Mrs. Bennett was a front seat passenger of her families SUV. Her husband was the driver of the vehicle and their two young children were in the back seat. They were pulling out of their driveway and had stopped. Their vehicle was then struck by another, to the extent that the side impact air bags deployed, striking Mrs. Bennett and rendering her briefly unconscious. When Mrs. Bennett “came to”, all she could remember was what she described as a “screaming in her head”. She had poor memory of the events after the air bags had deployed. Police and ambulance EMS attended the scene of the accident.
In the days, weeks and months after the car accident, Mrs.Bennett experienced numerous cognitive, physical, emotional and physiological impairments including but not limited to chronic headaches, memory loss, poor concentration and extreme fatigue; many of which were later proven by the Kahler Personal Injury Law Firm to be permanent repercussions of a Mild Traumatic Brain Injury resulting from the car accident.
Before the accident Mrs. Bennett was a successful 37 year old working mother, wife, designer, Rotarian and business owner. Mrs. Bennett was a healthy, social and active person who was heavily involved in charity work within her Toronto business community. Mrs Bennett was self-employed in a business that she herself started 13 years earlier. She was the founder and owner of a small advertising and design agency in Toronto that employed 6 people including herself.
In the months after the motor vehicle collision, Mrs Bennett found her ability to attend her workplace severely compromised resulting from injuries suffered in the accident. She had to rely heavily on her employees to “step in” and attempt to complete the job tasks she successfully performed prior to the MVA accident.
Based on the circumstances surrounding the car accident, Mrs. Bennett’s husband was found to be 2/3 or 66% responsible for the accident that caused his wife’s injuries. Mrs. Bennett attempted to obtain rehabilitation and no fault car accident benefits from her own insurance company for which she was allotted a maximum of $3500.00 in total compensation. Mrs. Bennett’s insurance company asserted that Mrs.Bennetts injuries fell within the minor injury guideline (MIG) as defined in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS)
It was very clear at this point to Mrs.Bennett and her family that her insurance company and the insurance company of the second driver were not going to fulfill their policy and liability obligations to her. She was very aware of the medical treatments and rehabilitation she desperately needed and the devastating impact her injuries were having on her ability to earn an income. Mrs. Bennett then called the Kahler Personal Injury Law Firm in Toronto looking for help.
Lawyers from the Kahler Personal Injury Law Firm quickly produced and served Mr. Bennett (the husband) and the other driver in the MVA a statement of claim on behalf of Mrs.Bennett. It was explained to Mrs. Bennett that even though Mr. Bennett and the second driver were named in the lawsuit – any financial compensation obtained within policy liability limits (in this case 1,000,000.00 for each driver) was the responsibility of the insurance companies. Within the claim, the Kahler Personal Law Firm sought damages to help compensate Mrs.Bennett for medical rehabilitation, home care support, pain and suffering and lost future income.
The insurance company for the second driver claimed that they were not responsible for any losses suffered by Mrs.Bennett in the motor vehicle accident. They asserted that 100 % fault for the accident rest with the actions of Mr.Bennett alone.
Mr.Bennett’s insurance company claimed that they were not responsible for any car accident benefits exceeding $3500.00 – because injuries Mrs.Bennett suffered in the accident were minor in nature and fell within the minor injury guideline. Mr.Bennett’s insurance company claimed that Mrs.Bennett was fully capable of performing any and all of her pre-accident activities. Compensation for future medical rehabilitation, home care support, pain and suffering and lost future income was flatly denied by both insurance companies.
The Khaler Personal Injury Law Firm gathered and demonstrated evidence establishing that Mrs.Bennetts injuries were serious and very much real. The Kahler lawyers argued that had Mrs.Bennett not been injured in the MVA, she would have continued to earn a good income and that she would have continued to be social and capable of caring for self and her family.
The Kahler Personal Injury Lawyers then sent Mrs.Bennett to some of the most highly respected doctors in the province of Ontario. These experts started to treat and document the full extent of Mrs. Bennett’s injuries. In efforts to supported this claim, the Kahler Law Firm obtained expert reports from the following specialists:
- Occupational Therapists
- Attendant Care Specialists
- Forensic Accountants
- Sleep Study Specialists
- Nutrition Specialists
- Doctors of Nuclear Medicine
- Pain Specialists
- Accident Reconstruction Specialists
The defense lawyers representing the insurance companies continued to deny compensation. A mediation conference with all parties involved was scheduled. At mediation, the lawyers for the defense were defiant in their position that the speed at which the second vehicle was traveling could not have caused the extent of injuries Mrs. Bennett was claiming. The Kahler Law Firm asserted that vehicle speeds were enough to deploy airbags which were the actual mechanism of Mrs. Bennett’s injuries. At this point the insurance defense offered Mrs. Bennett a drastically low settlement offer of $60,000.
Based on the advice of the Kahler Law Firm, Mrs Bennett decided to not accept this offer – and take her claim to Pre-trial which was the next step in the car accident claims process.
During the Pre-trial process, the defense was forced to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence gathered in support of Mrs. Bennett’s Claim. Mrs Bennett and the Kahler Law Firm were fully willing to take her claim to court. This became clearly evident to the defense, at which time they offered to settle Mrs. Bennett’s claim for nearly $700,000.00. Mrs.Bennett accepted this offer.