KING AMINPOUR, ESQ.

ASH S. DUGUM, ESQ.

OLIVER SHAMI, ESQ.

CHELSEA MARION, ESQ.

MICHAEL VANGALIO, ESQ.

ALEX S. MADAR, ESQ.

MARK MARION, ESQ.

August 7, 2023

Mercury Insurance Sent Via Email

ATTN: CAPA - 02087560
Tel: 888-917-6372 ext 21576
Fax: 866-268-8494
Myclaim+CAPA-02087560@mercuryinsurance.com

*** TIME SENSITIVE POLICY LIMITS DEMAND ***

Re: Our Client : Maria De Gonzalez

Date of Loss : 03/18/2023
Claim # : CAPA-02087560

To Whom It May Concern:

This office represents Maria De Gonzalez in the above-referenced incident. We hereby

extend this formal offer of settlement for policy limits as set forth below.

This correspondence, including its contents, is intended to and shall be governed by the
provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure §999-999.5, California Evidence Code §§1152,
1154, and Federal Rules of Evidence §408, which provide in pertinent part that an offer to
compromise a disputed claim, including any statements or representations contained therein, are
inadmissible for purposes of that claim. However, this demand shall be admissible against
MERCURY in the event your insured wishes to bring an action against you for bad faith.

The risk to your client of an excess judgment putting their personal assets at direct
risk is significant. Settling this matter now, within the available policy limits, eliminates this
risk. If not accepted in the time frame set forth below, the offer will expire and will not be
renewed. Any excess judgment will be satisfied against your insured’s personal assets by
way of recording a judgment lien and executing on the same.

A liability insurer has a duty to communicate to the insured any settlement offer that could
affect the insured’s interests, in order to allow the insured an opportunity to contribute to the
Aminpour Building | 317 Ash Street | San Diego, California 92101
Main Office (619) 238-1177 | New Client (619) 333-3333 | Fax (619) 238-1188
King@YourLawOffice.com | www.YourLawOffice.com
San Diego | Orange County | Los Angeles | Bakersfield
settlement. Heredia v. Farmers Ins. Exch. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1345, 1360; see also CACI
2334.

AS YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO DO SO, WE REQUEST YOU PROVIDE A COPY OF OUR

DEMAND TO YOUR INSURED.

FACTS AND LIABILITY

On March 18, 2023, on Wildcat Canyon Road in San Diego, C.A., our client Maria De
Gonzalez was injured due to the negligence of your insured. The defendant, failing to yield the
right of way, violently collided head-on with Ms. De Gonzalez’ vehicle.

See Traffic Collision Report, attached as Exhibit 1.

INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT

Maria De Gonzalez immediately had pain in arms, as well as anxiety from the accident.
She was immediately transported via ambulance to Sharp Memorial Hospital for an evaluation
of her injuries. X-rays were ordered on Ms. De Gonzalez’ chest and forearm and Ms. De
Gonzalez was diagnosed with a left forearm contusion and bruising. Ms. De Gonzalez was
ordered ice therapy and given Tylenol for her pain. After weeks of care, Ms. De Gonzalez is
slowly recovering with a guarded long-term prognosis.

See Medical Records, attached as Exhibit 2.

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION

Maria De Gonzalez is entitled to full and fair compensation for losses incurred in this
accident. Relevant California law provides as follows:

Civil Code § 3333. Torts in General

Breach of obligation other than contract. For the breach of an

obligation not arising from contract, the measure of damages, except
where otherwise expressly provided by this code, is the amount
which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused
thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not.

Maria De Gonzalez is also entitled to recover for all the pain and suffering experienced as
a result of this accident:

Pain and suffering is a unitary concept, encompassing all of the

physical and emotional trauma occasioned by an injury. Plaintiff is
entitled to compensatory damages for all physical pain suffered. . .
and also for resulting fright, nervousness, anxiety, worry,
 mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment,
apprehension, terror, or ordeal. Capelouto v. Kaiser Foundation
Hospitals (1972) 7 Cal.App.3d 889, 893-894.

DAMAGES

A. SPECIAL DAMAGES

Maria De Gonzalez has sustained special damages as follows:

Ambulance $3,643.00
Sharp Memorial ER $5,127.00

TOTAL: $8,770.00
See Medical Bills, attached as Exhibit 3.

B. GENERAL DAMAGES

In accordance with California law, Maria De Gonzalez is entitled to general damages

representing pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life including missed time from leisure
activities, inconvenience, fright and fear, all proximately caused by the accident.

SETTLEMENT

The liability of your insured is clear and obvious. Our client has authorized this firm to
settle this claim pre-litigation, for a full and final release of all present and future claims for bodily
injury, wrongful death, and loss of consortium, if applicable, against your insured if and only if it
is resolved within Thirty (30) days, and for your insured’s policy limits, which include any and
all applicable excess and/or umbrella liability policies. In the case of wrongful death, payment
of the policy limits will satisfy the claims of any and all parties who could conceivably make a
wrongful death claim. Upon payment of all applicable policy limits, you and your insured will be
absolved of responsibility for the payment, reimbursement, compromise, or satisfaction of any and
all liens, including medical, health insurance, wage, workers; compensation, property or attorneys’
fees liens that could be asserted against either you or your insured. Any policy-limit settlement is
contingent upon receipt of a signed declaration under oath by your insured(s) as to the existence
of any other applicable insurance policies.

Our offer of settlement will remain open for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter and
will not be renewed thereafter. THIS DEMAND EXPIRES AT 5:00 P.M. ON SEPTEMBER
6, 2023.

In the event you fail to accept our offer of settlement within this thirty (30) day period, we
will proceed with bringing this case to a jury trial, and we will look to INSURER to pay the entire
judgment without regard to policy limits.

No reasonable requests for additional time to review and respond to this demand will be
rejected; however, any request must be supported by specifics. Any request for an extension to
respond must state precisely what additional facts, witnesses, authorities, or information is required
that cannot be accessed by the stated deadline. Generic pleas requiring “additional time”, without
more, will be rejected. Please be advised that our office will not contact you to remind you of the
upcoming deadline.

There is no issue of liability in this case. In the event that you, by representation of
MERCURY, decide to expose your insured to enormous uncovered losses by virtue of any
possible rejection of this demand, it is suggested that you immediately disclose your decision
to your insured.

“In each policy of liability insurance, California law implies a covenant of good faith and
fair dealing. This implied covenant obligates the insurance company, among other things, to make
reasonable efforts to settle a third party’s lawsuit against the insured. If the insurer breached the
implied covenant by unreasonably refusing to settle the third party suit, the insured may sue the
insurer in tort to recover damages proximately caused by the insurer’s breach.” PPG Industries,
Inc. v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 310. (T)he implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing obligates the insurer to accept reasonable settlement demands within policy limits in
order to avoid exposing its insured to personal liability in excess of those limits. Comunale v.
Traders & Gen. Ins. Co. (1958) 50 Cal. 2d 654, 659.

A duty to accept reasonable settlement demands is implied in order to protect the insured’s
reasonable expectations in purchasing the insurance: “In light of the common knowledge that
settlement is one of the usual methods by which an insured received protection under a liability
policy, it may not be unreasonable for an insured…to believe that a sum of money equal to the
limits is available and will be used so as to avoid liability on his part…” Crisci v. Security Ins. Co.
of New Haven, Conn. (1967) 66 Cal. 2d 425.

The main issue of refusing to settle cases is whether the insurer failed to accept a reasonable
settlement demand. The only permissible consideration in evaluating the “reasonableness” of a
settlement demand is “whether, in light of the victim’s injuries and the probable liability of the
insured, the ultimate judgment is likely to settle.” Johansen v. California State Auto. Assn’s Inter-
Ins. Bureau (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 9, 16; Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Jacobsen (2001) 25 Cal.4th 489; and
CACI 2334 (concluding jury instructions at time of trial).

CONCLUSION

It is openly apparent that the physical and mental injuries to Maria De Gonzalez are serious.
This one-time demand for ALL APPLICABLE POLICY LIMITS is the only offer to
compromise. I remind you the demand will remain open until 5:00 P.M. on September 6, 2023.
Please contact me immediately if for any reason you are unable to accept this demand by this date.
Thank you for your consideration of this demand package. I look forward to hearing from you at
your earliest opportunity. Please relay your offer/response to Jacob Alvarez at 619-
820-8627 or Jacob@yourlawoffice.com.

Very truly yours,

A. King Aminpour
Attorney at Law
(619) 888-5574
Enclosures: exhibits
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 3