Tom Phan vs. Daniel Hanink McKnight et al

Case Background

Tom Phan filed the Auto Insurance lawsuit on February 8, 2023, in the Connecticut State, Superior Court of Hartford Division (Case number: HHD-CV23-6165411-S), presided over by Judge Neeta Vatti.

Cause

On January 1, 2022, at approximately 7:34 p.m., Tom Phan was driving westbound on Route 2 West, a public highway in Glastonbury, Connecticut. The incident occurred about one-tenth of a mile east of Exit 10. At the same time, Daniel Hanink McKnight drove westbound on Route 2 West, approaching Phan’s vehicle from behind. McKnight’s vehicle collided with the rear of Phan’s car, causing a significant impact. The force of the collision was severe enough to make Phan’s vehicle spin out of control. As a result, Phan’s car crashed into the highway median, causing substantial damage to the vehicle and injuries to Phan.

Injuries

Phan suffered a cervical sprain/strain, a painful condition affecting the neck muscles and ligaments. He also experienced cervical facet-mediated pain, involving the small joints in the spine, and cervical discogenic pain, indicating damage to the intervertebral discs in his neck. Most severely, Phan sustained a cervical disc herniation at the C4-C5 level, which can cause significant pain and neurological symptoms.

The impact also affected Phan’s lower back, resulting in lumbar sprain/strain, which involves the muscles and ligaments of the lower back. He suffered from lumbar facet-mediated pain and lumbar discogenic pain, indicating damage to both the joints and discs in his lower spine. Additionally, Phan experienced left shoulder pain, suggesting potential injury to the shoulder joint or surrounding tissues. The overall trauma to his body led to myofascial pain, a chronic condition affecting the muscles and connective tissues.

He continued to experience pain, discomfort, soreness, limited motion, and restricted activity. The complaint emphasized that some injuries were likely permanent and/or permanently disabling, suggesting long-term or lifelong effects on Phan’s health and quality of life.

Damages

Plaintiff sought monetary damages for all injuries, expenses, and losses resulting from the accident.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Tom Phan
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Matthew C. Wilhelm, Esq. | Sarah N. Mather, Esq.
  • Defendant(s): Daniel Hanink McKnight | State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
    • Counsel for Defendants: Anthony V. Valenzano, Esq. | Steven J. Monn

Claims

Phan’s claims against McKnight were based on allegations of negligence and carelessness. Specifically, the complaint accused McKnight of:

  1. Operating his vehicle at a speed greater than reasonable for the conditions, violating Connecticut General Statute §14-218a.
  2. Driving at an excessive speed given the circumstances.
  3. Failing to maintain proper and reasonable control of his vehicle.
  4. Not paying attention to traffic ahead and failing to keep a proper lookout.
  5. Failing to apply brakes in time to avoid the collision when he knew or should have known that a crash was imminent.
  6. Following Phan’s vehicle too closely, violating Connecticut General Statute §14-240.
  7. Failing to maintain a safe distance behind Phan’s vehicle.
  8. Making unsafe lane changes or movements, violating Connecticut General Statute §14-242(a).
  9. Failing to stay within a single lane or changing lanes unsafely, violating Connecticut General Statute §14-236.

In the amended complaint, Phan added a claim against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. This claim was based on underinsured motorist coverage in Phan’s auto insurance policy with State Farm. The complaint stated that the underinsured motorist coverage limits in Phan’s State Farm policy exceeded the liability limits of McKnight’s insurance policy. Phan asserted that he would exhaust McKnight’s liability coverage in settling his claim against McKnight, and therefore, State Farm would be liable for additional compensation under the underinsured motorist provision of Phan’s policy.

Defense

Daniel Hanink McKnight admitted the basic facts of the collision but denied any negligence on his part. He acknowledged that both parties were driving westbound on Route 2 West and that a collision occurred but contested the details of the aftermath and the extent of Phan’s injuries. McKnight stated that he lacked sufficient information to form a belief about Phan’s injuries, the vehicle’s spinning, or its collision with the median, effectively placing the burden of proof on Phan. He also denied allegations of speeding, lack of vehicle control, inattention, and other negligent behaviors. McKnight admitted only to the occurrence of the accident while challenging all claims of fault and damages, setting the stage for a legal dispute over liability and the extent of Phan’s losses.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company responded to Phan’s complaint with a detailed answer and ten special defenses. They denied most allegations in the complaint, admitting only to issuing a policy to Ralph Phan with specific terms and limits. State Farm argued that any negligence on Phan’s part exceeded their own, and any damages should be reduced accordingly. They claimed that Phan’s negligence contributed to the incident and that any award should be reduced by prior payments made under the State Farm policy, including Medical Payment Coverage. They also cited policy conditions, limits on economic loss, and other insurance coverage, asserting that these factors should limit or reduce any potential recovery. State Farm emphasized that any award should be reduced by payments from other sources or policies and that their policy limits and non-duplication clauses would apply.

Jury Verdict:

On August 16, 2024, the jury found in favor of the Defendant, ruling against the Plaintiff in Auto Insurance Lawsuit.

Court Documents:

Complaint

Answer by Daniel Hanink McKnight 

Answer by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Jury Verdict