Yuma approves $900,000 settlement over 2023 crash; City’s share expected to reach $300,000

Travelers is expected to pay the settlement after the City completes its insurance retention. Nearly $297,000 has already been spent on attorneys, experts and other defense costs.

By Dan Bustard | Yuma Informed

Yuma City Council voted unanimously October 7 to authorize a $900,000 settlement of a personal-injury lawsuit stemming from a 2023 collision involving a City employee.

The City's insurance carrier, Travelers, is expected to pay the entire settlement to the plaintiffs. But that does not mean the case comes without a significant cost to the City.

According to City Attorney Richard Files, Yuma has already paid $296,929.12 in legal defense expenses, expert witness fees and discovery costs. Another $3,070.88 is needed to meet the City's $300,000 insurance retention before Travelers pays the settlement.

The distinction matters. The City is responsible for the costs making up its $300,000 retention, while the insurer is expected to pay the separate $900,000 settlement. The records reviewed do not show that Yuma must pay both amounts itself.

Council approves settlement

The October 7 council action summary records a 7–0 vote approving MC 2026-187, with Councilmember Smith making the motion and Councilmember Morales seconding it.

The authorization follows negotiations involving the plaintiffs, the City and Travelers. According to the City Attorney's report, a Travelers representative participated in mediation and agreed to the proposed settlement.

The agreement is intended to resolve the lawsuit and secure a full and final release of the plaintiffs' claims against the City.

Council's approval is documented, but the records reviewed through October 8 do not include a signed settlement agreement or confirmation that the payment has been made.

What happened in the 2023 collision?

The lawsuit arose from a November 13, 2023, vehicle collision.

Files' report states that a City employee was at fault. That is a statement of responsibility from the City's own attorney, although the records reviewed do not include a judicial finding of fault or the final settlement agreement's language concerning liability.

The report does not identify where the collision occurred, which City department employed the driver, how the crash happened or the injuries sustained.

The publicly available case history provides some additional context.

The Arizona Judicial Branch's case lookup identifies Yuma County Superior Court case S-1400-CV-202400514, involving two plaintiffs named Candela and the City of Yuma.

The complaint was filed June 27, 2024. The docket later recorded a settlement notice on September 11, 2026, followed by a stipulation for dismissal on October 2, five days before Council approved the settlement.

Those filings suggest the parties had moved toward resolving the case before the public vote. They do not, however, establish the precise dismissal terms or whether all conditions had been satisfied.

The court's free online lookup does not provide the underlying documents, and no final disposition date was displayed in the records reviewed.

How the $900,000 settlement will be paid

The financial arrangement is easier to understand when the City's costs and the insurer's obligations are separated.

ExpenseAmountStatus

Defense expenses paid by City

$296,929.12

Reported paid

Remaining City retention payment

$3,070.88

Expected

Total City retention

$300,000.00

Expected total

Travelers settlement payment to plaintiffs

$900,000.00

Expected after retention is met

A self-insurance retention works much like a deductible. The City is responsible for covered expenses up to an agreed amount before the insurer's payment obligations apply.

In this case, the City Attorney says the $296,929.12 already spent on outside attorneys, expert witnesses and discovery counts toward that amount.

The remaining $3,070.88 would bring the City's contribution to exactly $300,000.

That does not mean another $300,000 must be paid on top of the defense expenses. Most of the retention has already been spent, according to the City's report.

Once the remaining amount is paid to Travelers, the insurer is expected to pay the plaintiffs the full $900,000.

The arrangement is consistent with the City's broader insurance structure.

Yuma's FY 2024 audited financial report describes an Insurance Reserve Fund and a $300,000 self-insurance threshold for liability claims. The City's FY 2027 insurance renewal report also identifies a $300,000 liability retention per occurrence.

Those documents support the general accounting framework, but neither replaces the insurance policy that applied to this particular collision.

The underlying policy and Travelers' written commitment were not available for independent review.

And while insurance covers the settlement under the arrangement described by the City Attorney, insurance itself is not free. Municipal premiums are public expenses, although the records do not assign a specific portion of those costs to this case.

From a $5.5 million demand to $900,000

The settlement followed a substantially larger demand.

According to Files, the plaintiffs initially sought $5.5 million.

The City and Travelers entered mediation to avoid the continuing expense of litigation and the uncertainty of a trial. The City Attorney specifically mentioned the cost of medical experts needed to defend the case.

The negotiations ultimately produced the $900,000 settlement.

That is considerably less than the original demand, but the difference should not be mistaken for a verified savings of $4.6 million.

An initial demand is not a court award. The report does not provide an independent assessment of the plaintiffs' damages, an estimate of what a jury might have awarded or a calculation of the legal expenses that would have followed had the case proceeded to trial.

It establishes what the parties negotiated, not what would have happened otherwise.

What remains unanswered

The council vote authorizes the settlement, but several questions remain about the case's final accounting and legal closure.

The publicly reviewed documents do not establish whether the plaintiffs have signed the release, whether Yuma has transferred the remaining $3,070.88 to Travelers or whether the insurer has issued the $900,000 payment.

The October 2 dismissal stipulation also needs examination to establish its terms and any conditions attached to dismissal.

A final accounting would require the City's defense invoices, payment records, applicable insurance documents and executed settlement agreement. Those records would help establish whether the reported $300,000 represents the complete case-specific municipal expenditure or whether additional closing costs followed.

The City's report also leaves the collision itself largely unexplained. Without the crash report or complaint, there is no reliable public reconstruction of the circumstances or the injuries involved.

Nor do the reviewed records establish whether the incident led to changes in employee driver training, vehicle operations or safety procedures.

The City Clerk's Office provides a process for requesting City records. Underlying court filings must be obtained through the court.

For now, the public record establishes a $900,000 settlement authorization, almost $297,000 in reported City defense expenses and a plan for Travelers to make the settlement payment after the City's $300,000 retention is satisfied.

Whether the final paperwork and payments follow that plan remains to be documented.