When Insurance Companies Ignore Catastrophic Injuries
After State Farm failed to investigate an above-knee amputation case or respond to settlement demands, we pursued bad faith claims that resulted in a settlement 250 times the original policy limits.
A Night That Changed Everything
On January 30, 2023, Kian Riahi and his close friend and roommate Ricardo Aguilar were returning home after an evening out in downtown San Diego. Mr. Riahi felt too intoxicated to drive safely. Mr. Aguilar said he was fine to drive and took the keys to Mr. Riahi’s Audi.
What Mr. Riahi didn’t know was that his friend had consumed benzodiazepines mixed with alcohol.
Driving southbound on I-5 in dark, rainy conditions at over 80 mph, Mr. Aguilar rear-ended a Toyota Corolla, sending it flipping across lanes. He brought the Audi to a complete stop in the middle of the freeway. Neither he nor Mr. Riahi was injured in this first collision.
But stopped in the middle of a dark, rainy freeway with traffic approaching, they were and in grave danger. As Mr. Riahi attempted to exit from the passenger side, a black Volkswagen Jetta slammed into his leg and the passenger door—nearly severing his right leg completely.
The Long Road Through Multiple Amputations
The initial injury was catastrophic. Mr. Riahi’s right leg was nearly severed in the collision. Emergency responders transported him to UC San Diego Medical Center, where surgeons attempted to save as much of the leg as possible through a below-knee amputation.
But complications developed. Infection set in. Tissue necrosis progressed despite aggressive treatment. Over the next five weeks, Mr. Riahi underwent more than 12 debridement surgeries as doctors worked to control the infection and save viable tissue.
Despite these efforts, the below-knee amputation failed. On February 17, 2023—just over two weeks after the accident—surgeons performed an above-knee amputation, removing Mr. Riahi’s right leg at a higher level to ensure clean margins and prevent further infection.
This progression illustrates an important aspect of catastrophic injury cases: medical teams try conservative approaches first, attempting to preserve as much function as possible. Only when those attempts fail do they proceed to more extensive interventions. Mr. Riahi’s medical team fought to save his leg at the below-knee level, but the severity of the initial trauma and subsequent complications made the above-knee amputation necessary.
Beyond the amputation, Mr. Riahi suffered a C3 cervical fracture and a right wrist fracture with malunion that left him with limited motion. He experiences chronic phantom limb pain requiring nerve blocks, ketamine infusions, and round-the-clock opioid medication. He developed depression and anxiety. His past medical expenses exceeded $990,000, and he faces lifetime costs for prosthetic replacement and care.
Proving What Happened: When the Facts Aren’t Clear
One significant challenge in this case was establishing who was driving. Mr. Riahi testified under oath that Mr. Aguilar was driving his Audi. Mr. Aguilar testified that he didn’t remember whether he was driving.
The police conducted minimal investigation—they checked the vehicle registration but didn’t investigate the accident scene to determine who was operating the vehicle. There were no independent witnesses who saw who was behind the wheel.
This is where skilled legal work and attention to physical evidence becomes crucial. We built the case through the evidence that was available:
- The pool of blood at the accident scene was clearly on the passenger side, where the second impact occurred
- The passenger side door showed visible damage from the Jetta’s impact
- Mr. Riahi’s cell phone and shoes, documented by police, were positioned consistent with the passenger side impact
- Mr. Aguilar admitted in his deposition that he routinely drove Mr. Riahi’s vehicle when they were together
- All physical evidence supported Mr. Riahi’s account
This demonstrates an important principle: even when certain facts are unclear or disputed, skilled attorneys working with experts can build a compelling case through the physical evidence, witness testimony, and logical reconstruction of events. You don’t need perfect clarity on every detail to prove your case—you need thorough investigation and strategic presentation of the evidence that exists.
The Negligence Case
With the driver’s identity established through physical evidence, the negligence case was clear. Mr. Aguilar had rear-ended another vehicle while driving impaired (he admitted in discovery responses to mixing benzodiazepines and alcohol), disabled his own vehicle in the middle of a dark, rainy freeway, and created the dangerous situation that led to Mr. Riahi’s catastrophic injuries from the second collision.
The defense raised comparative fault arguments: that Mr. Riahi knowingly allowed an intoxicated person to drive, and that he shouldn’t have exited the vehicle on the freeway. But these arguments had significant weaknesses.
On the first point, the defense had no evidence of how much alcohol Mr. Aguilar consumed, the timeframe, what food he’d eaten, when he mixed in benzodiazepines, or what signs of impairment were visible to Mr. Riahi. They retained no toxicologist to support their theory.
On the second point, we invoked the sudden emergency doctrine. Mr. Aguilar had created an impossible situation: remaining in a disabled vehicle in the middle of a dark, rainy freeway made Mr. Riahi a “sitting duck” for oncoming traffic. His decision to exit wasn’t negligence—it was a reasonable response to the emergency his friend had created.
When Insurance Companies Act in Bad Faith
Here’s where this case became truly remarkable—not just for the catastrophic injuries, but for what happened with the insurance company.
Mr. Aguilar was insured by State Farm with a $30,000 policy limit. On April 24, 2023—less than three months after an accident that resulted in an above-knee amputation and nearly $1 million in medical expenses—we served a policy limits demand with 1,099 pages of supporting exhibits.
State Farm’s response? Nothing. They ignored the demand entirely. The deadline came and went on May 10, 2023.
They never contacted Mr. Riahi’s attorneys. They never contacted their own insured. They conducted zero investigation into a claim involving catastrophic amputation, a cervical fracture, extensive medical treatment, and massive documented expenses.
Only after we commenced discovery and took Mr. Aguilar’s deposition in June 2024—more than a year after the demand—did State Farm attempt to tender the $30,000 policy limits. By then, it was far too late.
Understanding “Opening the Policy”
In California insurance law, when an insurer fails to properly investigate a claim and fails to accept a reasonable settlement demand within policy limits, the insurer can be exposed to “bad faith” liability. This can “open the policy,” making the insurer potentially liable for amounts far exceeding the original policy limits.
The reasoning is straightforward: insurance companies have a duty to their insureds to seriously consider reasonable settlement offers, especially when the claim value clearly exceeds the policy limits. When an insurer ignores a catastrophic injury case and fails to protect its insured from excess liability, it acts in bad faith.
State Farm’s conduct in this case was textbook bad faith:
- Ignoring a policy limits demand on a catastrophic amputation case
- Conducting no investigation despite clear evidence of severe injuries
- Failing to communicate with either the claimant’s attorneys or their own insured
- Only attempting to tender policy limits after extensive discovery revealed the strength of our case
When an insurer acts this way, California law allows the injured party to pursue the insurer directly for bad faith, potentially recovering amounts far exceeding the original policy limits.
Strategic Litigation Against Bad Faith
Once State Farm’s bad faith became apparent, we pursued the case strategically. We served a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer. We continued building the case through discovery, expert testimony, and medical documentation.
We scheduled mediation before the Honorable Richard A. Stone (Retired) for October 1, 2025, with trial set for November 7, 2025.
At mediation, the case resolved for $7,500,000 from State Farm—250 times their original $30,000 policy limit. We also secured the $15,000 policy limits from the driver of the Jetta, for a total settlement of $7,515,000.
This settlement wasn’t just about Mr. Riahi’s catastrophic injuries, though those alone justified significant compensation. It was also about holding an insurance company accountable for failing in its most basic duties: to investigate claims, communicate with parties, and protect its own insured from excess liability.
The Settlement’s Significance
The $7.5 million settlement from State Farm represents one of the largest bad faith recoveries relative to original policy limits. It sends a clear message that insurance companies cannot simply ignore catastrophic injury cases and hope they’ll go away.
For Mr. Riahi, the settlement provides resources to address his lifetime medical needs: prosthetic replacements, pain management, psychological treatment, and ongoing care for his permanent disabilities. It compensates him for the loss of his leg, his chronic pain, his diminished quality of life, and the permanent limitations he’ll face for the rest of his life.
But beyond the individual case, it demonstrates what’s possible when insurance companies act in bad faith and attorneys are willing to pursue them aggressively.
Why Bad Faith Cases Matter
Insurance companies hold tremendous power. They control whether injured people receive compensation, whether their own insureds are protected from excess liability, and whether claims are resolved fairly or dragged out unnecessarily.
When insurers abuse that power—when they ignore catastrophic injuries, conduct no investigation, and fail in their duties—they must face consequences. Bad faith litigation exists precisely to check this power and ensure insurers take their obligations seriously.
Pursuing bad faith claims requires:
- Thorough documentation of the insurer’s failures
- Understanding California insurance law and bad faith standards
- Strategic timing of demands and offers
- Willingness to take the case through extensive discovery and to trial if necessary
- Ability to prove both the underlying injury case and the insurer’s misconduct
Not every case where an insurer denies a claim constitutes bad faith. But when an insurer ignores a policy limits demand on a catastrophic amputation case, conducts zero investigation, and fails to communicate with anyone involved, that’s not a close call—that’s clear bad faith.
When Facts Are Disputed and Insurers Won’t Cooperate
At Adamson Ahdoot, we handle catastrophic injury cases throughout California, including complex matters involving disputed facts, multiple defendants, and insurance bad faith. This case demonstrates several key principles:
Physical evidence can prove facts even when witnesses disagree. When parties dispute what happened, thorough investigation of physical evidence, expert analysis, and logical reconstruction can establish the truth.
Conservative medical treatment attempts matter. Showing that doctors tried less invasive approaches before proceeding to above-knee amputation demonstrates appropriate medical decision-making and the severity of injuries that necessitated more extensive intervention.
Insurance companies must investigate catastrophic claims. Ignoring an above-knee amputation case with $1 million in medical bills isn’t just poor business practice—it’s bad faith that can expose insurers to liability far exceeding policy limits.
Strategic litigation recovers far more than policy limits. The $7.5 million recovery was 250 times the original $30,000 policy—a result achieved through understanding bad faith law and pursuing it aggressively.
Mr. Riahi’s life changed forever on that rainy January night. He’ll never have his right leg back. He’ll manage chronic pain for the rest of his life. He’ll face limitations that most people never have to consider.
But the settlement ensures he has resources to address those challenges and holds accountable both the driver who created the dangerous situation and the insurance company that failed in its duties.
Your Case Deserves Thorough Investigation
If you’ve been catastrophically injured in circumstances where facts are disputed, or if an insurance company has ignored your claim or failed to properly investigate, you may have options beyond what initially appears possible.
Disputed facts don’t make a case unwinnable—they require skilled investigation and strategic presentation of physical evidence. Insurance companies that ignore catastrophic claims aren’t just being difficult—they may be acting in bad faith, creating exposure far beyond their policy limits.
Your catastrophic injury deserves attorneys who will:
- Investigate thoroughly even when facts are initially unclear
- Build cases through physical evidence and expert testimony
- Pursue conservative treatment approaches that demonstrate appropriate medical care
- Understand insurance bad faith law and when policies become “open”
- Fight aggressively against insurers who fail in their duties
That level of advocacy can turn a $30,000 policy into a $7.5 million recovery—and ensure catastrophically injured clients receive compensation that truly reflects their losses.
About Adamson Ahdoot LLP
Adamson Ahdoot LLP is a personal injury law firm based in Los Angeles, serving clients throughout California. Our attorneys handle catastrophic injury cases, insurance bad faith matters, and complex litigation requiring thorough investigation, expert collaboration, and aggressive advocacy against insurance companies that fail to meet their obligations.
Contact us for a free consultation:
Phone: (866) 645-4992
Website: aa.law
Address: 1122 S. La Cienega Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90035
