How a Late Strategic Reset Transformed a Near-Zero Offer into a Substantial Recovery

The Challenge

This was not an easy or popular case —

• The heater had been installed improperly by the insured
• An early expert saw no liability
• Defense counsel saw no exposure
• As trial approached, the defendant’s position hardened at $17,000 — take it or leave it

To pressure-test the case, we presented our theory of liability to a mock jury.

The result was sobering.

The jurors found for the defense. They placed responsibility squarely on our insured. One juror summarized the sentiment bluntly:

“We don’t buy that the defendant was paid to clean up your mess.”

The Real Obstacle

The harsh jury feedback forced us to re-evaluate our entire case the week before the trial. What the jury helped us realize was that the story lacked focus.

Our Approach

Radical Simplification

In the days before trial, we stripped the case down to a single, concrete question jurors could answer using common sense:

• The heater ran safely for years
• The technician was hired for specialized service
• That service required real expertise and careful adjustment
• After the service, the heater caused a fire

The trial strategy no longer revolved around installation history or shared fault. It focused on one issue only:

Did the technician know what he was doing — and did he leave behind a dangerous condition?

Nothing more. Nothing less.

The Turning Point

With a refined theory and a trial team fully aligned, jury selection began.

The Result

Just days after telling us to accept $17,000 or walk away, we obtained a large six figure settlement.

What changed was not the effort.

What changed was the story.