Case Background
On January 18, 2022, Plaintiff Raul Velazquez Guzman worked at Nathan Scott Wigle’s home in Sacramento. Guzman’s employer was installing custom cabinetry, and he assisted with the project. Wigle owned and operated a 2012 Mercedes CLS 550 parked on his property. Farmers Insurance Exchange, Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., and Truck Insurance Exchange insured Wigle’s vehicle under both auto and umbrella policies.
Cause
While Guzman worked behind the Mercedes, Wigle reversed the car without paying attention. The vehicle struck Guzman and pinned him against another parked car. Wigle then pulled forward, releasing Guzman. However, when Wigle exited the Mercedes, he failed to put the car in park. The Mercedes rolled backward again, striking Guzman a second time. Guzman alleged Wigle acted negligently and recklessly, both in driving and in failing to secure the vehicle. Farmers later disputed the scope of insurance coverage, arguing the two collisions amounted to one occurrence under the policies.
Injury
The collisions caused serious injuries to Guzman’s body. He experienced physical pain and emotional distress. His injuries required medical care and limited his ability to work. He also claimed ongoing effects that would need future treatment.
Damages
Guzman claimed general damages for pain, suffering, and emotional distress. He also sought special damages for medical costs, wage loss, and future care. He argued his injuries placed him at financial and personal risk. Guzman valued the case far above the $1.25 million coverage tendered by Farmers, estimating a jury could award tens of millions.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Raul Velazquez Guzman
Counsel for Plaintiff: Ognian Gavrilov | Priscilla M. Parker
Expert Witness for Plaintiff: Dennis Meredith | Douglas Schuch | Craig Enos | Ricky Sarkisian | Cary Caulfield | April Stallings
Defendant(s): Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. | Farmers Insurance Exchange | Truck Insurance Exchange | Nathan Scott Wigle | Does 1–50
Counsel for Defendants: Michael J. Daniels
Expert Witness for Defendant: Devin Zarkowsky | Miranda Van Horn | Timothy Gillihan | Laurence Neuman
Claims
Guzman brought three causes of action. First, he sought declaratory relief against Farmers, asking the Court to declare both collisions as separate occurrences, thereby opening higher policy limits. Second, he alleged negligence against Wigle for the first collision. Third, he alleged negligence again against Wigle for the second collision. He argued Wigle’s conduct amounted to gross negligence because he ignored obvious risks when operating and exiting the vehicle.
Defense
Defendant Nathan Scott Wigle filed his Answer denying nearly all allegations of negligence. He asserted that Plaintiff was not injured by any act or omission on his part. Wigle objected that the second and third causes of action for negligence were duplicative. He argued that the complaint failed to state sufficient facts for a valid claim, including claims of gross negligence. He also denied that he was wholly liable for the collisions, disputing Plaintiff’s account of events and damages.
Wigle raised multiple affirmative defenses. He claimed Plaintiff’s own negligence and wrongful conduct contributed to or caused the incident, invoking comparative negligence. He argued that other parties or unnamed individuals bore responsibility, and that Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages. He also alleged assumption of risk, superseding causes, statutes of limitation, and limits on non-economic damages under California law. Further defenses included “act of God,” unavoidable accident, and lack of notice of danger.
Jury Verdict
On June 13, 2025, the jury found Defendant Nathan Scott Wigle negligent and held his negligence a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff Raul Velazquez Guzman’s harm. The jury awarded Guzman $256,762 in past lost earnings and $356,301.47 in past medical expenses, totaling $613,063.47 in past economic damages. For future economic damages the amount awarded was 3,399,190. For non-economic losses, the jury awarded $4.5 million for past pain, suffering, and emotional distress, and $10 million for future non-economic damages, bringing the non-economic total to $14.5 million. Combining economic and non-economic categories, the overall verdict amounted to $18,512,253.
Court Documents
Court documents are available for purchase upon request at [email protected]
