In November, 1998 Gary Pierce contacted a law office seeking representation for a claim against his insurance carrier and in particular the UIM provisions of the policy. Mr. Pierce had been involved in an accident purportedly caused by a phantom vehicle on I-5 while driving his tractor/trailer.  He had been in formed by his attorney that there was no coverage under the policy and he was most likely at fault for the accident.  The attorney had declined to represent him any further in his claim.

Mr. Pierce's injuries, as a result of the accident, were catastrophic.  Mr. Pierce's attorney had not investigated the facts of the accident, he had not interviewed any of the witnesses, no accident re-constructionist had reviewed the data, and there was apparently no challenge to the insurance company's declination of coverage.  A decision was to, at the least, review the available documents, including the insurance policy, and speak to several of the witnesses.

Following a brief investigation, Mr. Pierce's case was accepted.  This case is an example as to why we should all take a second look at those cases of severely injured individuals, even if they have been rejected by our peers.