Success Stories

For almost 50 years, Lundy Law has practiced personal injury law in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey. We have represented clients in nearly every possible type of personal injury case. While we always strive to achieve the maximum amount allowable under the law for each of our clients, some cases stand out and exemplify the caliber of settlements and jury verdicts we have achieved for our clients.

The cases presented below are real cases, but presented for illustrative and informative purposes only, and should not be used as a promise or guarantee of success. Since each case is different, the handling of each case varies along with the respective results. To learn what can be done about your case, please contact our personal injury lawyers at 1-800-LundyLaw®, or fill out a free online consultation form.

Family Suffers Severe Injuries After Tree Limb Crushes Car
A double recovery for the family resulted in $6 million in total settlements

Soft Tissue Injury Causes Continuous Headaches and Migraines
Jury awards client 12 times judge’s recommendation

New York Undergraduate Assaulted by Bouncer of Club, Sustains Ankle Fracture and Other Injuries
Six-figure jury verdict awarded to plaintiff was four times the highest offer made by the defendant

Client Hit by Van while Running Across the Street to Get to Work
Workers’ comp case settled for six-figures, plus benefits, plus a five-figure settlement from van’s Personal Injury Protection

Fire Catastrophe Leaves Man Severely Burned and Takes the Life of His Father
Suit settled against the City of Philadelphia for the maximum allowed

Inexplicable Tire Explosion Takes Life of Lehigh Valley Construction Worker
A double recovery for the family resulted in more than $1 million in total settlements

60–year–old Woman Knocked to Pavement by Reversing Church Van
Client received a settlement of $1.5 million

New Jersey Jury Awards Lundy Law Client $6 million Against the State of New Jersey

A New Jersey jury has awarded Lundy Law clients $6 million against the State of New Jersey for pain and suffering and economic damages suffered as the result of a falling tree limb. This is the largest jury award ever rendered in the county.

On July 4, 2006, the clients—a husband and wife—their daughter, and two friends were enjoying a Fourth of July ride on a scenic highway in Hunterdon County, New Jersey, when their vehicle was crushed by a massive tree limb that had broken off a tree abutting the roadway. The children in the backseat escaped uninjured due to the heroic efforts of the father/driver who held the roof up until they could escape the car. As a result of the accident, the husband and wife suffered broken necks and the husband suffered a crushed hand, head injuries, and has been unable to work.

The State denied liability claiming that it could not be responsible for patrolling all of the highways in New Jersey to determine if trees posed a dangerous condition. However, during the lawsuit Lundy Law conducted an extensive investigation and was able to obtain information from the state’s Department of Transportation that revealed evidence the State of New Jersey had been aware of falling tree limbs in the area and shockingly failed to correct the dangerous condition in spite of its own regulations to the contrary.

[return to the top]

Chester County Jury Awards Limited Tort Accident Victim 12 Times Judge’s Recommendation

A limited tort client was involved in a Chester County, Pennsylvania auto accident. She sustained soft tissue injuries to her neck and back and began to suffer from migraine headaches. She missed some work over the next couple of years due to the headaches, but was able to function. However, the migraines continued and at times were so significant that she would have to stop what she was doing and rest.

The migraines required frequent visits to a neurologist and prescription medications. Lundy Law was able to prove to a jury that the migraine headaches were directly related to the injuries suffered as a result of the car accident. While the client suffered headaches before the accident she was now on prescription medication to control the migraines.

The Judge tried to broker a settlement, but on the recommendation of Lundy Law, the client refused to accept the judge’s suggested settlement amount. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury awarded our client 12 times the judge’s recommended settlement amount.

[return to the top]

New York Undergraduate Assaulted by Bouncer at Bar Receives Large Jury Verdict

A 20-year-old undergraduate who had recently moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, sustained a severely fractured ankle, requiring the insertion of a plate and screws, and other injuries after being beaten by a bouncer in a local bar. The injury prevented our client from working for seven and a half months.

At first, the bar defended the case by stating that the bouncer was not on its payroll and therefore was not an employee. They stated that the bouncer was simply a patron acting on his own. The bar also defended the actions of one of the bartenders by calling four witnesses to testify that the plaintiff (our client) was rowdy and confrontational.

Lundy Law called witnesses who testified that even though the bouncer was not an “official employee” of the bar, he had acted in that capacity many times before. Lundy Law also presented testimony that the attack was unprovoked.

Before and during the trial, the bar attempted to settle the case for a small amount. Our client, in consultation with Lundy Law, refused the offers. At the end of the week-long trial, the jury returned a verdict that was four times higher than the bar’s settlement offer.

[return to the top]

Careless Pedestrian Collects Workers’ Compensation Benefits, Back Wages, and Insurance Recovery

Our client negligently ran across the street to get to work. He was hit by a van and suffered injuries that prevented him from returning to work. Normally, a person who is negligent cannot collect for injuries suffered in an accident. However, Lundy Law pressed the case for workers’ compensation benefits because, under the law, negligence is not a defense to paying workers’ compensation benefits.

Ordinarily, a person on his way to work is not covered by the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, but there are several exceptions. In this case, one of the exceptions applied: if an employee of a temporary agency does not have a fixed place of employment and is traveling to his temporary place of employment, he can collect workers’ compensation benefits.

Lundy Law litigated this complex case for more than a year. At the time of the accident, our client was on his way to work for a company that had a contract with the federal government to stuff mail bags. Under the law, even though the temporary agency our client was working for was not a federal agency, the law required that the temporary company pay our client the federal minimum wage. The increase was an extra six dollars per hour above what the client was actually paid.

The temporary agency fought paying the increased wages and back wages for the duration that our client had worked. Eventually, the judge in the case made his award of benefits as well as back wages, all based on the higher federal minimum wage. The entire workers’ compensation benefits paid to the client was well over $100,000.

Then Lundy Law tackled the next part of the case. Since the worker did not own a vehicle at the time of the accident, he was entitled to personal injury protection (PIP) from the van that hit him, regardless of fault. The van carried $1 million of insurance, so it paid most of the workers’ benefits during the litigation.

Finally, the PIP carrier paid the client a significant settlement amount.

[return to the top]

Fire Catastrophe Leaves Man Severely Burned and Takes the Life of His Father

In 2003, freezing temperatures combined with snow paralyzed the city of Philadelphia. In the Wynnefield section of the city, a water main broke and the water filled a small street making the street virtually impassable. The residents complained to the city and to the Philadelphia Water Department about the running water and the dangerous condition presented by the ice-impacted street. One night, a fire broke out on that street and, because of the icy conditions, firefighters could not move their equipment down the street to extinguish the blaze.

An elderly man and his son were living in the house that caught on fire. The son, though badly burned, was able to make his way to safety. However, the elderly man was overcome by smoke and unable to make it through the front door. His body was later found at the bottom of the steps.

Family members were devastated at the death of their father and the harm to their brother and quickly turned to Lundy Law. We immediately investigated the cause of the blaze and the circumstances surrounding the fact that the fire department was prevented from entering the street by the icy conditions. We promptly filed suit and, in conjunction with experts, took testimony and uncovered facts that established clear and substantial evidence that the city ignored repeated notices from residents about the icy conditions.

After securing videotapes of the icy conditions, the actual fire, and the hampered rescue efforts, it soon became clear that the city and the Philadelphia Water Department were at fault for failing to respond to the residents’ notices. We alleged that their failure resulted in the burns suffered by the son and were the cause of the wrongful death of his father. The city fought back, trying to blame an “act of nature,” cold weather, and snow as the cause of the personal injuries and wrongful death.

In November 2006, shortly before a trial was scheduled to commence, the City of Philadelphia agreed to a confidential settlement awarding the burn victim and the family of the deceased father slightly less than the maximum amount allowable under the law.

While no amount of money could ever bring back their father, the family was able to redeem their father’s death and secure the futures of his children and grandchildren.

[return to the top]

Inexplicable Tire Explosion Takes Life of Lehigh Valley Construction Worker

In Lehigh Valley, continual rain flooded a family-run business. In an effort to help his brother dig out of the mud that had poured in, our client told his wife to go visit their grandchildren while he went to a family friend in the excavation business to borrow a heavy-duty truck to haul away mud and debris.

When our client arrived to take the truck, he noticed that there was a flat tire, and with the help of the owner, attempted to change the tire and wheel. Suddenly, while the owner was in the shop retrieving a tool, for no apparent reason the tire exploded, shattering the wheel and rim. Pieces flew into our client rendering him unconscious.

Despite being airlifted to a hospital and the doctors’ heroic medical efforts, our client did not survive, leaving behind a widow, two grown children, and grandchildren.

His family of modest means was shattered. After being contacted by the victim’s daughter, Lundy Law sprung into action. We immediately met with the family, contacted the state police, obtained medical records, and visited the site of the accident. We even found and hired—at our own expense—a nationally-recognized tire expert who we flew in to view the remote site of the wrongful death and inspect the truck.

However, without an explanation of the facts surrounding the accident and the ability to place negligence on the owner of the commercial truck or a defective tire, the insurance companies involved refused to even discuss payment to the aggrieved family. The owner did not see the explosion and the only person who knew exactly what happened, the victim, was dead. Without the facts to support some theory of negligence no one was willing to accept blame for the wrongful death.

Soon after becoming involved in the case, Lundy Law developed a theory with the opinion of the expert that the method employed by the owner of the truck to “air” the tire was far outside the safety measures that should have been taken, which were well known by owners of such equipment.

We argued that the owner was liable merely because he knew, or should have known, that he was creating a highly dangerous condition by failing to engage the proper safety equipment when he allowed the victim to place himself near the tire that was about to be filled.

After grueling cross examination of the owner, and after submission of the expert report, the owner’s insurance company relented and tendered the full amount of the owner’s insurance policy to the family.

But we were not content with the amount available under the truck owner’s policy. The victim carried under-insured car insurance, and we set out to collect under that policy as well. The victim’s own insurer argued against paying under his policy on the grounds that this type of accident was not covered by the car policy, and that the victim, a long-time operator of construction equipment, should have known how to safely place air in these types of tires.

The wording in the policy was unclear and ambiguous. Lundy Law argued that the insurance company drafted the policy language, and the victim would have the expectation of coverage for this type of accident. Finally, we demonstrated that the victim’s knowledge of these types of tires and the conditions under which they should be filled was far outside his experience in the construction job he had held most of his adult life.

The victim’s insurance company had little choice. Facing insurance bad faith damages for failing to pay its own insured under the policy, it finally offered to tender almost all of the insurance policy proceeds. We advised the family to accept the offer and avoid a lengthy and emotionally grueling trial. Having obtained a settlement from the victim’s own insurance, we were able to double the recovery for the family.

[return to the top]

60–year–old Woman Receives $1.5 million in Delaware County

A 60–year–old woman who was knocked to the pavement by a reversing church van received a settlement of $1.5 million in her case that was scheduled to go to trial in Delaware County. Defendants argued that the client and her husband were comparatively negligent because they saw the van and failed to be sure that the van driver was aware of their presence before they walked behind the van. The defendants also argued that the client’s injuries were the result of her pre-accident scoliosis. The client had several spinal surgeries before the accident. After the accident, she was able to get herself up and declined medical attention.

However, she developed back pain within several days, and 6 months later was diagnosed with a new herniated disc that required two surgeries. Lundy Law attorneys retained multiple experts, including accident reconstruction, neurosurgery, vocational, and economic experts, and successfully convinced the defendants to offer a substantial settlement in a very conservative jurisdiction.

[return to the top]

icon