General F.A.Q.

Generally speaking, the "at-fault" party is responsible for his or her share of harms and losses caused as a result of his or her negligent actions. You will note that the "at-fault" party is only responsible for "his or her share" of the harms and losses. As discussed in detail on our elements of claim page this means is that in some situations the particular at fault driver may only be legally responsible for less than 100% of the harms and losses. This occurs when others, including the plaintiff or other drivers, are also deemed a "cause" of the accident.

As noted above, the "at-fault" driver is responsible for all of the harms and losses caused through his or her negligence. Determining the nature and extent of a person's harms and losses is often extremely complicated. Sometimes insurance companies dispute that the physical injuries were caused from the accident. Other times disputes arise as to the extent of someone's true damages. These issues are also discussed in more detail on our elements of claim page.

If someone is violating a law that was intended to safeguard the public, for example speeding or drinking and driving, that person is legally responsible for the harms and losses caused through the legal doctrine of negligence per se. This legal term simply means that as a result of the defendant violating a law or rule, he or she becomes responsible for the harms without the plaintiff having to prove the defendant's actions were "negligent."

If someone is "on-the-job" when an accident occurs, the employer is legally responsible for the negligent acts of his employees through the doctrine of Respondeat Superior. This Latin term literarily means let the master answer for the servant. This rule can have very important consequences for your case. Employers often carry "general liability insurance policies" which have much higher limits than traditional automobile insurance policies. It is also important in some cases to determine what training, if any, was provided to the employee and whether the company should have hired the person in the first place. In Colorado there is a separate cause of action based upon an employer's failure to train and/or supervise as well as negligent hiring (if the person has a horrible driving history) and negligent supervision.

If you or a loved one has been injured in an automobile accident, please call or email us as soon as possible. The highly skilled attorneys at the Kaudy Law Firm are experts in handling automobile injury cases and are here to help.

When someone has been injured through the negligence of others, the plaintiff must establish three elements to prevail:

• Liability

• Injury Causation

• Damages

In a given case, any one or more of these areas can become hotly disputed.

"Liability" is the legal term meaning fault. In order to prevail on your claim, you must show that some other person or entity is legally responsible for your damages. In some cases, like rear-end automobile accidents, liability is fairly clear. In other cases, the main fight occurs over which parties are at fault and therefore legally responsible for the harms and losses caused.

In many cases, the defendant will attempt to reduce his or her liability by blaming the plaintiff for the incident. This can have a severe impact on your case. Colorado follows what is known as a "modified comparative fault" scheme. Under this scheme, if the jury concludes the plaintiff was 50% or more at fault, the plaintiff recovers nothing. If the jury finds the plaintiff less than 50% at fault, the verdict is reduced by that amount. For example, if the jury awards $100,000.00 in damages but find the plaintiff was 25% at fault, the verdict is reduced by $25,000.00.

In an effort to reduce their costs, many insurance companies will blame the plaintiff even when liability against the defendant is clear under the "last clear chance doctrine." We have seen many cases where a defendant driver runs a red light or turns left in front of oncoming traffic and the insurance adjuster will arbitrarily assign 20% fault against the plaintiff claiming the plaintiff should have avoided the accident. Ultimately a jury decides, and not an insurance adjuster, whether the plaintiff should have been able to avoid the accident. If the defendant persists in this often unfounded defense, it has the potential to backfire against the defendant as jurors may resent the defendant's attempt to avoid responsibility.

Further complicating matters, defendants are allowed to designate additional "non-parties at fault" in an effort to reduce the defendant's liability. If this occurs, the jury will be asked to apportion fault between the defendant and any properly designated "non-party at fault." According to Colorado law, defendants are only responsible for their share of the damages. For example, assume the same $100,000.00 verdict mentioned above. Assume the jury again finds the plaintiff 25% at fault and finds a non-party 25% at fault leaving the defendant 50% at fault. Under this scenario, the plaintiff would recover $50,000.00 from the defendant driver.

Whenever it appears that liability will become contested, it is important to contact us as quickly as possible. The highly skilled lawyers at the Kaudy Law Firm will immediately initiate a comprehensive investigation to secure all favorable witnesses and testimony. It is important to do this near the time of the accident as memories fade and sometimes witnesses become difficult to find over time.

The second element a plaintiff must show in order to recover from an at-fault party is what is known as "injury causation." This is the legal way of saying that the plaintiff's injuries must be caused by the incident.

In many cases, such as broken bones, the fact that an injury was caused by an accident is crystal clear. Other times, however, disputes arise concerning the plaintiff's ability to show that physical injuries were caused from an accident. Insurance companies may try to point to previous medical conditions in order to say that the accident did not cause the at issue injury. Keep in mind that you have a right to privacy when it comes to your medical records and you do not have to, nor should you, sign blanket medical releases provided by an insurance company.

In order to see how this works, consider the following example:

“Say the plaintiff, who is 55 years old, is rear-ended at a high rate of speed. After several months of physical therapy, plaintiff undergoes an MRI which shows a bulging disc in his back that will require surgery. The MRI also shows normal degenerative changes that occur in all of us over time. In our hypothetical situation, the plaintiff had also seen a chiropractor three years before the accident due to a fall from a ladder.”

In this typical case, the insurance company will likely try to argue that plaintiff's surgery was not caused by the accident, but was rather due to the "degenerative" changes in plaintiff's back or even possibly his prior fall. As you can imagine, we see many variations of the above scenario. When this type of situation arises, it is important for us to become involved as quickly as possible.

Keep in mind that according to Colorado law, a defendant is responsible for the harm he or she causes in aggravating a pre-existing injury. It is important to thoroughly discuss this situation with your attorney should it arise. Also, it does not matter if the plaintiff is particularity susceptible to a particular injury. In Colorado, you "take you plaintiff as you find him." Meaning, it does not matter if the plaintiff is easily injured. The defendant is responsible for the injury caused. This is known as the "thin-skull" doctrine.

In any personal injury case, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing and proving his or her damages. This may sound easy enough. In practice, however, trying to quantify damages can become immensely complicated.

The at fault party is responsible for all of the "economic" harms and losses caused as a result of an accident. This includes obvious economic losses like lost wages and medical expenses, as well as less obvious losses like a shortened work life. In many cases, the amount of economic loss is easily ascertainable. For example, in a relatively minor automobile accident case in which the plaintiff misses a few days of work and has limited medical expenses, calculating the total amount of economic damage is easy. In other cases, however, calculating the economic harms becomes so complicated expert witnesses are required to properly analyze the true impact an accident has had.

For example, if a plaintiff has a high paying job in construction but is unable to continue in that field due to an injury and must take a lower paying job, the plaintiff will have ongoing future economic losses that must be considered. The same is true if due to the seriousness of the injury the plaintiff is unable to return to work altogether.

Issues surrounding future medical care are also common. Determining what type of future care a plaintiff will likely require and the cost of that care often requires the assistance of an expert. These experts prepare what are known as "life care plans." "Life care plans" contain a detailed analysis of the projected future medical needs, including costs. This is necessary because the jury must determine at the time of trial what the "probable" future medical needs are. Unfortunately, there is no mechanism to go back to court once your case is finished. Therefore, in serious cases with ongoing medical treatment it is important to contact us as quickly as possible to begin the process of collecting, analyzing, and ultimately presenting these future medical needs.

You may be wondering how health insurance comes into play and whether or not they have the right to be paid back for medical treatment provided. This question is addressed in detail on our "How does health insurance come into play" page.

Non-economic Damages

Often times, the "non-economic" damages are the greatest harms and losses people experience. Most people are familiar with non-economic damages terms "pain and suffering." Non-economic harms and losses, however, come in many shapes and sizes. For example, there is the pure inconvenience and emotional stress that comes with a serious injury and repeated trips to the doctor's office. There is the fear and apprehension that people commonly experience after they are involved in a serious accident. In many cases, the greatest harm is the loss or reduction in the quality of life. This is just another way of describing damages associated with not being able to do the things you loved to do before the accident.

Importantly, the at fault party is responsible for both the past non-economic harms and losses, and those losses that will continue in the future.

As you can imagine, juries often struggle with how to fairly compensate someone who is forced to live with chronic pain. Clearly demonstrating for the jury how to fairly compensate for these "non-economic" harms and losses is crucial. Also, many jurors have deep-seated biases against compensating individuals for "pain and suffering." This is due in large part to a carefully orchestrated and highly funded effort by powerful special interests. The lawyers at the Kaudy Law Firm have extensive courtroom experience and expertise at confronting and overcoming this bias. Call or email us today for a free case assessment.

In Colorado, the total amount of recoverable non-economic damages is capped. Currently, the maximum amount you can recover for "non-economic" damages is $366,250.00. This amount can be doubled upon a showing of "justification by clear & convincing evidence" and is based on a per person basis. For a complete list of limitations on damages in Colorado, click on our "Limitations on Damages" link.

If you have any questions regarding your case, please call or email us today. We take great pride in our commitment to our clients and look forward to helping you.

Physical Disfigurement and Impairment

The third category of damages that plaintiffs are entitled to recover is for physical disfigurement and impairment. Unlike "non-economic damages" discussed above, physical disfigurement and impairment are not capped in Colorado.

You may notice that damages for physical impairment in this section appear to overlap with damages discussed in "non-economic damages" for loss of the quality of life. Indeed this is true and the damages in the two categories can appear to overlap. In cases with serious injuries it is critical that the proper arguments are made so that the jury award more damages in the "physical disfigurement and impairment" category as those damages are not capped.

If you or a loved one has been injured by the careless actions of someone else, please call or email us today for a free case assessment.

If you have been hurt in an automobile accident, you should know what to do in order to protect yourself and your legal rights. First, call the police (and paramedics if necessary). You also want to follow up with the investigating police agency to ensure they have your version of events leading up to the crash. Unfortunately, many times the police do not do a thorough accident scene investigation. It is common for people taken from the automobile accident scene not to be interviewed at all. This can result in the police recording only the version of the auto accident given by the negligent driver who caused the accident.

If you have a camera and are not injured, try to photograph the accident scene prior to moving the automobile (only if safe to do so). Also be sure to record your injuries throughout the healing process. Finally, it may be necessary to interview any and all witnesses to the accident and obtain from these witnesses affidavits concerning the accident. This is especially important in cases in which liability is not clear. If the at fault party or his or her insurance company is blaming you for the accident, please call or email us today. It is important to speak with witnesses while their memories are fresh.

Remember, if you have been injured in an automobile accident it is important to seek medical attention as soon as possible! If treatment is delayed, the defendant may argue that it was not his or her negligent driving that caused your injury, but rather something that occurred between the time of the automobile accident and your visit to the doctor. Also, keep in mind that the earlier your lawyer becomes involved in your auto accident case, the better. We offer a free case analysis of your auto accident case, so call or email us today. The lawyers at the Kaudy Law Firm are experts in handling automobile accident cases and are here to help.

In July of 2003, Colorado switched from a system of "no-fault" automobile coverage, to a pure "tort" based system. What this means practically is that your health insurance is the primary source of medical treatment in the event you are injured in an automobile accident.

In some cases, the at-fault party's insurance company may initially offer to pay all of the medical bills incurred as a result of an automobile accident. This, however, rarely occurs. Instead, the insurance company will later inform you that they will pay the entire outstanding medical bills only ONCE you settle your case. In the mean time, medical providers may threaten to send your medical bills to collection agencies.

Thus, if you have health insurance it will provide the primary source of funding for your accident related medical treatment. In most cases, your health insurance company will have a "right of subrogation" or "right of reimbursement." What this means is that your health insurance company may have the right to be paid back from the proceeds of the case. This can become a major issue in dispute if a situation arises in which there is not enough insurance to fully compensate all of the parties. When this occurs, the "make whole" doctrine may provide some relief.

Situations involving how much money the health insurance companies are paid back are becoming increasingly more complicated. As always, email or call us with any questions you may have. The Kaudy Law Firm is here to help!

More than 20% of Americans are without health insurance. If you have been injured as a result of someone else's negligence and you do not have health insurance, you may find that obtaining quality treatment for your injuries is difficult. There are solutions.

As mentioned above, the at-fault party's insurance company will not pay for your medical treatment until your case is settled. One reason they do this is that the less medical treatment you receive, the lower the value of your case. Thus, if the insurance company knows that you do not have health insurance and knows that your medical bills are being sent to collection agencies, they understand that you might be willing to settle your case quickly and for far less and full compensation. You might even be willing to settle your case without diagnosing the seriousness of your medical problem.

There are solutions to this common problem. The Kaudy Law Firm works with a network of medical providers who can treat your injuries on a "lien" basis. This means that the medical providers wait until your case is resolved to be paid for their services. Using these providers will allow you to receive the medical treatment you need without the fear of your medical bills going to collection.

Ultimately, the at-fault party is responsible to compensate injured parties for all of their economic and non-economic harms and losses. These damages include obvious losses like lost wages and medical expenses as well as less obvious harms and losses like inconvenience, emotional distress, and physical pain. The real issue involves who actually pays for these harms and losses.

The primary source of compensation to injured parties comes from the at-fault party's insurance company. In Colorado, individuals are required to carry a minimum of $25,000.00 of liability insurance. Finding out how much coverage the at-fault party has is not as easy as you might think. Unlike other states, in Colorado the at-party is not required to disclose how much insurance is available until a lawsuit is filed, in which case the defendant must disclose available insurance within 30 days.

Issues can arise when multiple people are hurt and there is only a limited amount of available insurance. You may be familiar with policy limits phrased in terms like $100,000/$300,000. What this means is that the insurance provides a maximum of $100,000 per person and a total of $300,000 per incident. If a family of five were seriously hurt in this situation, there would be a total of $300,000 in available coverage.

Generally, if the at fault driver was on the job when the accident occurred, the employer is responsible for the negligence of the driver through a legal concept known as Respondeat Superior. When this occurs, the employer's general liability insurance policy usually provides coverage. These "general liability polices" often carry one million dollars or more in available insurance coverage.

As you can imagine, there are many unfortunate situations when the defendant's insurance policy is not enough to fully compensate for the harms and losses caused. There are several options available when this occurs. First, you can attempt to collect against the at fault driver personally. Here is an example:

Our firm handled a case in which the at fault driver, who happened to be intoxicated, who turned left on a red arrow and caused very serious injuries to our client who was on a motorcycle. Making a bad situation worse, the defendant only had $100,000.00 in available insurance. The defendant's insurance company very quickly offered to settle the case (completely releasing the at fault driver of any personal responsibility) for the $100,000 policy limits. When the driver's assets were checked, however, it became clear the driver had significant assets to pay any judgment. After a few months of intense litigation, the at-fault driver wrote a check for an additional $100,000 to settle the case. Of course, every case is different. If you have any questions regarding your case, please call or email us. The Kaudy Law Firm is here to help.

As you can imagine, in many cases the at-fault party does not have enough insurance, or none at all, to fairly compensate the injured parties. If this occurs, "uninsured/underinsured motorist" coverage may come into play.

Uninsured/Underinsured motorist coverage is known as "first-party insurance coverage." Although not mandatory, most insurance polices issued in Colorado contain uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. Here is an example of how this coverage works: If the at-fault party has $25,000.00 in coverage and the injured party has $100,000.00 in underinsured motorist coverage, that coverage will provide an additional $75,000.00 in available coverage (the at-fault party's insurance is "set-off" against the injured party's underinsured coverage).

In cases with serious injuries (more than $25,000.00 in harms and losses), it is imperative to investigate any sources of available insurance before resolving the case. In some cases, multiple uninsured/underinsured policies may "stack" on top of each other providing additional benefits.

As always, email or call us with any questions. The Kaudy Law Firm is here to help!

Insurance carriers must act in good faith in all dealings with their policyholders. Insurance should help people when they need it most. When you suffer a loss, insurance delays and denials inflict further harm that insurance was designed to avoid. Since few know how insurance works, the industry and courts have adopted informal "rules of the road" to guide insurance companies on how they should behave and not behave. Here are a few rules:

1. Insurers should give equal consideration to their insured's financial interests as they do their own.

2. Insurers should investigate an insured's claim for benefits.

3. Insurers should not deny claims based on a hunch, guess or suspicion.

4. Insurers should not deny claims based on information not contained in their files.

5. Insurers should not deny claims without substantial justification.

6. Insurers should let the insured know why the claim is not being paid or being delayed.

7. Insurers should not delay or deny a claim based on biased one-sided information.

8. Insurers should give the insured factual reasons why the claim is delayed or denied.

9. Insurers should not "lowball" insureds by offering unreasonably low amounts.

10. Insurers should tell insureds of all coverages available and how to obtain the benefits paid for.

11. Insurers should tender all amounts not in dispute and not try to leverage a lower payout by withholding undisputed amounts owed.

12. Insurers can fairly debate the value of a claim only if they engage in a fair debate.