Nissan/Infiniti
Thread Starter
Newbie
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13
Likes: 1
From: Arizona
Nissan/Infiniti
Interesting lawsuit that's going on here....
Letter I received from a Mr. Leonard Grodin of New York:
In March of 2002 while parking my leased Nissan Pathfinder, (my 5th Nissan car) I had an accident with a pedestrian. I tapped into a woman and knocked her off balance. She fell to the ground and hit her head. I stayed with her until she was taken away in an ambulance and felt tremendous remorse and sorrow. It was an accident.
The injured woman sued me and under a provision of New York Law, since repealed, also sued Nissan, who I leased the vehicle from.
Nissan/Infiniti, through their insurance company, Tokio Marine, agreed to pay the injured woman millions of dollars.
Now, Nissan/Infiniti and their insurance company, Tokio Marine, have sued me and obtained a judgment against me for 3 million dollars.
The attorney representing Nissan/Infiniti and Tokio Marine, both multibillion-dollar companies, has told me that they will force me into bankruptcy and ruin me financially just to recover an amount of money that would not even make a wrinkle in their balance sheets, but will destroy my life financially.
I followed all of Nissan’s lease conditions including the purchase of a $100,000/$300,000 automobile injury/liability policy. I had no idea that Nissan could turn around and sue me. There was no clear indication in their lease agreement that they could do this to me.
I am 62 years old and this was the first accident I had been involved in over 37 years and where a person sustained a serious injury. I’ve never been arrested or even charged with a crime. I’ve spent my life trying to do the right things and be a good example to my children, family and friends. My wife and I put our 2 children through college and are still paying off college loans. We work very hard to make an adequate living. Whatever we have, we’ve worked our whole lives for.
If you feel some compassion for me and my family and think the action of Nissan/Infiniti is vicious and unjust, please e-mail them at: nnaconsumeraffairs@nissan-usa.com, and tell them so.
Thank you for reading this and please e-mail this letter to everyone you know.
Leonard Grodin, NYC., NY
212-452-1330
An explanation of the conditions that make this lawsuit possible:
New York State at the time this accident occurred was one of the few States that allowed an injured person to sue not only the person who leased the car, but the owner of the lease as well (in this case a subsidiary of Nissan), hence the requirement in many lease agreements in New York at that time as to how much insurance the lessee had to have during the life of the lease. Of course, the car companies hated this law because it put them at risk of being sued when someone sustained injuries the value of which was far in excess of the insurance policy the lessee was required to have, and after years of lobbying they got the State legislature to change the law so that New York became like most other states - you can sue the person who leased the car, but you can not sue the lease owner.
The legal brief follows:
A pedestrian who was struck by a Nissan Pathfinder which was driven by Grodin and leased from Nissan, suffered catastrophic brain injuries and filed a personal injury lawsuit in state court against the driver, Grodin, and Nissan as the lessor.
In settling the state court action, Nissan’s insurer paid millions of dollars above the $100,000 amount contributed by Grodin's primary insurer, GEICO. After settling the resulting personal injury action, Nissan’s insurer sued the driver for common law indemnification.
The driver filed a third party complaint against GEICO and the law firm that defended him in the personal injury action claiming: a) that the lawyers hired by GEICO were actually GEICO employees who failed to act as independent counsel for him; and b) that the law firm had failed when the various defendants were negotiating a settlement to obtain a release of any common law indemnification claims that Nissan potentially had, and, alternatively, had failed to advise him that the terms of the settlement did not protect him against indemnification actions by Nissan.
GEICO was also sued for bad faith in the action and on a claim by the insured that GEICO was responsible to pay the attorney’s fees of the insured in defending the indemnification claim.
In an interesting federal court opinion, the court denied GEICO’s and the law firm’s summary judgment motion. As to the legal malpractice allegation, the material facts recited in the opinion were: “Grodin has alleged that it may have been possible for Kay & Gray attorneys to secure a release from Tokio Marine and NILT of common law indemnification claims against him. His Amended Third Party Complaint contends that prior to entering into the settlement of the State Court Action, Kay & Gray failed to advise him of the terms of the settlement, failed to advise him of the portion of the settlement that exceeded the limits of his Geico policy, permitted a settlement for a sum in excess of the fair and reasonable value of the claim, and that as a result he was improperly exposed to damages in excess of coverage limits. Grodin also asserts that Kay & Gray labored under a conflict of interest given its desire to keep defense costs low. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim for malpractice.” Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co. v. Grodin, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78146 (D.N.Y. 2006)
Letter I received from a Mr. Leonard Grodin of New York:
In March of 2002 while parking my leased Nissan Pathfinder, (my 5th Nissan car) I had an accident with a pedestrian. I tapped into a woman and knocked her off balance. She fell to the ground and hit her head. I stayed with her until she was taken away in an ambulance and felt tremendous remorse and sorrow. It was an accident.
The injured woman sued me and under a provision of New York Law, since repealed, also sued Nissan, who I leased the vehicle from.
Nissan/Infiniti, through their insurance company, Tokio Marine, agreed to pay the injured woman millions of dollars.
Now, Nissan/Infiniti and their insurance company, Tokio Marine, have sued me and obtained a judgment against me for 3 million dollars.
The attorney representing Nissan/Infiniti and Tokio Marine, both multibillion-dollar companies, has told me that they will force me into bankruptcy and ruin me financially just to recover an amount of money that would not even make a wrinkle in their balance sheets, but will destroy my life financially.
I followed all of Nissan’s lease conditions including the purchase of a $100,000/$300,000 automobile injury/liability policy. I had no idea that Nissan could turn around and sue me. There was no clear indication in their lease agreement that they could do this to me.
I am 62 years old and this was the first accident I had been involved in over 37 years and where a person sustained a serious injury. I’ve never been arrested or even charged with a crime. I’ve spent my life trying to do the right things and be a good example to my children, family and friends. My wife and I put our 2 children through college and are still paying off college loans. We work very hard to make an adequate living. Whatever we have, we’ve worked our whole lives for.
If you feel some compassion for me and my family and think the action of Nissan/Infiniti is vicious and unjust, please e-mail them at: nnaconsumeraffairs@nissan-usa.com, and tell them so.
Thank you for reading this and please e-mail this letter to everyone you know.
Leonard Grodin, NYC., NY
212-452-1330
An explanation of the conditions that make this lawsuit possible:
New York State at the time this accident occurred was one of the few States that allowed an injured person to sue not only the person who leased the car, but the owner of the lease as well (in this case a subsidiary of Nissan), hence the requirement in many lease agreements in New York at that time as to how much insurance the lessee had to have during the life of the lease. Of course, the car companies hated this law because it put them at risk of being sued when someone sustained injuries the value of which was far in excess of the insurance policy the lessee was required to have, and after years of lobbying they got the State legislature to change the law so that New York became like most other states - you can sue the person who leased the car, but you can not sue the lease owner.
The legal brief follows:
A pedestrian who was struck by a Nissan Pathfinder which was driven by Grodin and leased from Nissan, suffered catastrophic brain injuries and filed a personal injury lawsuit in state court against the driver, Grodin, and Nissan as the lessor.
In settling the state court action, Nissan’s insurer paid millions of dollars above the $100,000 amount contributed by Grodin's primary insurer, GEICO. After settling the resulting personal injury action, Nissan’s insurer sued the driver for common law indemnification.
The driver filed a third party complaint against GEICO and the law firm that defended him in the personal injury action claiming: a) that the lawyers hired by GEICO were actually GEICO employees who failed to act as independent counsel for him; and b) that the law firm had failed when the various defendants were negotiating a settlement to obtain a release of any common law indemnification claims that Nissan potentially had, and, alternatively, had failed to advise him that the terms of the settlement did not protect him against indemnification actions by Nissan.
GEICO was also sued for bad faith in the action and on a claim by the insured that GEICO was responsible to pay the attorney’s fees of the insured in defending the indemnification claim.
In an interesting federal court opinion, the court denied GEICO’s and the law firm’s summary judgment motion. As to the legal malpractice allegation, the material facts recited in the opinion were: “Grodin has alleged that it may have been possible for Kay & Gray attorneys to secure a release from Tokio Marine and NILT of common law indemnification claims against him. His Amended Third Party Complaint contends that prior to entering into the settlement of the State Court Action, Kay & Gray failed to advise him of the terms of the settlement, failed to advise him of the portion of the settlement that exceeded the limits of his Geico policy, permitted a settlement for a sum in excess of the fair and reasonable value of the claim, and that as a result he was improperly exposed to damages in excess of coverage limits. Grodin also asserts that Kay & Gray labored under a conflict of interest given its desire to keep defense costs low. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim for malpractice.” Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co. v. Grodin, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78146 (D.N.Y. 2006)
Just goes to show that nice people always get the bitter half of the deal.
IANAL, but I figure that he would of been better off if he would of ran after seeing that the woman was going to be okay. I mean, there was no brain coming out of her skull - right?!
And yes, it's illegal and immoral on so many levels. So is bankrupting a 63 year old man who hasn't done anything.
IANAL, but I figure that he would of been better off if he would of ran after seeing that the woman was going to be okay. I mean, there was no brain coming out of her skull - right?!
And yes, it's illegal and immoral on so many levels. So is bankrupting a 63 year old man who hasn't done anything.
