An 86-year-old motorcyclist was stopped at a red light when a driver crashed into the back of his bike. His leg injury required months of treatment, but the biggest fight came after the accident: getting the insurance companies to recognize the seriousness of what had happened.
Case at a Glance
- Client: 86-year-old motorcycle rider
- Location: Northern Virginia
- Accident: Rear-end motorcycle collision at a red light
- Injury: Severe leg laceration extending to the bone, requiring surgery and months of wound care
- Lawyer: Brian Glass
- At-fault driver’s insurance: State Farm
- Client’s UIM insurance: Progressive
- Total recovery: $110,000
The Crash
“Albert” had been riding motorcycles for decades.
One fall afternoon in Northern Virginia, he pulled up to a red light and came to a complete stop. Before he could move when the light changed, the driver behind him accelerated into the back of his motorcycle.
The impact threw Albert from the bike.
He was airlifted from the scene with a severe laceration to his leg. The wound extended all the way down to the bone.
Albert’s age made the recovery more difficult. What might have been a relatively straightforward wound for a younger person became a months-long medical ordeal. He spent significant time in the hospital and wound care centers, eventually requiring another surgery after the wound reopened.
The physical injury was only part of the burden. His spouse was helping manage his care, medical bills, and the growing questions about how the accident would ultimately be paid for.
The Other Driver Had Insurance. It Wasn’t Enough.
The driver who caused the crash was ticketed at the scene, and liability was not the central issue.
The problem was coverage.
The driver carried State Farm automobile insurance, but the policy provided only $30,000 in available bodily injury coverage.
Albert had his own Progressive policy with underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. UIM coverage can provide additional compensation when the at-fault driver’s insurance isn’t enough to cover the injured person’s damages.
BenGlassLaw pursued both sources of insurance.
And Progressive did not initially see the claim the same way we did.
Progressive’s First Offer Was $54,000
After reviewing the claim, Progressive’s adjuster offered $54,000 and made clear that he did not believe the case was worth anywhere near the available policy limits.
Progressive then hired attorneys and filed suit in its own name as the UIM carrier. The insurer denied much of the claim and served extensive discovery, including interrogatories and requests for production.
At that point, this was no longer simply a conversation about settlement numbers.
BenGlassLaw had to prove why Albert’s injury justified substantially more.
Showing Progressive What Albert’s Injury Really Looked Like
Brian Glass filed suit in Prince William County Circuit Court and formally brought Progressive into the litigation as the UIM carrier.
At the same time, the firm focused on documenting something that can be difficult to communicate through medical records alone: what Albert’s leg actually looked like over time.
Photographs taken at different points after the crash showed the wound and the progression of the scarring.
Brian sent those photographs directly to Progressive’s adjuster with a straightforward message: this was a policy-limits case.
Progressive increased its offers gradually:
$57,500.
$60,000.
$65,000.
$75,000.
BenGlassLaw continued to hold its position while building the evidence supporting Albert’s claim.
Eventually, Progressive offered $80,000 and advised that it had final authority to resolve the claim at that amount.
After reviewing the offer with Albert, the firm accepted.
The Settlement Wasn’t the End of the Case
There was still another problem to solve.
After the accident-related Medicare lien had been paid and closed, Medicare sent Albert’s family another bill under a different case identification number.
The second claim had been created internally by Medicare without notifying the family or the law firm.
If left unresolved, the duplicate claim could have taken additional money out of Albert’s recovery.
BenGlassLaw challenged the new claim through the Medicare appeals process, filing multiple written appeals and requests for reconsideration.
The goal was simple: Albert should not have to pay twice because of an administrative error he did not cause.
The Result: $110,000 Recovered
The case ultimately produced a $110,000 total recovery:
- $30,000 from State Farm
- $80,000 from Progressive
The recovery was more than double Progressive’s original $54,000 offer—and it came after the firm pursued the available insurance coverage, built evidence showing the severity and permanence of Albert’s injury, and continued fighting even after the settlement itself had been reached.
What This Case Shows
A serious motorcycle injury isn’t necessarily valued fairly by an insurance company on the first try.
Albert’s case involved relatively straightforward liability. The challenge was demonstrating the long-term impact of a severe leg wound and identifying how much insurance coverage was actually available.
His case also illustrates why an injured motorcyclist should understand their own underinsured motorist coverage. The at-fault driver’s $30,000 policy was only one part of the available recovery. Albert’s Progressive UIM coverage provided another $80,000.
And even after the settlement was reached, there was still work to be done to protect the money he had recovered.
Injured in a Virginia Motorcycle Crash?
If you or a family member has suffered a serious injury in a motorcycle accident, the first insurance offer may not reflect the full value of the claim.
The available coverage, severity of the injury, long-term effects of the accident, and evidence supporting the claim can all matter. In some cases, resolving the claim also requires dealing with liens or other claims against the settlement.
BenGlassLaw helps injured Virginians investigate motorcycle crashes, pursue available insurance coverage, and protect the recovery after a settlement is reached. 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.