$10.4M Verdict Over Fatal Pedestrian Collision Includes Award Against Insurance Brokers
The legal team at Gay Chacker & Ginsburg demonstrated their commitment to justice and their clients with a recent victory in a high-profile case. The firm represented the estate of Neil Lipschutz, a 62-year-old man who was tragically killed in a pedestrian collision in 2019. The case resulted in a substantial $10.4 million verdict, a testament to the relentless pursuit of justice by the attorneys at Gay Chacker & Ginsburg.
The case revolved around a fatal incident where Lipschutz was struck by a vehicle while jogging in Abington, Pennsylvania. The driver, 21-year-old Hatim Ramadan, was found guilty of vehicular homicide. The eight-figure verdict that a Pennsylvania jury awarded to the estate of the man who was fatally struck by a vehicle while jogging included a $10 million award against Ramadan, a more than $450,000 award against the decedent’s insurance broker.
The plaintiff’s memo said Lipschutz relied on the Fonner defendants for their expertise regarding insurance, and believed the underinsurance coverage he’d purchased included coverage in the event that he was not driving the vehicle.
Brian Chacker, a partner at Gay Chacker & Ginsburg, represented Nancy Rosenberg, the administrator of Lip schutz’s estate. Chacker’s dedication to his clients and his unwavering commitment to justice were evident throughout the case. He expressed his satisfaction with the verdict, stating, “While nothing can replace the loss of a husband and father, hopefully, the jury’s recognition of the losses the family has endured will help bring some level of solace and closure.”
Strict liability means that even if someone did not act negligently or intentionally, he can still be held liable for damages if his actions resulted in harm. Trespassing onto someone’s property and getting bitten by his dog is an example of an action for which strict liability could apply. Some states also have laws imposing strict liability for injuries caused by defective products.
The case was complex, involving not only the driver’s reckless actions but also the insurance brokers’ role. Lipschutz had relied on the Fonner defendants for their expertise regarding insurance. He believed his underinsurance coverage included coverage even when he was not driving the vehicle. However, this was not the case, and the jury held the insurance broker accountable for the coverages lost due to his failures.
This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of understanding insurance coverages and the potential consequences of miscommunication or misunderstanding. It also underscores the critical role of experienced and dedicated legal representation in navigating such complex cases.
