In Sykes v. Singh, ___ P.3d ___, No. 76009-2-I, 2018 WL 5146747 (Wash. Ct. App., Div. 1, filed August 13, 2018, publication ordered October 16, 2018), a liability carrier refused to defend its insured, the insured settled rather than face an underlying trial and verdict, and the carrier challenged the reasonableness of the insured's settlement. Standard stuff in refusal-to-defend cases these days.
In this particular case, the insured's settlement included what the appellate court called "general damages." What the court meant by this phrase is explained in more detail in the quotation below. The interesting thing about this case is the carrier's argument.
The carrier argued in this case that the insured's settlement was not reasonable because no expert testimony was provided to support the reasonableness of the insured's settlement particularly his pain and suffering and emotional distress, and loss of consortium.
In other words, instead of contending that experts are "hired guns" or the like when they testify about personal injury damages, in this case the carrier contended that experts are indispensable to proving personal injury damages.
The appellate court was having none of it:
¶ 26 Zurich also challenges the general damages. The settlement allocated approximately $150,000 in general damages for Sykes and $30,000 for the loss of consortium by his family members. Sykes attributed his general damages to pain and suffering and the emotional trauma of the accident. Zurich objects to the absence of expert testimony but fails to show that expert testimony is needed to support an award of general damages. Support for the general damages was provided by Sykes’ own testimony along with declarations from friends and family that after the accident, Sykes became depressed and withdrawn. Zurich argues that the allocation to the Sykes children for loss of consortium was error in view of Sykes’ testimony that he spent more time with them and had greater appreciation for them as the result of the accident. But in view of the evidence that Sykes suffered from ongoing depression, it was reasonable to include loss of consortium damages in the settlement.
Sykes v. Singh, ___ P.3d ___, No. 76009-2-I, 2018 WL 5146747, at p. *5, ¶ 26 (Wash. Ct. App., Div. 1, filed August 13, 2018, publication ordered October 16, 2018).
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2018 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments