$145M Verdict Against Berkshire-Owned Insurer in Bad Faith Trial

In 2021, Fermin Salguero-Quijada, a painter working on apartment complexes in Utah, sustained a traumatic brain injury after falling from a ladder. Initially, his workers’ compensation insurer, Norguard Insurance Company, which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, authorized and paid for his hospital care. However, the legal dispute began when Norguard refused to approve his transfer to a specialized long-term inpatient rehabilitation facility following his hospital discharge.

According to Salguero-Quijada’s legal team, the denial of that critical next phase of treatment had devastating consequences. They argued that his neurological injuries, which initially showed signs of improvement, became permanent due to the lack of continued rehabilitative care. Instead of being admitted to a suitable facility, Salguero-Quijada was placed on a commercial flight and sent home to be cared for by family members, despite his significant impairments.

The Allegations

At the center of the lawsuit was a claim of bad faith insurance practices. Salguero-Quijada alleged that Norguard knowingly acted against his best medical interests by denying medically necessary rehabilitation services. His attorneys asserted that the denial was not based on sound medical judgment but rather on cost-saving measures.

Norguard contended that it had relied on the recommendations of Salguero-Quijada’s workers’ compensation physician, who allegedly did not support the transfer to a specialized facility. The insurer emphasized that it had already paid $2.1 million in medical expenses and planned to cover future wage loss and benefits. Norguard’s attorneys argued that this demonstrated their commitment to meeting their obligations under the policy.

The Trial

The trial took place in Colorado’s 2nd Judicial District before Judge Sarah Wallace. Plaintiff’s counsel, Sean Claggett of Claggett & Sykes Trial Lawyers, described the trial as the culmination of extensive pre-trial preparation, including data-driven focus group testing. Claggett argued that the refusal to pay for long-term care not only violated medical norms but also directly resulted in Salguero-Quijada’s permanent disability.

During closing arguments, Claggett emphasized the real-time analytics his team used throughout the trial. He had warned the defense, based on his focus group data, that the case could yield a jury verdict exceeding $100 million. “I was running real-time data on the trial, and explained to Berkshire that we would be in a position to send a detailed offer on Sunday, once I had my data report that covered the first week of trial,” Claggett told Courtroom View Network (CVN).

Claggett’s final pre-trial settlement offer was in the range of $75 million, or alternatively, a high/low agreement with a $10 million floor and $85 million ceiling. Norguard reportedly countered with a $3 million offer after closing arguments—a figure that was swiftly rejected.

The jury ultimately awarded $145.26 million to Salguero-Quijada, including $60 million in punitive damages. The verdict far surpassed Norguard’s initial pre-trial offer of $750,000. Claggett remarked that the outcome closely matched the expectations generated by his pre-trial models, validating the predictive power of the firm’s litigation analytics.

The Role of Expert Witnesses

One of the central challenges for the plaintiff’s team was proving causation—that the insurer’s denial of care led directly to permanent injury. Claggett credited expert testimony as instrumental in bridging this gap. He cited neurologist Dr. Allison Gray as a pivotal expert witness. “Dr. Allison Gray was fantastic and all of the medical literature in the world supported her opinions, as did her personal experience in treating brain injured patients,” Claggett said.

Her testimony helped the jury understand the critical timing of rehabilitation treatment in the recovery process for brain injuries, and how delays can result in irreversible harm. This expert analysis was a cornerstone of the plaintiff’s argument that Norguard’s actions were not only negligent but amounted to bad faith.

What’s Next?

The verdict raises the prospect of further scrutiny on workers’ compensation insurers, particularly in states like Colorado, where bad faith claims are permitted. Claggett criticized the broader industry trend of denying or delaying treatment to reduce costs, stating, “The simple truth is that injured workers and their employers are taken advantage of and candidly screwed over every day by greedy insurance companies, like Berkshire.”

He added that the case will serve as a detailed study in the forthcoming sequel to his trial strategy guide JuryBall, co-authored with Alicia Campbell. The trial showcased their use of advanced data analytics to shape trial strategy, jury expectations, and ultimately, case value.

Claggett noted that while no financial award can restore his client’s health, the verdict provides a secure foundation for Salguero-Quijada’s future. “Fermin will be able to ensure his financial and physical wellbeing as a result of this verdict,” he said. “For that he is forever grateful to the jury for their courage to stand up for him against a massive insurance company like Berkshire Hathaway.”

Law Firms Involved

The plaintiff was represented by Claggett & Sykes Trial Lawyers, known for their national reputation in high-stakes personal injury and insurance bad faith litigation. Norguard Insurance’s legal representatives were not identified in public reports and did not respond to CVN’s request for comment.