A Battle Every Step of the Way

Ben Boncella has been a State Farm customer for years. When he was hit by a driver whose insurance company was also State Farm, he thought the insurance company would be more willing to “take care of their own.” He realized how off-base his thinking was a week or two into the process of trying to handle his own claim.

Additionally, Ben feels that the insurance company/claims adjuster will give you zero respect if you are trying to resolve a claim on your own. “Although they try to come across as being nice and friendly, they are trying to take advantage of you by getting you to admit fault or partial responsibility for the crash.”  

Ben thought his case was clear cut, and that he would be successful in handling the claim himself; a police officer had witnessed the crash and the driver, who admitted that she was in the wrong, was cited at the scene. Yet State Farm denied responsibility to pay out his claim for bike repairs, property damage, and medical bills. “I was extremely surprised by how unwilling the insurance company was to pay my claim. I thought it would be very straightforward – they would pay for the damage to my bike and kit and cover the medical expenses I incurred as a result of the collision,” he says. “I wish I would’ve known how much of a pain the entire process of battling the driver’s auto insurance was going to be.”

When State Farm outright denied liability after months of working at it himself, Ben decided to contact and hire our firm. “As soon as Megan got involved, their tone changed immediately, they became more responsive, more cooperative, and the process of getting this resolved was expedited,” he says. 

The big takeaway from the whole process for Ben? It doesn’t matter how obvious the case/incident, the cyclist will always have to fight every step of the way. He was in a bike lane, riding below the posted speed limit, wearing brightly colored clothing, at a safe time of day, traveling on a route commonly used by local cyclists, had lights on his bike, a police officer witnessed the crash, the driver was cited on the scene, etc. “It doesn’t matter that you do everything right, and it’s extremely obvious. Insurance companies are out to make money, so they make you fight for everything. Do not give up!”

It was the morning of June 8, 2018, around 6:30 am when Ben was riding his bike to work heading north in the bike lane on Garrison Street in Lakewood, CO, and was coming up along vehicles that were stopped at a red light. Ben was wearing a cycling kit, a helmet, and sunglasses along with a backpack full of work clothes.

As he was riding through the intersection at Garrison and West 1st Avenue, the driver of a Ford Ranger pick-up truck failed to yield to Ben while making a right-hand turn, causing a front to side collision. Officer Arellano, who witnessed the crash, stated that Ben was not speeding and was riding properly in the bike lane with safety attire/equipment. Ben was not able to stop quickly enough to avoid the collision since the vehicle turned right in front of him.  He crashed into the front right side of the vehicle. 

The driver stopped immediately after hitting Ben and told the officer that she saw Ben but did not think he would be at the point of the turn. Officer Arellano stated that the driver was clearly at fault and that she needed to be better aware of the road and her surroundings to include checking the bike lane before turning. There were no obstructions, weather, or road conditions that would have affected her view of Ben or her ability to wait for him before turning according to Officer Arellano.

Ben was treated at the West Metro Fire Station, which is located directly across the street, where his injuries were cleaned up and bandaged. Ben finished his ride into work, but he went to St. Anthony's Hospital to get treated when his symptoms worsened after a few hours.  He had road rash on the left side of his body and had a CT of his head and spine done as well as x-rays of his chest and wrist.

Citation:  Careless driving, pleaded down to an unsafe vehicle charge.

Fines/Penalties: Two points assessed to the driver’s license and $134 in fines.The driver has two past convictions in 2004 in Lakewood and Denver, where she was also charged for driving an unsafe or defective vehicle.

Ben feels like it is way too easy for drivers to get charges reduced.

“She should have pleaded guilty to the charge the police officer cited her with because that’s what actually happened. If we keep letting people off easy, they’re never going to get any better and cyclists aren’t going to be any safer.”

— Ben Boncella

Eventually, Ben was back on his bike, but it was painful and he obviously wasn’t 100% healed physically. It took awhile before the swelling, bruising, road rash, and soreness went away, but he was eventually back to his normal riding and workouts. 

He was nervous to get back on the roads after the crash and rode a lot more bike paths afterwards.  Gradually, Ben transitioned back to more and more road riding, but even to this day (a year and a half later), he is still nervous riding through intersections. “Drivers don’t use their turn signals enough or check their passenger side mirrors before making right hand turns,” he says. 

If he could wave a magic wand, Ben would make the punishment for drivers who hit cyclists much more severe.  “All it takes is a quick Google search and you can read hundreds of stories and articles about drivers hitting and killing cyclists yet only having to pay a small fine or do some community service. It’s sad to see how little the life of a cyclist is valued in these situations.”

Ben recommends that every cyclist get educated about local cycling laws/regulations and follow them when riding. Ride defensively when you need to, but also be courteous and respectful to drivers as much as possible.

Although Ben initially tried to deal with State Farm on his own, he was glad that he handed over the case to our team. “When I spoke with Megan about having her take over my case, she was extremely up front and honest about what would be involved, the timeline, the outcome, the financial side of things, etc. In the end, things worked out almost exactly as she had initially described them to me. The whole team was incredibly well organized and thorough. I’m not happy to have gone through this, but I’m glad that I had such a great team of people on my side fighting for me.”

Drunk Driver Hits Cyclist From Behind, Flees Scene - Insurer Asserts Comparative Negligence Defense

On June 9, 2015, Brandon was out for a bike ride.  Having recently moved to Colorado, this was one of his first few rides in the Littleton area.  It was just before 6pm, and he was on his way back home. 

Without warning, Brandon was hit from behind by a motorist, and thrown off his bike into the street. His head, face, hands and knees were bleeding badly.  Despite his obvious injuries, the motorist fled the scene.  Brandon recalls none of this- as his next/first memory was waking up in the emergency room, where he’d been transported by ambulance.

Luckily, a passerby witnessed the event and caught the license plate number of the fleeing motorist.  Police were called and located the driver in her home about an hour after the collision.  She was drinking Schnapps...  The officers conducted a Blood Alcohol Test (BAC). 

We later learned that the motorist worked for police and fire dispatch.  It is believed she thought that if she began drinking at home, perhaps the BAC could not conclusively prove she had been drinking at the time of the crash.  However, when results came back showing her BAC was .317, her theory fell apart.  This level of intoxication meant that she either drank to near-deathly levels in that one hour, or more realistically, she had been drinking before the crash, was intoxicated at the time she hit Brandon, and then continued drinking once home. 

Hit a human.  Leave.  Run home and start slamming shots?  Say what?

The driver was cited with numerous violations.  During the pendency of her criminal case, we learned that her versions of what happened varied drastically;  from, “I thought I hit a pothole,” to “A cyclist darted in front of my car,” to “The Arby’s fell off my passenger seat onto the floor and I reached down to pick it up.” Suffice it to say, these explanations all fell short of accepting responsibility.

Meanwhile, Brandon had hired our office to represent him, and we had begun the process of pursuing the motorist’s insurance – State Farm (SF)–for his injuries and claims.  As in our last blog post, SF’s initial settlement offer was grossly inadequate in light of his injuries, as well as in light of their insured’s/the motorist’s conduct.  At our urging they increased their offers, minimally, $5000 at a time, though ultimately still way outside the realm of possible settlement value.  This, despite their insured’s guilty plea in the traffic/criminal case...  SF seemed to think that they did not owe my client adequate compensation. So, we filed suit.   

In Colorado, when someone commits negligence, but also does so with exacerbating factors, (or what we like to call, willful and wanton conduct), a Plaintiff is permitted to seek leave from the Court to add an additional claim for punitive damages (C.R.S. 13-1-102).  Punitive damages are not based on any damages or claims that the Plaintiff incurred – they are solely intended to punish someone for their misconduct.  A jury may award any amount it chooses for punitive damages – it is solely intended to punish someone with a large monetary verdict.  In Colorado, insurers don’t eventually pay a punitive jury award – the actual wrongdoer does.  Here, our plan was to amend our Complaint to add a claim for punitives, to allow the jury to punish the driver for her conduct with – we hoped – a large monetary sanction. 

However, before we got to this juncture, we noted the content of the Answer filed by State Farm’s defense counsel.  In it, State Farm, on behalf of its insured/at-fault driver, asserted some curious affirmative defenses, including one that claimed Brandon contributed to the collision:

"The proximate cause of Plaintiff's claimed damages and/or injuries, if any, may have been Plaintiff's comparative negligence, which conduct either bars or reduces Plaintiff's recovery, if any, in accordance with Colorado's Comparative Negligence Statute.  C.R.S. 13-21-111 (2015)." 

SF also claimed that it must’ve been someone else that caused Brandon's injuries and damages:

“The proximate cause of Plaintiff’s claimed damages and/or injuries, if any, may have been the act or omissions of a third party or parties whom Defendant has no control, to whom Defendant has no relationship, and for whom Defendant is not legally responsible.”

Interesting.  

Now in the practice of defending law suits, it is fairly common for the Defendant’s Answer to contain some boilerplate language, as well as boilerplate affirmative defenses.  However, under the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, "The signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation."  (C.R.C.P. Rule 11(a)).

Keep in mind that by the time the Answer was filed, the motorist had pled guilty in the criminal case to charges resulting from her careless driving causing injury, her fleeing the scene, and her driving while intoxicated.  While the burdens of proof are different in the criminal and the civil cases, and her plea of guilty in the criminal case would not per se be admissible in Brandon's civil case, her attorneys knew that she had confessed to her actions.  They knew, because we’d provided them the transcript of her sentencing hearing... Where I was present, as was Brandon and his wife and their young son. 

Imagine our surprise then, to see SF take this approach in litigation.  We could not wait to see what they claimed Brandon did, to contribute to him being hit from behind by their drunk driver!  We found this conduct very curious – that the defendant and her counsel would deny her responsibility and negligence, in this pleading filed with the Court.  We wanted very much for the jury in this case to hear about her denials and to compare that to the testimony of the bystander who witnessed the collision, and the testimony of the law enforcement officers who visited her home shortly after.  We wanted the jury to compare her denials of fault with her legally-documented intoxication.  What a trial this would be! 

SF counsel by filing such an Answer, had placed its insured in a very precarious position: punitive damages would not be paid by SF, nor could their insured discharge them in bankruptcy.  If we went to trial and got a large punitive award, this Judgment would follow (and likely financially cripple) the driver for life.  And Jeffco juries are known to punish people who do things like this with large punitive verdicts.  Imagine the jurors' response to hearing that the Answer and legal position adopted by the driver and her counsel, was that Brandon had done something to contribute to this collision!  SF had exposed its insured to this very real possibility, with the Answer it filed.  It made statements in the Answer that arguably violated Colorado Rules regarding pleadings and implicated sanctions. 

We pointed out this interesting scenario to the lawyers at SF.  The case settled shortly thereafter, for the amount we demanded pre-suit.

Boilerplate language in a Defendant’s Answer given these facts, was a game changer.  Moral of the story: while multi-billion dollar insurance companies may have large, well-staffed law firms and attorneys at their disposal, failure to pay attention to the actual issues can be devastating.  This is why our firm controls (carefully!) our caseload, and this is why we read Answers and affirmative defenses carefully, and show up at sentencing hearings.  Bottom line: we won’t allow our injured clients to be bullied.  To have a driver drink, hit a cyclist from behind and flee the scene, and then to have the audacity to respond in an Answer that he was in ANY WAY at fault or a contributing factor, is offensive. Sometimes a case resembles a really hard bike ride: It's a slog to the top of the climb, but hanging in there, and continuing to work hard, does pay off.  Once again we had a tenacious client, who was not desperate to settle, and who was game to take this case all the way to trial. It takes courage and fortitude- as I've discussed in previous blog posts.  

Now, what about that driver?  What happened to her?  The day of her sentencing hearing in Judge Enquist’s courtroom (Jeffco) was the Monday following a Friday hearing, in which a young man who’d been drinking, drove up Lookout Mountain on the wrong side of the road and caused cyclist Tom Flanigan’s death.  There, Judge Enquist had sentenced the driver to the max allowed under the terms of his plea: 10 years in the Department of Corrections (DOC).  Now, 3 days later, Judge Enquist was again hearing facts of a drunk driver hitting a cyclist.  She was beyond furious.  Under the terms of the plea reached with the District Attorney’s office, the Judge sentenced this driver to six years - the max she could order under the plea.  Counsel for the Defendant asked for a stay of execution (a few days’ time) so that the driver could get her affairs in order.  The Judge said no – she was remanded immediately and began serving her sentence that day.  Of the 6 year sentence, she will likely only serve 12-15 months total. 

Did we want to see this mother and wife sit in a jail cell?  Did it make Brandon and his wife happy, or feel any better?  Did it feel like justice?  Of course not.  We all wish this had never happened and that this woman had not chosen to drink, drive, hit a cyclist and then intentionally flee the scene.  It impacted everyone's life in a negative way.  Situations like this are exactly the reason why Colorado bike advocates worked with the legislature to make the hit-and-run statute penalties stiffer: because if someone "accidentally hits a cyclist," that’s bad enough, but if they intentionally leave the scene and EMS is not immediately summoned to care for the cyclist, they may (and often do) die from their injuries.   Leaving the scene of a bike crash is an act that deserves to be punished harshly. 

If you’d like to read the sentencing hearing transcript: 

Is it legal to wear earphones while cycling in Colorado?

A recent cycling organization newsletter featured a“Bike Law Q&A,” wherein the author addressed the legality of wearing earphones while riding your bike: 

I personally agree with the author’s statement that, “while Colorado Law prohibits the operator of a motor vehicle from wearing earphones while driving, the law does not apply to bicyclists.  That’s because the statute specifically refers to ‘motor vehicle’ rather than ‘vehicle.’” 

However based on an experience I had in Denver Traffic Court last summer, I want to share with Colorado cyclists the reality that some City Attorneys and Judges may see it differently…

Colorado law prohibits the operator of a motor vehicle from wearing earphones while driving:

§ 42-4-1411. Use of earphones while driving

Write here...

(1)(a) No person shall operate a motor vehicle while wearing earphones.

(b) For purposes of this subsection (1), “earphones” includes any headset, radio, tape player, or other similar device which provides the listener with radio programs, music, or other recorded information through a device attached to the head and which covers all of or a portion of the ears. “Earphones” does not include speakers or other listening devices which are built into protective headgear.

…

Well what exactly is a “motor vehicle,” and is a cyclist within that definition?

42-1-102. Definitions

As used in articles 1 to 4 of this title, unless the context otherwise requires:

(58) “Motor vehicle” means any self-propelled vehicle that is designed primarily for travel on the public highways and that is generally and commonly used to transport persons and property over the public highways or a low-speed electric vehicle; except that the term does not include low-power scooters, wheelchairs, or vehicles moved solely by human power.

…

Cyclists should therefore be considered vehicles, moved solely by human power, but not “motor vehicles.”[1]

It would seem to follow then, that a cyclist could not be cited or charged pursuant to section CRS 42-4-1411 for wearing earphones under Colorado statute, because a cyclist is not a motor vehicle and the statute only addresses motor vehicles ….

Right?   

Last summer I had the opportunity to make this very argument in Denver Traffic Court.  The City Attorney filed a motion to add additional charges, one of which was a charge for wearing earphones.

At our motions hearing, I argued that this citation could not apply to a cyclist because he is not a “motor vehicle.”  If the Colorado Legislature had intended CRS 42-4-1411 to encompass cyclists, low-power scooters or similar, it would have used “vehicle” instead of “motor vehicle.”

The Denver City Attorney’s position was that CRS 42-4-1412(1) trumped the definition of “motor vehicle” in CRS 41-1-102, making it illegal for cyclists to wear earphones.  

CRS 42-4-1412(1) states:

Every person riding a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle shall have all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under this article, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application.

To illustrate, I include excerpts from the transcript of our hearing:

MS. HOTTMAN:  With regard to the charges that the City proposes, I’d like to start with the headphones charge. As Your Honor pointed out earlier, that statute applies to motor vehicles. Pursuant to the statute, it says, “No person shall operate a motor vehicle while wearing headphones”. When you look at the definition section, 42-1-102, it specifically defines motor vehicles. And it specifically excludes low-powered scooters, wheelchairs, or vehicles move solely by human power, which by definition includes bicycles. On its face, that statute cannot apply to a bicyclist.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Any response?

CITY ATTORNEY: Your Honor, if I may respond. As to the headphones charge, Your Honor, I understand the Defense’s argument that it only applies to motor vehicles. That argument, same argument can be made for all the statutes under the motor vehicle code. The Legislature has seen fit to add 42-4-1412 for that specific purpose of saying bicycles are to be treated exactly as cars for this section. That is the purpose of adding those. And although it states motor vehicles under the use of earphones while driving, 42-4-1411, it still applies. It is still under the sub-—under the section of bicycles being applied to cars.

The Traffic Court Judge subsequently allowed the addition of the earphone charge. 

Based on these inconsistencies in interpretation among city attorneys, private attorneys, and judges, Colorado cyclists should be prepared to face legal repercussions if they choose to wear earphones while riding.  This issue is most likely to arise in an accident between a cyclist and a motorist, when the police investigate the facts surrounding the accident and discover that the cyclist may have been wearing earphones.  Then it becomes an issue of apportioning fault among the parties, i.e. was the cyclist contributorily negligent by wearing them because he/she could not hear the car approaching from behind, for example. 

This article also appeared on 303cycling.com on January 22, 2014