Jury Denies Benefits in State Farm Underinsured Motorist Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
Late in the evening of September 16, 2022, Mohamed Tageldin drove his vehicle east along Sawmill Road in West Haven, Connecticut. Manar Abdelrhem sat in the vehicle as a passenger as they moved through the public highway. At approximately 9:38 p.m., another driver, Erik Vazquez, traveled directly behind them in a car owned by Angel Vazquez.
Cause
The legal action began because Erik Vazquez suddenly crashed his vehicle into the back of the car carrying Tageldin and Abdelrhem. The plaintiffs claimed the collision happened because Vazquez failed to keep a proper lookout, ignored the road ahead, and followed their vehicle much too closely. They further alleged that he had operated his car at an unreasonable speed and failed to apply his brakes or swerve in time to prevent the impact.
Injury
Both Mohamed Tageldin and Manar Abdelrhem reported significant physical suffering following the rear-end collision. Medical records indicated that both individuals dealt with cervical and lumbar sprains and strains, commonly known as neck and back injuries. Additionally, both plaintiffs suffered from lumbar radiculopathy, a condition involving nerve pain that radiates from the lower spine. Beyond the physical ailments, they claimed to have experienced mental pain and a lost ability to enjoy their daily lives.
Damages Sought
The plaintiffs sought financial compensation for the medical expenses they had already paid and the costs they expected to face for future treatments. Because Erik and Angel Vazquez carried a liability policy with Allstate Insurance Company that had reached its limits, Tageldin and Abdelrhem turned to their own insurance provider, State Farm. They requested underinsured motorist benefits, arguing that the initial insurance payout did not fully cover the severity of their losses and permanent injuries.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The case moved to the Superior Court in the Judicial District of Middlesex at Middletown. While the lawsuit originally named the other driver and the car owner, the primary focus centered on the contract between the plaintiffs and State Farm.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Mohamed Tageldin | Manar Abdelrhem.
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Christopher J. Flood
Experts for Plaintiff(s): Arpad Fejos | Heather K. Woodbury
Defendant(s): State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
Counsel for Defendant(s): Steven J. Monn
Experts for Defendant: Jonathan S. Luchs
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The plaintiffs argued that State Farm had a legal and contractual duty to pay them benefits because they were "covered persons" under their policy. They claimed that since the at-fault driver's insurance was insufficient to address their lifelong physical impairments and ongoing medical bills, State Farm should bridge the financial gap.
Defense
State Farm fought the claims by raising several "Special Defenses." The insurance company argued that Mohamed Tageldin might have been more negligent than the other driver, which would legally bar or reduce his recovery. They also stated that any potential award should be slashed by any previous payments the plaintiffs had received from other sources or insurance policies. Furthermore, the defense contended that the plaintiffs' injuries might not have been as severe as they claimed or were not directly caused by this specific accident.
Jury Verdict
After hearing the evidence regarding the 2022 crash and the subsequent medical treatments, the jury reached its final decision on December 10, 2025.
In the case of Mohamed Tageldin, the jury found in favor of the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. They decided that the insurance company was not required to pay additional underinsured motorist benefits to Tageldin.
In the companion case for Manar Abdelrhem, the jury also returned a verdict in favor of State Farm. The foreperson signed the documents confirming that the jury rejected the claims for further compensation for both the driver and the passenger. The final judgment meant the plaintiffs would receive nothing from State Farm beyond what had already been settled or paid previously.