A $1,050,000 settlement was reached on behalf of a Pennsylvania client in a complex underinsured motorist (UIM) case involving Erie Insurance. The recovery underscores the importance of strategic expert retention, a thorough understanding of biomechanics engineering, and the significant impact of Pennsylvania’s UIM “stacking” law when properly applied.
The Crash and Insurance Landscape
The case arose from a rear-end motor vehicle collision in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Our client was stopped at a red light when her vehicle was struck from behind. Liability for the crash itself was undisputed. The primary dispute centered not on how the collision occurred, but on whether it could have caused the extensive injuries and surgeries that followed.
After recovering the at-fault driver’s insurance policy liability limits, our client pursued UIM benefits through her own insurer, Erie Insurance. Because this was a Pennsylvania policy, the law permits the stacking of UIM limits across multiple insured vehicles. In this case, the client had three insured vehicles, allowing the UIM policy limits to be stacked, significantly increasing the available coverage. This statutory feature, which is not permitted in New Jersey, proved critical to achieving a full and fair recovery.
Defense Strategy: “Low-Impact” Equals No Injury
The defense argued the collision was a “minor, low-impact” event that could not have caused serious injury. Erie retained a defense biomechanical expert to support the position that the forces involved were insufficient to result in the claimed spinal damage or the need for surgical intervention.
That argument ignored the critical reality that the client’s pre-existing spinal condition, including a prior cervical fusion, made her significantly more vulnerable to injury—even from a lower-speed impact.
To counter the defense narrative, Mr. Paglione retained a biomechanical engineering expert with extensive credentials in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, and clinical biomechanics. Through detailed analysis of vehicle dynamics, acceleration forces, and occupant motion, our expert demonstrated that the rear-end impact subjected the client’s body to significant inertial forces.
More importantly, the expert explained that individuals with prior spinal fusion surgery exist in a biomechanically fragile state. Adjacent spinal levels are exposed to increased stress, making them far more susceptible to injury during a traumatic event, that might otherwise be tolerated by a healthy spine. This testimony directly refuted the defense claim that “low impact” means “no injury,” and provided a scientifically-grounded explanation for why this collision caused devastating consequences for our client.
Surgical History at Hospital for Special Surgery
Following the crash, our client experienced progressive cervical spine symptoms that failed to resolve with conservative care. Ultimately, she underwent two cervical spine procedures at the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS), one of the nation’s leading orthopedic hospitals.
Her surgeries included removal of the prior cervical instrumentation, with decompression and a three-level fusion.
Linking the Crash to the Surgeries
A central theme of the case was causation—establishing that the collision materially worsened the client’s spinal condition and precipitated the need for additional fusion surgeries. Medical experts concluded that while the client had a prior fusion, she was functioning at a stable baseline before the crash. The collision accelerated adjacent segment failure and caused permanent anatomical changes that would not have occurred absent the trauma.
This combination of medical causation testimony and biomechanical analysis proved decisive in demonstrating that the crash was the precipitating event leading to multiple surgeries and long-term disability.
A Meaningful Result Through Strategy and Law
Ultimately, Mr. Paglione was able to resolve the case for $1.05 million, a result made possible by leveraging Pennsylvania’s stacking statute, presenting credible and compelling expert testimony, and refusing to allow a “minor impact” defense to obscure the medical reality.
This outcome reflects Szaferman Lakind’s commitment to aggressive advocacy in Personal Injury cases and our firm’s ability to navigate the intersection of law, medicine, and biomechanics to achieve justice for our injured clients.
