$6 millionSettlement

$6 Million Policy-Limits Settlement for Pedestrian with Severe Brain Injuries During COVID-19 Lockdown

Settlement · Florida · 2020

Won by Leesfield & Partners.

Justin Shapiro of Leesfield and Partners secured a $6 million policy-limits settlement for a client who suffered multiple skull fractures and brain hemorrhages after being struck in a crosswalk, completing the resolution during the Florida COVID-19 shutdown of 2020.

What happened

In October 2019, the firm's client was walking through a marked crosswalk with the right of way when a pickup truck driver made an illegal left turn and struck her. The driver did not stop. Instead, he drove over her with the vehicle, which carried steel bars on its front end, running over her left leg and body as she lay in the road.

The impact left her with multiple skull fractures and severe brain hemorrhages. She was unconscious at the scene. The injuries were classified as catastrophic, and the road to any recovery, medical or legal, would be prolonged and uncertain.

Justin Shapiro took the case and began building liability. His investigation showed the driver had ignored traffic signage and failed to observe a pedestrian who had the right of way in a clearly marked crosswalk. With liability well-established, the focus shifted to extracting full value from the available coverage.

Then Florida shut down. In March 2020, as courts closed and in-person proceedings halted across the state, Shapiro adapted. Expert witnesses were coordinated remotely. Settlement negotiations moved to video conferencing. The firm maintained contact with its client and continued developing the record while most litigation in the state stalled. The Daily Business Review later highlighted the result as a notable example of pandemic-era negotiation, published August 27, 2020.

The settlement came in at $6 million, representing the full policy limits available. The case resolved in under nine months from the time Shapiro took it on. The firm noted at the time that some insurers were pressuring claimants to accept discounted resolutions during the uncertainty of the lockdown period. This result went in the opposite direction.

Sources

This account is drawn from contemporaneous public reporting and the court record.