When a motorcycle crash happens at a busy Northern Virginia intersection, the insurance company’s first question isn’t always how badly the rider was hurt. Sometimes it’s whether it can blame the rider for the crash. In this case, Progressive denied our client’s claim and argued that he was responsible for the collision. BenGlassLaw built the case around the evidence and ultimately recovered $100,000.
Case at a Glance
- Case Type: Motorcycle accident
- Location: Falls Church, Virginia
- Client: Northern Virginia motorcyclist
- Injury: Multiple fractures and open wounds requiring surgery and months of recovery
- At-Fault Insurer: Progressive
- Initial Progressive Offer: $25,000
- Final Progressive Recovery: $100,000
- Additional Coverage: Medical payments coverage through a resident-relative auto policy
The Crash
“Michael” was riding his motorcycle through a busy intersection in Falls Church on an ordinary weekday afternoon when a driver attempting to turn left crossed directly into his path.
He never saw the collision coming.
The impact threw him from the motorcycle. He was taken by ambulance to the hospital, where he spent several days receiving treatment for multiple fractures and open wounds. Surgery followed, along with months of physical therapy and other care.
Because his job was physically demanding, the injuries also kept him out of work for nearly six months.
What should have been a straightforward question of who caused the crash quickly became a dispute with Progressive.
Progressive Said the Crash Was His Fault
Progressive denied liability.
The insurer’s position was that Michael had been speeding in an attempt to beat the traffic light and was therefore responsible for the collision.
That argument mattered for more than just determining who was at fault.
Virginia follows a strict contributory negligence rule. If an injured person is found even partially responsible for causing an accident, that can prevent them from recovering damages.
For Michael, Progressive’s position put the entire claim at risk.
And the insurance company’s first serious settlement offer reflected how aggressively it was defending the case: $25,000.
That was far below the medical expenses and lost income associated with Michael’s injuries.
There was another complication, too. His health plan through a Teamsters trust fund had paid a substantial portion of his medical care, creating a potential subrogation claim against the eventual recovery.
Building the Evidence Instead of Arguing About Fault
BenGlassLaw approached the liability dispute as an evidence problem.
The team obtained and reviewed police body-camera footage from the scene, gathered the complete crash report, identified witnesses, and developed the medical record from the initial emergency treatment through surgery, physical therapy, and durable medical equipment.
The firm also documented Michael’s lost time from his physically demanding job so that his wage-loss claim was supported by records rather than estimates.
The goal was to establish what actually happened at the intersection—not simply argue back and forth with Progressive’s adjuster.
Finding Additional Insurance Coverage
The team also looked beyond Progressive’s liability policy.
BenGlassLaw identified a separate medical payments claim available through an automobile policy covering a resident relative in Michael’s household.
Medical payments coverage can provide benefits for accident-related medical expenses regardless of who caused the crash, depending on the policy.
Finding additional coverage was important because the case involved substantial medical treatment and a health-plan lien that would otherwise reduce the money available from the settlement.
The Result: From a $25,000 Offer to a $100,000 Recovery
Progressive continued to dispute the claim and maintained its position that Michael had contributed to the crash.
BenGlassLaw explained the risks of Virginia’s contributory negligence rule to Michael rather than pretending the dispute did not exist. The team evaluated what a jury could do with the evidence and negotiated from that position.
At the same time, the evidence supporting Michael’s version of the crash gave Progressive a much different record to consider than it had when the claim was initially denied.
Progressive ultimately agreed to pay $100,000 to resolve the personal injury claim.
That was four times the insurer’s initial $25,000 offer. This is why it’s so important to have an experienced motorcycle accident lawyer on your side.
The firm also continued pursuing the additional medical payments coverage identified during the case.
What This Case Shows
A liability denial from an insurance company isn’t necessarily the final word.
In Virginia, however, an allegation that an injured person contributed to a crash can be especially serious because of the state’s contributory negligence rule. That makes evidence about how the collision actually happened critical.
In Michael’s case, the answer wasn’t found by simply arguing with Progressive. It came from investigating the crash, reviewing available video, developing witness information, documenting the medical consequences, and building a record that could withstand the insurer’s liability argument.
The case also demonstrates why insurance coverage should be examined beyond the obvious policy. Additional coverage can sometimes exist through another automobile policy in the household.
Hurt in a Northern Virginia Motorcycle Crash?
If an insurance company is telling you that a motorcycle crash was your fault, don’t assume the denial is the end of the story.
In Virginia, the evidence establishing who caused the crash can be especially important because of the state’s contributory negligence rule. Insurance coverage can also be more complicated than it first appears.
BenGlassLaw represents injured motorcyclists throughout Northern Virginia and investigates both the facts of the collision and the insurance coverage available to the injured rider. Contact us today to learn how we can help.
Our case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future case.