Complete PDF version - Skuld

VIewPoIntUSD 3.1 million. However, it reserved itsright to recover the remainder of moniespaid, and to be paid the equivalent outlayfor maintenance and cure benefitsfrom other potentially responsible parties.Without PGS’ agreement to temporarilyforego its right to recover all moniescurrently due, any settlement wouldhave been impossible. This agreementallowed the case to proceed so that Davidand PGS could jointly prosecute theirclaims, seeking full reimbursement onall counts.The resolution of the case against theowner of the dump truck and the vancompany was termed Phase I becauseevidence revealed, both through theaccident reconstruction and witnessstatements during the early stage of thecase against the dump truck owners andthe van company, that there were goodgrounds to sue the dump truck manufacturer.Because the land-based insuranceprograms of the dump truck companyand van owners were limited, it dictatedan early settlement with those defendantsand provided a vehicle for the moreexpensive products liability action.David’s part of the Phase I settlement wasplaced in a Special Needs Trust to providesupplemental funds for his welfare.These funds later became an importantpart of the settlement arrangementsbetween PGS and David Andrews.Phase IIThe product liability case against themanufacturer was set for trial in Louisianaduring March 2001. There were two majorissues:1) A metal support extending from thedump truck’s gearbox to its tie rodfailed. The police believed that thisfailed at impact and did not cause theaccident, while the dump truck owners’expert believed that this part failed justbefore the accident, causing the dumptruck to veer into the van’s lane.2) The dump truck driver stated that itwas a typical workday as he travelledsouth on Louisiana Highway 1 whenhe felt a jolt and the truck began toveer uncontrollably into the oppositelane. He stated that he lost consciousnessand woke up immediately beforehis truck was entering the Bayou. Thedump truck driver testified with utmostconfidence that he was in his own lanewhen he felt the jolt and began crossingthe centerline of the highway.Although on balance the plaintiff had astrong case, it is not easy to predict how ajury will respond to evidence. Unfortunately,the jury in question issued a verdict infavour of the manufacturers. This wasappealed and before the appeal washeard, the parties reached an amicablesettlement.Structured settlement/annuitiesIn addition, in taking immediate steps tosecure David’s benefits under the AD&Dpolicy, foregoing its right of reimbursementunder the Phase I settlement andparticipating in the products liabilityDavid Andrew’s injuries have left him a ventilatordependentquadriplegiclitigation, both by incurring defence costsand by contributing beyond its contractuallimit to the expenses of the case, PGS/Skuld have provided David with stateof-the-artmedical care. From the dateof the incident through November 2003,when the case was finally settled, cureexpenditures had reached approximatelyUSD 2 million.During the case, PGS did not attempt toclaim that David had reached MaximumMedical Improvement (MMI) because ofthe fact that he was dependent on hisventilator. The weight of controlling USlegal authority held that David’s treatmentwas not merely palliative because theventilator kept his condition fromdeteriorating. This notion was also4 beacon December 2005