$10.4M verdict over fatal pedestrian collision includes award against insurance brokers
The plaintiff claimed they relied on the broker’s expertise when purchasing insurance and believed they were fully covered.
An eight-figure verdict that a Pennsylvania jury recently awarded to the estate of a man who was fatally struck by a vehicle while jogging included a more than $450,000 award against the decedent’s insurance broker.
In late June, a Philadelphia jury handed up a $10,456,250 verdict to the estate of Neil Lipschutz, a 62-year-old man who was fatally struck in Abington, Pennsylvania, in 2019 as the result of reckless driving. The award included $10 million against the 21-year-old driver, Hatim Ramadan, who pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide last year, and $456,250 against defendants Fonner Insurance Associates and Eric Fonner.
Brian Chacker of Gay & Chacker is representing Nancy Rosenberg, the administrator of Lipschutz’s estate.
“I am truly happy for Nancy and her sons finally to have had their day in court and to have had the jury recognize the severity of their loss,” Chacker said. “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. I also am pleased that the jury recognized the steps Neil Lipschutz took to protect his family and held the insurance broker accountable for the coverages lost because of his failures.”
According to Rosenberg’s pretrial memo, following the collision, Ramadan’s insurance carrier tendered its policy limit of $25,000. Lipschutz’s personal policy through Progressive Insurance also provided its accidental death benefits and underinsurance coverage for $275,000.
Lipschutz also had a business insurance policy through United Financial Casualty, which included a $1 million underinsurance limit, but that coverage was denied because it required that Lipschutz be occupying the insured vehicle in order to recover the benefits. The memo said the Fonner defendants had sold Lipschutz the insurance.
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.
The plaintiff contended that the Fonner defendants never explained that the coverage did not apply if he was not in the vehicle, and failed to notify Lipschutz that there was a coverage endorsement called “Drive Other Car” that would have provided the coverage regardless of whether Lipschutz was in the vehicle.
“Defendant Fonner knew that Neil was not sophisticated in insurance coverages, yet wanted to make sure he personally was covered in the case of a serious injury or death,” the memo said. “Defendant Fonner knew that Neil was relying on him to provide advice and counsel regarding how Neil could best achieve his insurance goals and knew that Nancy and Neil would rely on his expertise and advice without question.”
This alleged failure to provide Lipschutz with the coverage he wanted meant he lost the opportunity to recover on the $1 million policy.
In response, Fonner argued in his pretrial memo that Lipschutz had been cost-conscious when purchasing insurance, and had previously canceled both a personal umbrella and commercial umbrella policy before the accident.
Further, Fonner noted Rosenberg’s testimony that she did not recall communicating with them before the accident, was not present during any communications with them, and did not know whether Lipschutz reviewed the commercial policy before the accident.
“There is no evidence that JDM or Mr. Lipschutz requested any other insurance beyond what was requested in the signed application and provided for in the commercial auto policy,” Fonner said in his memo.
After a five-day trial before Judge Michael Erdos, the jury rendered its verdict.
A post-trial motion from Rosenberg filed July 7 argued that the verdict sheet should not have divided the award between the reckless driver and the insurance defendants.
“While the case against the Fonner defendants sounded in negligence, the underlying issue with respect to the loss suffered by Nancy as a result of the Fonner defendants’ negligence was a set figure based in contract. Had there been $1,000,000 in underinsurance coverage as there should have been and as Neil was led to believe existed, then the payment of that $1,000,000 policy would not be a separate award on the verdict sheet,” the motion said. “Here because the verdict entered against the defendant Ramadan was for $10,000,000 ($9,000,000 for Neil’s survival claim), an amount well in excess of the combined $275,000 in third-party insurance coverage and first-level underinsurance, the uncontroverted evidence established that any verdict against the Fonner defendants was required to be for the total value of the lost underinsurance coverage — $1,000,000.”
Timothy Ventura of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin represented the Fonners and did not return a call seeking comment. Richard Margolis of Margolis Edelstein, who represented the Ramadan defendants, declined to comment.
Related: