An Update from Our Firm about COVID-19

Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto, Aziz & Stogner remains fully operational and committed to serving our clients and colleagues throughout the Coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis. As we follow the CDC guidelines and practice social distancing, we remain available for phone consultations and scheduled in-person meetings with both current and prospective clients and colleagues. Please contact our office by email or by calling 713-222-7211 with any questions. We look forward to hearing from you.

Underinsured Motorist Coverage to Good Samaritan

One week before Christmas, the Texas Supreme Court denied a severely injured "good Samaritan" the benefits of his underinsured motorist (um/uim) coverage. In the decision of United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. Goudeau, issued on December 19, 2008, the Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeals and held that Louis Goudeau was not allowed to go to trial in his suit against usf&g.

Mr. Goudeau worked for an automobile dealership in Houston. A driver in front of him had crashed into the retaining wall of the Sam Houston Tollroad. Mr. Goudeau stopped on the right shoulder, got out of the car, and went to help. While doing so, another driver smashed into both cars, hurting Mr. Goudeau badly. The driver who hit them only had minimum limits of $20,000 insurance.

Mr. Goudeau received worker's compensation, which was provided by usf&g, and brought suit against usf&g because it had also issued the um/uim coverage on the vehicle he was driving. Then, usf&g - which was the defendant in the um/uim case - intervened in the suit claiming it was entitled to be repaid for its worker's compensation payments. In that capacity, usf&g admitted there was um/uim coverage. The Court of Appeals ruled that there was a fact question about whether Mr. Goudeau was "occupying" the vehicle, and directed that his case should proceed to trial. The Supreme Court, in another ruling favoring insurance companies against the people they insure, reversed. It said that the admission by the worker's compensation part of usf&g that there was um/uim coverage did not bind the um/uim part of usf&g, and that Mr. Goudeau would not be allowed to try his case to a jury. Accordingly, this good Samaritan had his rights to um/uim coverage denied by the Texas Supreme Court.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information
  • $50+ Million Fire & Explosion

    The firm successfully represented nearly 100 victims who suffered personal injuries and damages to property from a large fire and explosion resulting in a settlement of more than $50 million. The firm served as lead lawyers on the steering committee in this litigation.

  • $80 Million Plant Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 270 plaintiffs, taking a lead role in the plaintiffs’ steering committee, who suffered injuries in a large plant explosion resulting in a settlement of nearly $80 million.

  • $50+ Million Plant Fire & Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 45 personal injury victims in a plant fire and explosion, serving on the plaintiffs steering committee, concluding with a settlement of more than $50 million.

  • $22+ Million Worksite Accident

    The firm prevailed in a personal injury trial for a worksite injury client with the jury returning a verdict and resulting in a judgment of over $22 million for the firm’s client.

  • $12 Million 18-Wheeler Collision

    The firm successfully achieved a $12 million settlement for the family of a man who died in an 18 wheeler collision.

  • $48 Million Catastrophic Burns

    The firm prevailed on behalf of three burn victims with settlements totaling nearly $48 million.

Our Record Of Success

When you are hurt and you choose a law firm to represent you in court or at the negotiation table, you need to carefully consider the firm's record.

Read More Success Stories

Let Us Help You Request a Free Consultation Today

Get Help Now

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy

Back to top