Rear-End Collision With Disputed Fault and a Demand Package
On March 3, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, your insured rear-ended a claimant's sedan at an intersection. The insured says the claimant stopped suddenly for a dog and then reversed slightly; the police report states the insured was following too closely and cites no one else. The claimant's vehicle had prior rear-bumper damage from a 2022 parking-lot incident. The claimant treated for neck and lower-back pain for eight weeks, with $9,800 in medical bills and $2,500 in lost wages as a restaurant server. Medical records note degenerative disc disease at L4-L5 and L5-S1. The demand package asks for $35,000 and threatens suit; your insured carries 25/50/25 limits. The claimant's attorney says his client will settle within limits if paid by month-end. You have photos of minor damage to the insured's front bumper but significant pre-existing rust and prior repair evidence on the claimant's rear frame. The claimant has not provided tax returns or employer verification for the wage claim. The policy has no PIP coverage and $5,000 in medical payments coverage.
1. How should you analyze liability under Oklahoma's modified comparative negligence rule using the police report, photos, and conflicting statements?
Read the worked answer
A rear-end collision creates an inference of fault against the following driver, but the inference is rebuttable. The insured says the claimant stopped suddenly for a dog and reversed slightly; the police report says the insured was following too closely. The report is evidence, not a final adjudication. Under Oklahoma's modified comparative negligence statute, 23 O.S. Section 13, the claimant's recovery is reduced by his own percentage of fault and is barred if his fault is greater than the insured's. I would assign primary fault to the insured for following too closely, but investigate the sudden-stop and reverse allegations by obtaining the insured's dashcam or telematics data, a recorded statement from the claimant, an inspection of the claimant's rear bumper for reverse-impact indicators, and an interview with any independent witness. If the claimant reversed into the insured, fault shifts substantially. If the claimant merely stopped suddenly for a dog, a small comparative percentage may apply, but the insured likely remains majority at fault. The prior rear-bumper damage affects property damage only and must be documented separately; it does not automatically reduce the injury claim.
2. How should you evaluate the medical specials, pre-existing degeneration, lost wages, and general damages?
Read the worked answer
The special damages are $9,800 in medical bills and $2,500 in claimed lost wages. I would not pay the demand based on those figures alone. I would request the complete medical records, bills, radiology reports, and a narrative from the treating provider on causation and prognosis. The degenerative disc disease at L4-L5 and L5-S1 is a pre-existing condition; the adjuster must determine whether the collision aggravated it or whether the complaints are degenerative. A physician's apportionment opinion is useful if the records are ambiguous. I would review the bills for reasonableness and usual-and-customary charges and check for health-insurance payments or liens. For lost wages, I would require employer verification, tax returns, and attendance records because a restaurant server's cash tips and schedule vary. General damages should be evaluated using the nature and duration of treatment, objective findings, and comparable Oklahoma verdicts, not a formula. A reasonable range might be documented specials plus a modest general-damages component, but the final number must reflect causation and comparative fault.
3. What reserve and negotiation strategy should you use, including the policy-limits issue and good faith?
Read the worked answer
I would set a reserve that covers the reasonably probable exposure, not the demand. With $25,000 per-person limits, the gross exposure is capped at $25,000, but the insured's excess exposure and the claimant's comparative fault affect settlement value. I would send the claimant's attorney a written evaluation: liability is contested in part, the medical specials are $9,800, the wage claim is unverified, and there is pre-existing degeneration. I would offer a range and explain the basis. If the claimant will settle within limits, I would obtain a release that protects the insured and resolves any lien issues. I would not tender policy limits automatically just because suit is threatened; that can create excess exposure if the evaluation does not support it. I would document the good-faith basis for the offer and keep the insured informed. If the claimant demands limits and the evidence supports a verdict above limits, I would consult coverage counsel and consider a policy-limits tender with a written explanation.