Civil Rights ViolationWrongful Death
$4,000,000
Settlement
The Challenge
An incarcerated individual with a documented serious medical condition was repeatedly denied access to required care by jail staff.
Results That Matter
Every case is different. Every client deserves maximum effort. Below are notable settlements and results obtained for Oklahoma injury victims, along with the challenges faced and how each case was resolved.
An incarcerated individual with a documented serious medical condition was repeatedly denied access to required care by jail staff.
The at-fault driver's insurer disputed the severity of the client's injuries and argued that pre-existing conditions were responsible for the majority of the claimed damages. The defense also challenged the causal link between the crash and the client's long-term treatment needs.
The manufacturer had internal documentation showing awareness of a safer alternative design but chose not to implement it for cost reasons. The defense argued the product met all applicable safety standards and that the decedent assumed the risk.
The at-fault driver's insurer argued the low-speed nature of the rear-end impact could not have caused the client's claimed injuries, pushing a minimal-impact defense common in rear-end claims.
The company argued that all required warnings were present and that the product was used outside its intended purpose. The defense retained industry experts to challenge the plaintiff's theory of liability.
Defendants created unsafe conditions.
The business left dangerous condition regardless of numerous people telling the business owners of the danger.
The insurer disputed liability, arguing the client bore partial fault for the collision. The defense also challenged the medical bills as excessive and argued that the client's recovery was faster than claimed.
The contractor argued it owed no duty to a bystander who was not part of the work crew and pointed to the client's own conduct near the worksite as the cause of the injury.
The responsible party disputed liability for misconduct that occurred at a company-sponsored work event and challenged the extent of the client's resulting harm.
The at-fault driver's policy limits were insufficient to cover the full damages. The defense insurer for the underinsured motorist claim disputed the severity of the injuries and argued the client had recovered fully.
The defense argued the motorcyclist was speeding and bore comparative fault for the crash. The insurer also challenged the permanency of the injuries and disputed the need for ongoing treatment.
Before the client retained Colton Richardson, the insurance company had offered less than $10,000 to resolve the claim, far below the value of the client's injuries.
This case was heavily contested by the defense, which argued the hazard was open and obvious, that the property owner had no prior notice of the condition, and that the client's own inattention was the primary cause of the fall. The insurer made an initial offer of 1% of the final settlement.
The business argued the client failed to watch where they were walking and that any hazard on the premises was open and obvious.
The property owner argued the spill had just occurred and that staff had no reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it. The defense also argued the client was not watching where she was walking.
The store argued it had no notice of the dangerous condition and that the hazard had been created moments before the client's fall.
The insurer disputed the extent of the client's injuries and their connection to the collision.
The insurer initially denied the claim, arguing the client's injuries were minor and pre-existing. The defense disputed the necessity of surgery and argued the client had returned to full function.
Liability was disputed, with the at-fault driver claiming the client ran a red light. The insurer also argued the injuries were soft-tissue only and offered a nominal settlement early in the case.
The at-fault driver's insurer disputed liability and the extent of the client's injuries.
The other driver disputed fault, claiming the client changed lanes into his vehicle rather than being sideswiped.
The property owner argued the defective condition was a known risk the client had encountered before and that the client assumed the risk. The defense also disputed the medical bills as inflated.
The at-fault driver had minimal insurance coverage. The defense insurer for the underinsured motorist claim disputed the severity of the injuries and argued the client had fully recovered.
The business argued the exposed metal was visible and that the client should have seen and avoided it.
The at-fault driver disputed running the red light, and the insurer argued the senior client's injuries were largely related to age and pre-existing conditions.
Liability was not seriously disputed, but the insurer challenged the extent and permanency of the client's injuries.
The insurer argued the client's injuries pre-existed the second collision and attempted to attribute the damages to the earlier accident instead.
The insurer disputed the extent of the client's injuries and offered an early, low settlement.
The venue argued the bleachers were properly maintained and that the incident was unforeseeable.
Liability was not seriously disputed, but the insurer argued the client's injuries were minor and resolved quickly.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Each case is unique and results depend on the specific facts, circumstances, and applicable law. These results represent settlements and verdicts obtained for clients in Oklahoma. Individual case results will vary.
Ready to discuss your case? Consultations are always free.