May 31, 2021 – Huntington Beach, California: Motorcyclist Chanel Garcia was sadly killed in a crash with a DUI driver that occurred in the evening of Monday, May 31. The accident happened in Huntington Beach on Beach Boulevard near Liberty Drive. She suffered severe injuries to which she tragically succumbed in a hospital on Friday, June 4. She was 26 years-old.

Christopher Johnson, also 26 years-old, is believed to have been the driver of the SUV that collided with motorcyclist Chanel Garcia. He was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs.

If you are a family member of someone involved in this incident and would like more information, please click here for help requesting a copy of the police report. Our team of attorneys is here to help you find answers and justice during this difficult time.

The crash in which motorcyclist Chanel Garcia was killed by a DUI driver remains under investigation. It is not yet known whether additional charges will be brought against Christopher Johnson. He has been released on bail.

We Are Here to Help

Our deepest condolences and sympathies are with those involved in this incident and their families. We understand the impact losing a loved one in a severe motorcycle accident can have on your life. Our team of attorneys is compassionate and understanding. We know how to handle the legal and financial aspects of your loss. That way you can focus on coping with it. Our experienced team of Newport Beach wrongful death attorneys and Newport Beach motorcycle accident attorneys are here to help you seek justice and compensation.

Call Younglove Law Group at (844) 810-1800 for a free and confidential consultation. Additionally, if you need help after hours, our team is available 24/7 for your convenience. We are also available by online chat and text message.


If a family member would like this article removed for any reason, please click here, complete the form, and the article will be removed.

The majority of teenagers view driving as a fun and liberating activity. While this may be true in part, teens may become so enamored with freedom that they often neglect the responsibilities, as well as overlook the risks, that come with driving on their own. To ensure a teen practices safe driving, it is essential for parents to explain the potential threats in and around the car, as well as how to avoid them.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics indicate that motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death among teens in the United States. In light of these statistics, it is clear teens need assistance and guidance to become more responsible drivers, particularly in learning how to avoid accidents and stay safe behind the wheel. Consequently, parents who fail to make sure their teens drive responsibly can be considered negligent as well. 

Parental Influence on Teen Driving

Identifying good and bad driving maneuvers may facilitate teen driver education and help them to improve their driving abilities. In this way, teenagers who engage in risky driving behaviors can learn from their mistakes and reduce the likelihood of contributing to a car accident. During the early stages of learning, an adult or parental guardian should provide such guidance. Adult supervision is no longer required once teens attain their licenses; however, studies suggest continued adult supervision and instruction, even after a teen obtains their license, can significantly reduce the rates of teen driving accidents.

The California Department of Motor Vehicles requires parents to sign a consent form before their child may drive if the child is 18 years or younger. Therefore, they are responsible for any accidents caused by their teens. This concept is known as parental liability. Furthermore, parents who lend their vehicles to teenagers may also be liable as vicarious agents. When another person drives a car that causes an accident, the owner is liable by vicarious liability. Additionally, parents may be held liable when their teens are involved in accidents involving alcohol or drugs.

University of Iowa Study Brings Astonishing Results

University of Iowa researchers found adults who monitor their teen drivers’ behavior and engage in conversations about safe driving with their teens could reduce the risk of a crash. Specifically, the study revealed almost 80 percent of driving accidents are prevented when parents talk to their children about how to drive safely.

This study analyzed in-vehicle video monitoring systems that analyzed the vehicle’s speed, the direction it moved, its G-force, and a number of other factors that are relevant to a teen’s driving safety. Parents were immediately notified if their teenager drove faster than they should, braked suddenly, swerved unsafely, or otherwise exceeded a safety threshold.

Study Highlights 

The study examined 150 families with recently licensed teen drivers over a three-year period. Video surveillance and tracking systems were installed in all vehicles. After that, the parents were divided into three groups. One group was alerted when their teens were driving dangerously, another group did not receive notification, and the last group received notification and provided guidance on how to discuss safe driving with their child.

Compared to the other two groups, the third group (those who received notifications and instructions) saw 80% fewer unsafe driving incidents, and the second group that received only notifications about the problem and was not told how to minimize it saw 65% fewer accidents. The study concluded parents should be more involved in helping teens drive safely.

Experienced Teen Driving Car Accident Attorneys in California 

A car accident involving a teenage driver may cause you or a loved one serious injury. The legal team at the Younglove Law Group is here to help and will work diligently to ensure you obtain meaningful compensation. If your teen was in a car accident, you may need help negotiating a settlement to cover medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other economic and noneconomic damages. In other cases, you may be eligible for compensation if you were struck by a teen driver. An experienced California personal injury lawyer can take the case to court to help you obtain the compensation you deserve. 

Call (844) 810-1800 or complete our contact form for a free consultation.  

While driving around the picturesque roads of California, you have no doubt encountered a motorcyclist –– or a group of them –– at some point during your travels. According to, there are more than 800,000 registered motorcycles in the Golden State. Around the beaches especially, they are common methods of transportation. What is even more common is to experience motorcyclists riding between lanes of traffic. This is called “lane splitting.” In the United States, lane splitting is highly regulated, and people often wonder whether it is legal in California.

Listed below are four important points about lane splitting in California.

Lane Splitting is Legal Only in California 

Motorcycle lane splitting is often misinterpreted by road users as being illegal, but this is not always true. It has never been illegal for California drivers to split lanes or share lanes. As such, lane splitting has long been a common method of traveling for motorcycles, particularly as the traffic got slower. Over time, motorcycle riders started lane splitting to keep their vehicles cool and reduce traffic congestion so they could reach their destinations quicker. When lane-splitting, motorcycle riders still have to abide by speed limits, other traffic laws, and can be cited if they do not operate their vehicles responsibly. 

In every state except California, lane splitting is unlawful, according to the American Motorcyclist Association. In most states, it is illegal for motorcyclists to pass a vehicle in the same lane or to ride between lanes of traffic. Nonetheless, there have been some states that have proposed legislation permitting lane splitting. 

Changes to the Law Were Implemented 

In 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 51 into law to lay to rest any uncertainty about lane-splitting. Following its implementation, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) was allowed to set clear guidelines regarding lane splitting to keep motorists safe. Specifically, Section 400 of the bill defined lane splitting as a motorcycle riding between rows of stationary or moving cars with two wheels on the ground.  

California Highway Patrol, in collaboration with the Department of Transportation, the Department of Motor vehicles, and the office of traffic safety and motorcycle safety, developed “lane splitting safety tips.” 

Limited Data on the Dangers of Lane-Splitting 

Lack of data is one of the biggest issues with lane splitting. According to a 2015 study conducted by the Safe Transportation Research & Education Center at University of California, Berkeley, 17 percent of the 6,000 motorcyclists who crashed between June 2012 and August 2013 were lane splitting.

The study also indicates that lane splitting is a relatively safe way to ride a motorcycle in traffic moving at fewer than 50 mph, as long as the speed of the motorcycle does not exceed that of surrounding traffic by more than 15 mph. However, the authors point out that the study cannot be used to assess the overall safety of lane splitting. To determine the safety of the practice overall, researchers would need to collect crash data on motorcycle riders who lane split as well as those who do not and see if one population is more prone to crashes.

While California is the only state where lane splitting is legal, it has a low number of motorcycle deaths per 100,000 registered motorcycles when compared to other states according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This, however, fails to consider other state-to-state variations, such as helmet regulations and motorcycle riding culture. The fact remains that there is no definitive evidence that lane splitting is safe.

Motorcyclists and Drivers Have Different Opinions

Speed and safety are two main reasons motorcycle riders lane split. As a result of lane splitting, motorcycles can travel through traffic at a much faster speed than cars, and bikers say that it improves commutes for everyone. Motorcyclists say lane splitting actually makes them feel safer while riding, despite the fact that drivers often cite safety as a criticism of the practice. Drivers, according to motorcycle groups, tend to associate lane splitting with acts of recklessness, high speeds, rather than with lawful, slow speed lane splitting.

Drivers, on the other hand, generally do not like motorcyclists who lane split. Most drivers disapprove of lane splitting because they believe it is unsafe and unfair. Some people are concerned about the increased risk of accidents, while others don’t appreciate that it is a sudden and startling maneuver. 

Call the Motorcycle Accident Lawyers at Younglove Law Group Today

Motorcycle accident injuries can be quite serious, resulting in life-threatening injuries and complications. A victim can incur medical bills that top five, six, or even seven figures. Moreover, they may also experience continuous employment difficulties for months or be unable to return to work due to permanent disability. And, when a family member has died in a motorcycle accident, you have the right to pursue a wrongful death claim.

You deserve to seek justice for your pain, and attorneys with Younglove Law Group can help you do just that. Our firm has helped clients recover millions in settlements and awards. To schedule a free consultation with one of our experienced motorcycle accident attorneys, call (844) 810-1800 or complete our online contact form.  

March 30, 2021 – Newport Beach, California: Phillip Younglove, Partner at Younglove Law Group, was recently published in Plaintiff Magazine and The GavelPlaintiff Magazine is a nuts-and-bolts journal for trial practice attorneys throughout California, though Plaintiff Magazine primarily serves attorneys in Northern and Central California. Similarly, The Gavel is the official publication of the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association and provides informative articles related to trial practice.

Plaintiff Magazine is published monthly and distributed to plaintiffs’ attorneys throughout Northern and Central California. It has a large circulation, with more than 5,000 copies mailed out each month. In each issue, experienced attorneys present informative articles revealing how they craft demands, complaints, maximize discovery, and use voir dire effectively to win actions in tort such as employment, auto accidents, medical malpractice, product liability, and insurance bad faith. Plaintiffs’ attorneys represent people who have been injured due to the negligence of another, most commonly in auto accidents, bicycle accidents, pedestrian accidents, ridesharing accidents, trucking accidents, dog bites, slip or trip and fall accidents, or through dangerous road conditions.

The text of his article is below:

The Reasonable Demand

How to avoid receiving the pesky “unable to accept or reject” letter

It is common practice to send a time-limited demand to a defendant’s insurance carrier upon confirmation of the applicable policy limits. When the value of a plaintiff’s claim substantially exceeds the value of a defendant’s insurance limits, it is preferable for the plaintiff if the carrier rejects (or neglects to accept) the demand. This is because the rejection can lead to an open policy. However, when the defendant’s policy limits are sufficient to fully compensate the plaintiff, it can be difficult to convince the carrier to recognize the true value of the plaintiff’s claim and tender its policy limits. This difficulty can be overcome by sending a properly prepared demand package.

Many plaintiffs’ attorneys are tempted to selectively disclose information to the carrier in a demand. This often results in the carrier accusing the plaintiff attorney of “playing games.” By withholding relevant information, however, attorneys are often doing themselves and their clients a disservice. At minimum, a demand for policy limits should meet the requirements of CACI No. 2334, which defines a reasonable demand as follows:

A settlement demand for an amount within policy limits is reasonable if the defendant knew or should have known at the time the demand was rejected that the potential judgment was likely to exceed the amount of the demand based on the plaintiff’s injuries or loss and plaintiff’s probable liability. However, the demand may be unreasonable for reasons other than the amount demanded.

Put simply, when evaluating whether the demand should have been accepted, a reasonableness standard is applied at the time the demand was rejected and based on the information available to the carrier at that time. While this means a plaintiff’s attorney does not necessarily have to disclose all relevant information in the demand, it can seriously damage any potential bad-faith claim if relevant information was withheld.

In the eventual bad-faith case, the defense attorney will point to the withheld information and claim the demand would have been accepted had that information been provided. The plaintiff’s attorney’s reasoning for sending a demand while withholding information will then be at issue, and the entire bad-faith case can turn on that.

Generally, this means an attorney should include all discoverable information in their possession that is reasonably necessary to evaluate the claim. Such information should address: 1) liability, 2) economic damages, and 3) non-economic damages. The demand should further 4) make an appropriate monetary demand, 5) be subject to reasonable conditions, 6) have a reasonable deadline, and 7) address any additional exposures.

These are crucial components of a reasonable demand.

Establishing liability

The first consideration for a carrier in evaluating a demand is whether its insured is liable for the damages the plaintiff sustained. Because California is a pure comparative-negligence jurisdiction, this may not take more than a theory of liability on claims in which the plaintiff’s damages substantially exceed the insured’s policy limits.

When that is not the case however, it is recommended to furnish the carrier with evidence supporting liability. This type of evidence can come in myriad forms beyond an admission by the defendant at the scene. Some of the most common are outlined below.

If the plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident, providing the related Traffic Collision Report is the most common way to establish liability. The officer will have noted the identities of all involved parties and the location of the incident, summarized statements from each of the parties and witnesses, and provided their own assessment of liability for the accident. Traffic Collision Reports are often replete with errors and an attorney may need to encourage the plaintiff to file a supplemental report to correct them. If a plaintiff needs to file a supplemental report, be sure to encourage the plaintiff to do so expeditiously. Then, the supplemental report can be included with the original Traffic Collision Report in the demand.

Similarly, if the plaintiff was injured by a dog bite, providing the related Animal Control Report is the most common way to establish liability. Because dog bites are strict-liability claims, the specific facts are not as pertinent as in an automobile-accident claim. If the dog owner is raising certain defenses like trespassing or provocation, however, the facts of the claim can be relevant. Frequently in dog-bite cases, the only use for the Animal Control Report is to confirm that the bite occurred and to confirm which dog attacked the plaintiff.

On claims for which no official report was created, witness statements can be an indispensable tool for proving liability. It is a rare claim in which the plaintiff and defendant recall the facts the same way, so an independent witness’s recollection often carries the day. It is advisable to identify and contact all witnesses as soon as possible after the incident so their memories and recollections are fresh. Their statements can be obtained in writing or in a recorded telephone conversation (be sure to get their consent before recording) from which a transcript can be created. That transcript can then be enclosed with the demand.

In the event there are no witnesses or official reports, be sure to canvass the area around the incident to identify any cameras that may have recorded the incident. Surveillance footage of the incident can make liability clear. A copy of the surveillance footage can then be included with the demand.

Proving economic damages

A defendant is responsible for compensating a plaintiff for the economic damages the plaintiff sustains as a result of the defendant’s negligent conduct pursuant to Civil Code section 1431.2, subdivision (b)(1). It is important for the demand to include information to establish these damages, which can be significant.

Medical bills are typically the most substantial economic damages an injured plaintiff will incur. A trip to the hospital alone can result in more medical expenses than a defendant’s entire liability insurance policy can cover. Providing the carrier with the billing from the hospital visit alone can sometimes be enough information to settle the claim.

A plaintiff who is unable to work due to their injuries can also pursue the defendant for their lost earnings. Many plaintiffs desire to pursue this claim but fail to obtain the documentation necessary to support it. While the bar for plaintiffs to obtain lost wages is not particularly high, as laid out in CACI No. 3903C, the specific amount lost does require evidence.

Thus, be sure to obtain documentation from the plaintiff’s employer explaining the plaintiff’s job duties, time missed, and rate of pay in addition to notes from their physician putting them off work. Keep copies of these throughout the claim and submit them with the demand, as insurance carriers commonly reject loss of earnings claims without evidence a physician placed the plaintiff off work.

A plaintiff can also sustain substantial out-of-pocket expenses that don’t fit in any standard category. For example, a single mother who undergoes a course of chiropractic therapy might incur substantial childcare costs because of the time she has to spend treating. It is advisable to check whether a plaintiff is incurring out-of-pocket expenses throughout their claim so receipts can be provided with the demand as well.

Proving general damages

Often, the most substantial portion of an award to a plaintiff is the award for their general damages. These are subjective by nature, and at the stage of a claim in which the demand is submitted, it can be difficult to fully flesh out a plaintiff’s general damages.

One of the best tools available to an attorney for demonstrating what their client has gone through is their medical records. The subjective complaints noted in their reports can be a powerful weapon in demonstrating the plaintiff’s pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. The total amount of dates of service and duration of each of their appointments further demonstrates the inconvenience they have endured as well. Be sure to include reports for each date of service the plaintiff attended in the demand.

Medical records can also cut against the reasonableness of the demand by undermining causation. If the records mention pre-existing injuries to a body part the plaintiff is claiming was injured in the accident, it can cause the carrier to be “unable to accept or reject” if that pre-existing injury is not properly addressed. The attorney should thoroughly review the plaintiff’s records and provide prior medical records demonstrating the extent of the pre-existing injury with the demand. This provides the carrier with sufficient information to evaluate and respond.

As the adage says, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” Photographs of the plaintiff’s visible injuries are invaluable in demands, as the carrier will not have the benefit of seeing them in person at this stage in the claim. Showing scarring, lacerations, and other visible injuries can help the demand be successful.

When the client’s mood or memory has been affected, it can be useful to have a family member or close friend write a declaration describing the changes they have witnessed since the injury. These declarations can bring the plaintiff’s claim to life and are most useful in claims involving catastrophic injuries or traumatic brain injuries.

Including sufficient documentation in the demand is only half of the battle, however. Many demands are unreasonable because of what they request, not because of what they include.

Demanding the right amount

While any amount of money can be demanded in exchange for the settlement of the plaintiff’s bodily-injury claim, it is often prudent to demand the policy limits of the applicable liability limits of insurance. A demand that asks for more than this can be found unreasonable, thus supporting the carrier’s position it was “unable to accept or reject” it.

The plaintiff can also demand contribution from the defendant over and above their insurance limits, but few defendants are capable of paying any substantial sum. It is advisable to evaluate the defendant’s financial situation, including any assets they own, before sending a demand to the carrier.

Additionally, the demand is an offer with terms and conditions. The language an attorney includes in it must be precise. Do not send a blanket “demand for policy limits” and expect the insurance company to piece together what is being demanded. Identify the types of insurance that are being demanded. Is this a demand for the driver’s insurance and/or the vehicle owner’s? Does the demand include any applicable umbrella policy they may have purchased? If the driver was in the course and scope of employment, does the demand include any commercial policy the employer may have? In short, be specific. It is generally advisable to err on the side of caution by demanding all applicable liability limits of insurance. And it is critical to make sure that you are offering to settle with all insureds under the policy.

Including reasonable conditions

The demand should include conditions that certain documents be provided to confirm all insurance is being identified and tendered to settle the plaintiff’s claim. This protects the attorney from potential malpractice, identifies additional pockets to pursue, and triggers any potential Underinsured Motorist coverage the plaintiff may have.

Specifically, the demand should require a copy of the declarations page for every insurance policy being tendered. This helps to confirm the insurance company is actually paying the full policy.

In an automobile accident case, documentation identifying the registered owner of the defendant vehicle should be required. If the driver and the vehicle owner are different people, they may have separate insurance policies for the plaintiff to pursue.

All policy-limit demands should require the defendant to provide a declaration signed under penalty of perjury identifying all of their insurance, confirming whether they were in the scope of their employment, and asking certain individualized questions for the plaintiff’s attorney to determine whether there might be additional pockets to pursue.

Note, however, that by including requests for information or declarations that can only be provided by the insured, not the carrier, you run the risk of building into the demand a defense to a failure-to-settle claim. For example, the carrier may reject the demand and later claim in a bad-faith lawsuit that it was unable to accept the demand because the insured was not willing to provide the requested information. Ideally, all conditions you attach to the demand should be conditions that are within the carrier’s control.

A release should also be demanded, so the claim can be settled upon receipt of all documents. It is advisable to use the demand to outline the terms the plaintiff will and will not agree to in any release. Do not overstep here, as the defendant – as well as all others insured under the policy — is entitled to a full release in exchange for payment of the policy’s liability limits.

Giving enough time to evaluate the demand

Policy-limit demands should be time-limited, but a reasonable amount of time must be given to the carrier to evaluate the information provided and respond. This is subjective to each claim and depends on numerous factors including the amount of information provided and the value of the claim relative to the defendant’s policy limits. If the defendant’s policy limits are clearly insufficient to compensate the plaintiff, the insurance company should jump at the chance to resolve the claim. On the other hand, if the policy limits are more than sufficient to compensate the plaintiff, enough time should be given to the carrier for it to fully evaluate all supporting documents provided.

Another consideration in determining how much time to give is whether this is the first demand that has been submitted. If the insurance company has received several prior demands and is provided new information demonstrating the claim is worth in excess of the policy limits, it should not require as much time to evaluate and respond as a carrier presented with an initial demand.

Addressing additional exposures

One of the primary obligations the insurance carrier has is to address all exposures to its insured, i.e., all injured parties and claims that can be asserted.

If there are more injured parties than the insurance policy limits can fully compensate, the plaintiffs often work together by sending what is called a global demand. This means they send a single demand that will settle all of their claims against the insured, if accepted.

There are other types of exposures that should be addressed in the demand. For example, if the plaintiff was married at the time of the accident, their spouse will have a claim for loss of consortium. If this claim is not addressed in the demand, it can render the demand defective and make the insurance company “unable to accept or reject.” After evaluating the value of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant’s insurance policy limits and defendant’s ability to contribute to any settlement, the attorney should discuss whether the spouse should assert their claim for loss of consortium. If they elect not to pursue it, the demand should state the spouse will agree to waive the claim in the release.

Statutory liens should also be addressed in the demand. The plaintiff should agree to hold harmless and indemnify the defendant for any bona fide statutory lien arising from their medical treatment in exchange for a full release.


In sum, a plaintiff’s attorney should advise the plaintiff of the available options in seeking the best possible outcome from the defendant. When the best option is to send a policy limits demand, the plaintiff’s attorney can prevent the carrier from rightfully claiming it is “unable to accept or reject” by including all (discoverable) information reasonably necessary to evaluate the claim. It is vital the demand be reasonable under the circumstances. An unreasonable demand on an excess-value claim can prevent the plaintiff from being compensated in an eventual bad-faith lawsuit, and an unreasonable demand on other claims can delay settlement.

By following these straightforward recommendations, plaintiffs’ attorneys can avoid the pesky “unable to accept or reject” letter and settle more of their clients’ claims.