That the meniscus tear was pre-existing, unrelated to the incident, and did not necessitate surgical intervention;

  • That the CRPS Plaintiff developed from the surgery was not related to the incident; and

  • Though Defendant initially contended that Plaintiff did not have CRPS (according to their expert), later, Defendant contended that Plaintiff greatly exaggerated his CRPS symptoms.

Behind the scenes, HLF worked with the referring attorney to demand the $1.5 million in policy limits from the insurance company and to make sure the demand was legally proper to open the policy and to make the insurance company liable for the full value of the claim. The insurance company refused to pay the referring attorney’s demand for the policy limits despite multiple curated opportunities to do so and despite the fact that any reasonable insurance company acting reasonably to protect the Defendant would have recognized what HLF recognized – that an actual appraisal of Plaintiff’s harms and damages would be in the tens of millions.

Then, after being Associated in, HLF did what it does and reframed the entire case getting the defense experts to change their opinions and to basically become Plaintiff’s experts with them agreeing that:

  • Plaintiff sustained a meniscal tear in his left knee from the incident;

  • The tear required surgery;

  • Plaintiff developed severe CRPS as a result of the surgery;

  • The surgery was not performed negligently;

  • CRPS is incurable (especially given Plaintiff’s multiple failed treatments) and Plaintiff will likely suffer from CRPS for the rest of his life;

  • CRPS is one of the most chronic painful conditions known to man, to the extent someone may want to kill themselves or cut their leg off (as expressed by Plaintiff);

  • The pain from CRPS causes depression, anxiety, headaches, and cognitive issues similar to a brain injury; and

  • If asked by defense, they could have told them all of the above before the demand for policy limits expired.

We strategically planned, had patience, and executed on the plan to make the carrier pay top dollar. Defendant’s original offer was $500k. Throughout expert depositions, Defendant’s offer increased to the policy limit of $1.5 million and then again to $5 million. On the day before trial, the parties accepted the mediator’s proposal of $20 million.

Essential to this amazing result was the work of Attorney Danielle Lincors, who really knew how to deal with all the moving parts given her defense background.

The Homampour Law Firm seized this opportunity to get full justice for the client and capitalized on the insurance company’s unreasonableness and put the behemoth entity into a stranglehold forcing it to pay $20 million - and all with love. This is what we do.


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.

$5,000,000 Auto Versus Pedestrian | Personal Injury And Wrongful Death

frak-lopez-89996-unsplash.jpg

$5,000,000

In May 2018 Attorneys Arash Homampour and Scott Boyer  successfully obtained a $5 million dollar settlement on behalf of two minor children for the wrongful death of their mother.

In a very difficult liability case, plaintiff minors and their mother were pedestrians crossing the street mid-block to get to their home when they were struck by the defendant driving a work truck. The minors suffered minor injuries which they recovered from but their mother died as a result of the collision. The defense contended that our clients and their mother crossed a very busy street mid-block and outside of a marked crosswalk and failed to yield to oncoming traffic in violation of multiple Vehicle Code sections and were thus exclusively at fault for the incident. The defense also claimed that the driver would not have been able to see our clients in the roadway in time to avoid the collision because it was night time and our clients were wearing dark clothing. The police had determined that even knowing the exact positioning of the pedestrians in the roadway, the defendant driver would not have been able to avoid the collision and cited the decedent as the cause of the collision.

Undeterred by the police findings and difficult facts on liability, through dogged investigation and using the most advanced human factors and accident reconstruction methods,  the Homampour team was able to locate and obtain testimony from favorable witnesses and then show that the defendant driver had accelerated when passing a vehicle which had stopped in the roadway to allow the pedestrians to cross the street and the driver would have had sufficient time to see and stop for the pedestrians had he not been traveling at an unsafe speed and failed to exercise due care. 

Although the Homampour team was able to secure a sizeable settlement for our clients to fund their future education and needs, it will never replace the loss of their loving mother.

Image Credit: Unsplash


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.

$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.

$2,000,000 Individual Versus Business | No Flotation Device

$2,000,000 Individual Versus Business | No Flotation Device

$2,000,000

In October, 2016 Attorneys Arash Homampour and Scott Boyer settled an Individual versus Business / No Flotation Device case for $2 million against the Defendant.

On Sept. 5, 2011, Plaintiff, and his wife, rented a canoe from Defendant to use at Shaver Lake in Fresno. While boating around the lake the canoe capsized and Plaintiff's wife drowned. Both Plaintiff and the Decedent had signed written waivers of liability, and had been offered, but rejected life vests before they used the canoe...

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.

$1,875,000 Auto Versus Pedestrian

$1,875,000

In May 2017 Attorneys Arash Homampour & Scott Boyer successfully settled an Auto versus Pedestrian case for $1.875 million for the failure of a driver to yield to a pedestrian.

The Plaintiff, a grandmother of three, had a job and life that she loved. Prior to the incident, she was active and enjoyed the housekeeping job that she had had for many years. However, all of that changed when she was struck by the Defendant's vehicle while she was using the cross-walk to cross the intersection of Manhattan Beach Blvd and Pacific Ave. in the City of Manhattan Beach. The plaintiff was hospitalized from injuries caused from the auto striking her as she crossed the street within a lined crosswalk.

Defendants

Defendant was employed at a nearby school in Manhattan Beach. At the time of the incident, Defendant was traveling from her place of employment  to another school in Torrance to attend a breakfast for educators. Defendants do not dispute that Defendant was acting in the course and scope of her employment at the time of the incident.

The Defendants acknowledged that the driver was negligent and one of the causes of the accident. The Defendants also contended that the arrangement of the intersection and crosswalk hindered the visibility of pedestrians while in the crosswalk and this hindrance prevented the Defendant from clearly seeing the plaintiff.

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 10.12.30 AM.png

Incident Location

The incident occurred in the crosswalk at the intersection of Manhattan Beach Blvd. and Pacific Avenue in Manhattan Beach. Manhattan Beach Blvd. is an eastbound/westbound City street consisting of four lanes, with two lanes in each direction. Pacific Avenue is a northbound/southbound City street consisting of two lanes, with a single lane in each direction. There is not a separate left hand turn lane for vehicles wanting to turn left from southbound Pacific Avenue on to eastbound Manhattan Beach Blvd. The intersection is signal controlled in all four directions.

The subject crosswalk extends from the southeast corner to the northeast corner of the intersection. The crosswalk is clearly marked and there is a crosswalk signal located on both the southeast and northeast corners of the intersection. In addition, on the southeast corner of the intersection, there is a sign facing southbound traffic on Pacific Avenue which reads, “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians”.

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 10.13.01 AM.png

Incident

The incident occurred on October 29, 2014. Defendant left her place of employment at approximately 8:45 a.m. and intended to head to the breakfast event at a nearby school which started at 9:00 a.m. Defendant traveled south on Pacific Ave. for a few minutes before she came to a red light at the intersection with Manhattan Beach Blvd. She was in the number one lane intending to turn left on to eastbound Manhattan Beach Blvd.

Defendant drew her route as follows:

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 10.13.25 AM.png

When the light turned green, the vehicle in front of Defendant went straight through the intersection. There was not any traffic heading north on Pacific Ave. and Defendant began her left turn. As Defendant made her left turn, she was looking east toward Sepulveda Blvd. which was three full blocks east of Pacific Ave. and was the intersection at which she needed to make her next turn. Defendant described the traffic as backed-up on eastbound Manhattan Beach Blvd.

At the same time, Plaintiff, was walking in the crosswalk, intending to travel from the southeast corner of the intersection to the northeast corner. Plaintiff had previously activated the crosswalk signal which, as the witnesses also stated was illuminated before she entered the intersection via the marked crosswalk.

Unfortunately, Defendant continued to make her left turn as Plaintiff crossed the intersection in the marked crosswalk and Defendant struck Plaintiff with her vehicle. Per the eyewitness accounts, after Plaintiff was struck by Defendant's vehicle, she fell to the ground and rolled several times before coming to rest near the south curb line of ManhattanBeach Blvd. Prior to the impact, witnesses did not hear brakes squeal and no skid marks or brake marks were noted on the asphalt. Plaintiff had no recollection of Defendant's vehicle striking her, and the next thing she recalled after stepping off the curb to use the crosswalk was waking up in the hospital.

After the impact, witnesses observed that Plaintiff had an open wound to the back of her head, she appeared to not be conscious and the only sign of life was a gurgling out of her mouth. There was a large amount of blood loss and blood was coming out of Plaintiff's mouth. According to the witnesses, Plaintiff did not appear to gain consciousness before the paramedics transported her to the hospital. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered a concussion and a number of orthopedic and other injuries.

The Result

The Homampour team were able to deduce that the Defendant, who was driving to a work-related event at the time of the accident, made an unsafe left turn and did not yield to the Plaintiff in the marked crosswalk, thus resulting in the favorable settlement for the plaintiff of $1.875 million. The team also contended that the Defendant’s employer was vicariously liable since she was heading to a work event.


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.