Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón declined to prosecute the driver as an adult.
"$18.8M settlement reached in fatal West LA Lamborghini crash involving teen driver.
The family of a 32-year-old woman who was killed in a West L.A. crash involving a teenager behind the wheel of a Lamborghini SUV will receive a settlement of $18.8 million.
In October, Brendan Khuri, the then 17-year-old driver of the Lamborghini, was sentenced to nine months of what was described as a "rigorous juvenile camp" in addition to four years of probation. He had previously admitted to felony vehicular manslaughter in the case.
On Wednesday, lawyers for Muñoz announced what they call "one of the largest settlements in California history for a single plaintiff in a wrongful death case.""
"17-year-old driver admits to vehicular manslaughter in West LA Lamborghini crash that killed woman.
Shortly before the collision, prosecutors claimed in court, the teenager had been "racing" with a female friend and swerving in and out of lanes, the Los Angeles Times reported. The Lamborghini reached a speed of 106 mph when it hit Munoz, nearly splitting her vehicle in two, according to prosecutors."
Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón declined to prosecute the driver as an adult.
"$18.8M settlement reached in fatal West LA Lamborghini crash involving teen driver.
The family of a 32-year-old woman who was killed in a West L.A. crash involving a teenager behind the wheel of a Lamborghini SUV will receive a settlement of $18.8 million.
In October, Brendan Khuri, the then 17-year-old driver of the Lamborghini, was sentenced to nine months of what was described as a "rigorous juvenile camp" in addition to four years of probation. He had previously admitted to felony vehicular manslaughter in the case.
On Wednesday, lawyers for Muñoz announced what they call "one of the largest settlements in California history for a single plaintiff in a wrongful death case.""
"17-year-old driver admits to vehicular manslaughter in West LA Lamborghini crash that killed woman.
Shortly before the collision, prosecutors claimed in court, the teenager had been "racing" with a female friend and swerving in and out of lanes, the Los Angeles Times reported. The Lamborghini reached a speed of 106 mph when it hit Munoz, nearly splitting her vehicle in two, according to prosecutors."
I'm speculating a bit. However, Khuri's family gave a Lamborghini to a seventeen year old kid with a history of at least two traffic citations. There is something in the law called "negligent entrustment". In this situation it was negligence to give this high performance car to a young irresponsible teenager with a poor driving record. I suspect the Khuri family ended up personally paying part of the $18.8 million settlement (which would please me to no end). The rest was probably paid by different insurance policies.
I'm speculating a bit. However, Khuri's family gave a Lamborghini to a seventeen year old kid with a history of at least two traffic citations. There is something in the law called "negligent entrustment". In this situation it was negligence to give this high performance car to a young irresponsible teenager with a poor driving record. I suspect the Khuri family ended up personally paying part of the $18.8 million settlement (which would please me to no end). The rest was probably paid by different insurance policies.
Why would the insurance company have to pay more than the policy limits plus whatever umbrella they have (usually limited to $2M)?
-what the laws are in the state you live in. Can your retirement accounts, and home equity be vulnerable in a liability lawsuit, & how vulnerable? Can they pierce the corporate veil if you own a company?
-what is your net worth, & if you lost it all, how easily could you replace it, or at least get back to a comfortable retirement level?
-how many drivers are you responsible for, & how risky do you perceive them to be? Is your area a high risk car insurance area?
-do you own a plane, or a boat?
Given these variables, I bought an Umbrella. I had to raise a few areas in my other policies to qualify for it, which added to my overall insurance costs. I had a male teen driver away at college, 7-figure wealth, & was winding down my career retiring early in my 50's.
I neded to protect the wealth I built. I bought a $5M policy...that was close enough for my comfort level.
Now, I'm in a better State for liability protection (Florida), my teen driver is now 23, & just left our nest, so will no longer be claimed as a dependent on our tax return (a key legal determining factor if you are responsible for your kid/s or not), & most of our assets are in retirement accounts and home equity that our state protects.
We just cancelled our Umbrella, & lowered some our our auto coverages, but maxed out uninsured motorist coverages. Our Son has his car titled in his name, has his own insurance, apartment, job, & he's now paying for it all. He is no longer a dependent in any way, so we cancelled our Umbrella.
We never needed to use it, but it was the wise thing to do for us....our Wills & Trust lawyer agreed, as did our CPA. We consulted them, and our insurance broker, before terminating it, & they were all in agreement.
Last edited by beach43ofus; 07-31-2022 at 04:43 AM..
Why would the insurance company have to pay more than the policy limits plus whatever umbrella they have (usually limited to $2M)?
With respect to the deceased, how did the judge/ jury come up with 18 million for the life of this victim? Setting aside any property damage, and understanding that it is a high COL place (Los Angeles), this is six times what an insurance company would expect as the norm.
The extenuating circumstances of the driver (multiple infractions before, extreme speeding, etc.) should be in his sentence, not in the dollar amount to compensate the victim's family.
Although I am no longer in the insurance biz, these cases are what drives the industry nuts.
I'm speculating a bit. However, Khuri's family gave a Lamborghini to a seventeen year old kid with a history of at least two traffic citations. There is something in the law called "negligent entrustment". In this situation it was negligence to give this high performance car to a young irresponsible teenager with a poor driving record. I suspect the Khuri family ended up personally paying part of the $18.8 million settlement (which would please me to no end). The rest was probably paid by different insurance policies.
Would that doctrine no longer apply once the driver turned 18, or would it apply to any such "entrustment"?
Would that doctrine no longer apply once the driver turned 18, or would it apply to any such "entrustment"?
The elements of the tort of negligent entrustment would be established by the courts in each individual state. I can see situations where I would be inclined to recognize negligent entrustment even when an adult was involved. For example, you know your brother is heavily intoxicated, yet you hand him a set of keys to your own car and invite him to take it for a test drive and he runs through a red light and kills the driver of a small sports car. The key there is having knowledge that he is heavily intoxicated before you gave him the keys.
Everyone needs to remember the $18 million was a settlement. It was voluntarily entered into by the parties involved. It does not involve a verdict by either a judge or a jury. The parties are free to do what they want. I suspect insurance paid part of this settlement and the Khuri family dug into their own pockets and came up with the rest. Sometimes, people or corporations will voluntarily pay more to settle a claim simply because they want to be rid of it. Counsel likely advised the Khuri family there was a strong likelihood a jury would not only award compensatory damages in this case, but punitive damages as well based on reckless misconduct. The insurance company is only responsible for paying compensatory damages under its policy.
After I sold my rental properties, then sold my car and now gave up my driver's license, sold my gun, and never have visitors inside my condo, I canceled my umbrella policy. I think it is highly unlikely I would be sued for any substantial amount of money unless perhaps I have some sort of freak accident (like falling down the steps) where I get tangled up with someone else, causing them injury. I'm also on Medicare with a Medigap supplement, so I should have my major medical covered with no limit; although rehab care may not be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
