Brothers, Hawn & Coughlin, LLP, in Bend, has taken a leading role in many of the most significant personal injury cases in Central and Eastern Oregon. This page highlights just a few of our most prominent case settlements and jury verdicts.
Contact us to arrange a free consultation about your specific case today.
Wrongful Death: Electrocution
A man was killed when he came into contact with a high voltage power line that was running through a tree in a campground. The man had climbed the tree in an attempt to retrieve a neighboring camper's cat. In violation of legal requirements, the high voltage power line ran in between the branches of the tree and next to the trunk. Despite many years of inspections, the power company never moved the wire or cut down the tree.
The widow hired our firm for herself and her children. A lawsuit was filed against, among others, the large multi-state power company. After complex discovery, the case settled favorably during a mediation conducted by a retired judge.
Medical Malpractice
Jane Doe received a colonoscopy at St. Charles Medical Center. Obviously, she was not awake during the procedure. She awoke appropriately, but had intense gastrointestinal, flu-like symptoms for a few days after the procedure. She had underlying Crohn's disease, to which she attributed her symptoms. Approximately a month later, however, she received a letter from the CEO of St. Charles that informed her that the colonoscope used during her colonoscopy had not been properly sanitized after its use on prior patients. The letter also informed her that she should obtain Hepatitis and HIV testing to see whether the colonoscope had infected her. For obvious reasons, this frightened and upset her.
Ms. Doe came to see Jennifer Coughlin to see what, if any, course of legal action she should be taking against St. Charles. Ms. Coughlin took on the case, realizing it would be a difficult fight because the law in Oregon, with very narrow exceptions, requires that a person be physically injured in order to make a claim. In other words, people in Oregon generally cannot sue simply because they have mental anguish. They must have a physical injury which, in the legislature's mind, validates their mental distress. After reviewing Oregon and other state's case law, Jennifer decided to fight this battle. She filed a lawsuit against St. Charles.
The attorneys who represented St. Charles immediately filed a Motion asking the Court to throw out the lawsuit because Ms. Doe had not actually been physically injured. Through a series of Motions and Hearings, the court ruled that in fact Ms. Doe did have a claim despite the fact that she didn't have actual physical injuries. Because the court ruled in Ms. Doe's favor, the case was able to continue. St. Charles and the manufacturer of the colonoscope cleaning machine settled for a confidential sum before the jury trial.
Dog Bite in Public School
A girl in a public elementary school was bitten in the face by her teacher's German Shepherd, which the teacher was permitted to keep in her classroom during the school day. The young girl suffered permanent facial scaring as well as emotional scaring when she was bitten after trying to hug the dog goodbye. Pursuant to a state law that prohibits lawsuits against public employees personally, a lawsuit was filed against the school district. A favorable settlement was reached that has been put aside in a college fund for the girl.
Wrongful Denial of Insurance Benefits
The firm was hired by a single mother who was being told that her own insurance company was refusing to pay for her medical bill. While the amount of the bill was relatively small, it was potentially devastating to the client. The firm sued the insurance company and obtained a judgment. The decision maker found that the insurance company should have paid the bill, and required it not only to pay for the medical treatment, but also to pay for our client's attorney fees and the costs of bringing the case.
Wrongful Death: Auto Accident
The firm represented the widow of a man killed when a semi-truck struck a cow in the road. The truck lost control and crossed the center line. A lawsuit was brought against the trucking company for failing to keep a proper lookout, and against the owner of the cow. A successful settlement was reached after discovery had been taken.
Wrongful Collections
Eileen V. contacted this office following receipt of a request for entry of default in a lawsuit that had been filed against her by a collections agency on behalf of St. Charles Medical Center. She had called other attorneys but could find no one willing to take her case because she had no money to pay an attorney. Our investigation revealed that her creditor, St. Charles, had billed her medical insurer for procedures she received and had been paid by that insurance company. The insurance company then requested a refund of the money it had paid to St. Charles, and St. Charles refunded the money but turned Eileen V.'s account over to the collection agency, which then filed a lawsuit.
The matter was subject to mandatory arbitration, wherein a number of issues, including payment of medical bills and the statute of limitations were disputed. The arbitrator found in favor of our client, and awarded in excess of $27,000 to her for payment of attorney fees and costs.
Wrongful Denial of Insurance Benefits
In the matter of Grijalva v. Safeco Insurance, the insurance carrier contended that the underinsured motorist coverage available to its insured was reduced by amounts paid to the driver of the vehicle in which she was a passenger. That had long been the way in which insurance carriers and the courts interpreted the law in Oregon. Bruce J. Brothers filed suit on behalf of Grijalva against her insurer, Safeco. The trial court entered judgment on behalf of Safeco. That award was upheld in the Court of Appeals. Brothers filed an appeal in the Oregon Supreme Court, where he was successful in convincing the court that a correct interpretation of the statutes and insurance policy allowed a reduction in benefits only for amounts paid directly to the injured party. As a consequence of this decision, injured parties throughout the state of Oregon are now entitled to recover the full amount of their underinsured motorist benefits without reduction for amounts paid to other injured parties.
Wrongful Denial of Insurance Benefits
In the case of North Pacific v. Hamilton, plaintiff Donald Hamilton was injured while a passenger in his own motor vehicle, which was being driven by his wife. Although there was a liability policy in effect that provided $60,000 in coverage, the policy also contained an exclusion limiting liability to a family member to the sum of $25,000. The trial court upheld the position of North Pacific Insurance, that it had no obligation to Hamilton beyond the $25,000 already paid. The Court of Appeals agreed. Brothers appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, where the court agreed with Brothers that the policy exclusion was ambiguous and could not be enforced, thereby awarding Hamilton the full amount of the policy limits available.
Wrongful Denial of Insurance Benefits
In the matter of Country Mutual Insurance v. White, the insurance carrier contended that its liability limit of $100,000 was the total amount available to White. Brothers, on behalf of White, contended that limits of $1 million were available and filed a counterclaim against the insurance company. The trial court agreed with Brothers, and the insurance carrier appealed. The Court of Appeals agreed with Brothers and found that both the $100,000 policy, and an additional $1 million policy was available to White, resulting in a recovery of $1 million more than the insurance company contended was owing.
Wrongful Denial of Insurance Benefits
In the matter of D.B. v. Federated Rural Insurance Exchange, the underinsured motorist carrier insuring the truck that plaintiff's husband was driving when fatally injured contended that his estate was entitled to recover, at most, the $1 million in underinsured motorist limits purchased by husband's employer. Brothers contended that under Oregon law, underinsured limits must be equal to the liability limits purchased by the employer. The trial court agreed and ruled that $2 million in coverage was available, not $1 million as argued by the insurance carrier.
Wrongful Denial of Insurance Benefits
In the matter of Sheptow v. Geico, the insurance carrier contended that Sheptow, who was injured while driving his mother's car, was not entitled to PIP medical benefits because he was a family member and was not living in his mother's home, so was excluded from coverage. The trial court agreed with Brothers and awarded PIP benefits. Geico appealed the trial court's decision, and the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed that Brothers' interpretation of Oregon law is correct.
These are just a few of the many hundreds of a cases handled over the years for the residents of the State of Oregon.
From offices in Bend, our attorneys represent clients in personal injury and insurance law matters in communities throughout Central Oregon and Eastern Oregon. Contact us to arrange a free initial consultation with an experienced Bend personal injury attorney today.
