The plaintiff in this case alleged that, when she was a 17-year-old student at the University of Miami, a bar provided alcohol to her, which led her to become intoxicated and unable to fend off older male students who sexually assaulted her.

The bar's insurer declined to defend the bar based, in part, on the assault and battery exclusion in its policy.

The plaintiff and bar settled her lawsuit for $3.5 million. As often occurs in these kinds of tort actions, the bar assigned its right against its insurer to the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed not to execute on the judgment.

The plaintiff then sued the bar's insurer.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit just ruled that the insurer did not have to pay the settlement – an exclusion in its policy precluded coverage of the plaintiff's lawsuit.

What benefit did the plaintiff receive from her lawsuit and $3.5 million settlement?

See: Florida Student Who Settled with Bar for $3.5 Million Recovers Nothing from Bar's Insurer

*

2. The $4 Million Settlement 

The plaintiff in this case, an anesthesiologist, sued a surgeon who allegedly refused to work with him due to his race. The parties entered into a consent judgment in the amount of $4 million, and the surgeon and his company assigned the plaintiff their right to recover under two insurance policies in exchange for his promise not to pursue any of their other assets.

The plaintiff sued the insurers for breach of contract.

Now, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that the plaintiff could not recover any of the $4 million from the surgeon's insurers.

What benefit did the plaintiff receive from his litigation and the $4 million judgment?

See: Doctor Settled Racial Discrimination Suit for $4 Million, But 5th Circuit Says Defendants' Insurers Don't Have to Pay Anything

*

3. The $23 Million Judgment 

The plaintiff in this case alleged that he had been seriously injured while working for a tree trimming company. He sued the company, but its insurer denied coverage. The plaintiff's case went to trial and a jury awarded the plaintiff more than $20 million, and awarded his wife $2.5 million.

The tree company's president assigned the plaintiff and his wife "all rights, claims, actions, or causes of action" that she might have against the insurer relating to their lawsuit.

The plaintiff and his wife sued the insurer, seeking to enforce the assignment.

But a federal district court in Florida has just decided that a policy exclusion barred any applicable insurance coverage.

What benefit did the plaintiff and his wife receive from the litigation and the nearly $23 million in awards?

See: Independent Contractors Exclusion Doomed Worker's Bid for Insurance Coverage of $20 Million Judgment Against Company & Its President

* * *

These cases certainly are not unique. But they all raise an important question: Is there any benefit to pursuing a personal injury action against defendants who do not have the wherewithal to pay a large settlement or judgment without first clearly determining whether there is insurance coverage to pay it?