Andy Lucero was a professional truck driver doing his job when another semi changed lanes into him and took everything.
His career. His vision. The life he had built behind the wheel.
The trucking company’s insurance offered him $250,000 and expected him to accept it. He didn’t.
A jury awarded him $2.25 million, the defense appealed every ruling they could find, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed every single one.
For injured people in Arizona, Lucero vs. STI Trucking is a reminder that serious injuries deserve serious investigation, especially when insurers or defendants try to minimize the long-term impact of a crash.
What Happened in Lucero v STI Trucking?
Alexander Kim, driving for STI Trucking Inc., made an unsafe lane change, striking Andy’s commercial truck on an Arizona roadway. The collision caused a mild traumatic brain injury, which is a form of brain damage that affects cognitive function and that insurers and defense teams routinely try to dismiss as minor or imagined. It also caused blurry vision in Andy’s left eye that deteriorated from 20/30 before the crash to 20/300 within a month. Andy was forced out of the career that defined his life because he could no longer satisfy the vision standards necessary to maintain his commercial driver’s license.
How Did the Defense Try to Minimize Andy’s Injuries?
The defense did exactly what insurance companies do. They pointed to emergency room records that focused on Andy’s visible eye injury and downplayed the head trauma. They brought in their own experts who argued that Andy’s symptoms came from a pre-existing condition and that the crash did not carry enough force to cause a concussion. They offered $250,000 and argued that his injuries were worth substantially less than the evidence ultimately showed.
Andy’s legal team refused that number. They assembled neurologists, a brain injury specialist, and an economist who documented everything the crash had taken from Andy. They introduced DTI MRI, an advanced brain imaging technique that detects white matter damage that standard MRI scans miss entirely. These imaging results directly countered the defense’s claim that no brain injury had occurred. The jury saw through the defense’s arguments and awarded Andy $2.25 million.
What Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Decide?
STI Trucking and Kim appealed, challenging multiple trial decisions. The Ninth Circuit reviewed every argument and affirmed every ruling. Specifically, the court found:
- The jury’s determination that the accident resulted in Andy’s vision loss was supported by proper medical evidence, which featured a differential diagnosis from an ophthalmologist and a clear record showing his eyesight failed quickly right after the crash;
- The defense’s attempt to introduce a comparative fault instruction failed because they did not request it on time and then affirmatively approved jury instructions that excluded it; and
- The court rejected additional procedural challenges and found no error significant enough to justify disturbing the jury’s verdict.
With every argument rejected, the $2.25 million verdict stood exactly as the jury decided it. Andy’s case had survived the toughest test the defense could throw at it.
What Does This Case Mean for You?
Here’s what the Lucero vs. STI Trucking outcome tells us about serious injury cases in Arizona. The defense relied on early medical records, competing expert opinions, and arguments that the crash did not cause the full extent of Andy’s injuries. Despite those challenges, the evidence persuaded both the jury and the appellate court that the injuries were real and that the crash caused them.
This case also shows why early assumptions about a claim’s value can be misleading. Serious injuries often require extensive medical evidence, expert testimony, and a full understanding of how the injury affects a person’s future before their true impact becomes clear.
It is worth noting that the Ninth Circuit designated this ruling as unpublished, meaning it does not apply to any future cases. Instead, it stands as a decision specific to these facts and this fight.
What Can Injured People Learn from Lucero v STI Trucking?
Cases like Lucero vs. STI Trucking involving traumatic brain injuries, commercial trucking companies, and disputed medical evidence require lawyers who are prepared to challenge insurers and present complex evidence effectively.
Our attorneys are active members of organizations such as the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum, the National Trial Lawyers, the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys, and the Arizona Association for Justice, reflecting our commitment to serious injury litigation.
Our verdicts include a $30 million semi-truck crash verdict, a $21 million wrongful death verdict in an oilfield case, an $18 million wrongful death truck crash verdict, and a $7.4 million wrongful death verdict. While every case depends on its own facts and circumstances, these results reflect the level of preparation we bring to high-stakes injury cases.
The Insurance Company Already Has a Team Working Against You.
The insurance company may already be placing a value on your case. Before you accept that number, make sure you understand what your injuries may cost you months or years from now. Lowrider Lawyers helps injured people evaluate the full impact of a serious crash and pursue compensation that accurately reflects what they have lost.
Call Lowrider Lawyers today at 602-777-7777 or contact us online for a free, no-obligation consultation. Our attorneys and staff speak Spanish, understand the communities we serve, and take on the legal fight, so injured families can focus on rebuilding their lives.
Legal References Used to Inform This Page:
To ensure the accuracy and clarity of this page, we referenced official legal and other resources during the content development process:
