Legal Question in Personal Injury in California

The collision took place on February 27, 2013. Since it's been more than six months from the date of the incident, which means that your father can't sue the city if he didn't file a claim with the city within those six months. It's even too late to file a personal injury lawsuit against the motorcycle driver's estate if one hasn't been filed already as the statute of limitations for that is two years.

As far as the lawsuit against your father goes, he already has representation from his insurance company. It sounds like he has a good defense as he didn't cause the collision and the motorcycle rider had a duty to drive at a speed that is reasonable under the circumstances, which is pretty damn slow when entering a blind intersection.

I agree with Mr. Tillem and would also add that it does not sound like your dad had any loss or damages he could pursue anyway, and if he did, it would have been a mandatory cross-complaint in the widow's action. It is virtually certain that the insurance company filed a cross-complaint for indemnity against the city on your dad's behalf if there were even the slightest grounds for that, and that is the only claim I can think of that your dad might have against the city anyway, since he was not the injured party.

I can only think of ONE situation where you might want to get your own attorney, and if you don't know the answer to any of these questions, you need to find out. Did the plaintiff (the widow) ever offer to settle within your dad's policy limits? If so, did your insurance company refuse? If they refused, you need to know how much the plaintiff is claiming in damages? Especially how much of those damages are what they call "economic" damages (i.e. lost future earnings, etc)?

This is important, because your dad is probably NOT totally fault-free. He made a left turn and that will make him at least PARTLY at fault. If he is even 10% at fault, then he could be held responsible for 100% of the "economic" damages. For non-economic damages like loss of companionship etc he would only be responsible for his share of fault, but for economic damages (which can be a lot!) the plaintiff can get up to 100% from ANY defendant regardless of their relative share of fault.

If the economic damages by themselves are more than your dad's policy limits, then the insurance company should have settled! If they failed to do so when they had the chance, that would be "insurance bad faith" and you should hire independent counsel.