Yuma approves $900,000 settlement; Travelers is expected to pay plaintiffs

Yuma City Council voted 7–0 on October 7, 2026, to authorize a $900,000 settlement of a personal-injury lawsuit arising from a November 13, 2023, vehicle collision. Travelers is expected to pay the entire settlement to the plaintiffs after the City completes its insurance retention, according to the City Attorney's report.

The public cost already reported is substantial: $296,929.12 for outside attorneys, expert witnesses and discovery. The report calls for another $3,070.88 from the City to reach a $300,000 retention. Those expenses are separate from the $900,000 payment to the plaintiffs.

What Council approved

The official October 7 action summary records approval of MC 2026-187 on a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Morales. All seven council members voted yes. No amendment or additional condition is recorded in that summary.

The City Attorney’s report describes a negotiated settlement intended to secure a full and final release of the plaintiffs' claims against the City. It says a Travelers representative attended the mediation and agreed to the settlement. Council's authorization is documented; an executed agreement or proof of payment was not available in the records reviewed through October 8.

The collision and the lawsuit

City Attorney Richard Files' report states that the City's employee was at fault in the November 13, 2023, collision. That is the City's own account of responsibility. It is not a judicial finding reviewed for this article, and it does not establish whether the settlement agreement contains an admission of liability or a clause disclaiming one.

The report identifies the matter as a personal-injury lawsuit but does not describe the crash location, the employee's department, how the collision occurred or the specific injuries. The complaint and collision report were not obtained. The available evidence does not support a more detailed reconstruction of the crash or the plaintiffs' medical circumstances.

The Arizona Judicial Branch’s public case lookup lists Yuma County Superior Court case S-1400-CV-202400514, with two Candela plaintiffs and the City as defendant. It records a filing date of June 27, 2024, and complaint entries that day. The docket also lists a settlement notice on September 11, 2026, and a stipulation for dismissal on October 2.

Those entries establish that settlement-related filings preceded the council vote. The free lookup does not provide the filings' text and displays no disposition date. A dismissal stipulation is an important procedural development, but without its text, the court file and any applicable conditions, the exact dismissal terms and effective date have not been independently verified. The portal warns that its information may be incomplete or out of date.

What the City pays, and what insurance covers

The settlement report describes a self-insurance retention, which it also calls a deductible: an amount of covered costs the City must bear before its insurer's payment obligation applies. In this case, the City says defense expenses count toward that amount.

Defense expenses reported paid by the City: $296,929.12. These include expert witness fees, outside attorney costs and discovery costs. The report does not itemize how much went to each category or attach invoices.

Additional City payment contemplated: $3,070.88 to Travelers. Added to the reported defense expenses, it brings the City's retention to exactly $300,000. The reviewed records do not establish that this final transfer has occurred.

Settlement payment described for Travelers: $900,000 to the plaintiffs once the retention is satisfied. The report says Travelers will pay the full amount, rather than $900,000 minus another $300,000 deduction. It does not identify another City contribution toward the plaintiffs' settlement payment.

The arithmetic is $296,929.12 + $3,070.88 = $300,000. The $300,000 is the expected total of the City's reported costs counting toward the retention, not a new $300,000 charge on top of the defense expenses already paid. The report therefore does not support saying taxpayers directly paid the entire $900,000 settlement.

Two other City records corroborate the $300,000 liability retention. The FY 2024 audited financial report, covering the fiscal year in which the collision occurred, describes the City's Insurance Reserve Fund and self-insurance up to $300,000 for liability claims. The FY 2027 insurance renewal report says the liability retention remains $300,000 per occurrence.

Neither document substitutes for the policy and endorsements applicable to this collision. The underlying policy and Travelers' written settlement commitment were not obtained, so the case-specific payment arrangement is attributed to the City Attorney's report rather than independently confirmed from the insurance contract.

Insurance also has a public cost: the City purchases commercial coverage. The $300,000 retention accounting is not a complete calculation of every municipal expense associated with the case. The reviewed records do not allocate insurance premiums, in-house staff time or any later closing expenses to Candela, and no additional case-specific public expense is quantified.

Why settle for $900,000?

The City reports that the plaintiffs initially demanded $5.5 million. That was a demand, not a court award or an established measure of damages. The report says mediation sought to avoid continued litigation expense and trial uncertainty, including the cost of medical experts needed for the defense.

It does not provide a public valuation of the injuries, an estimate of remaining trial costs or a calculation explaining the negotiated $900,000 figure. The difference between the initial demand and the settlement cannot be treated as money the City demonstrably saved.

What would complete the public accounting

The remaining questions are concrete: Has the release been signed? When did the City transfer the final $3,070.88? Has Travelers paid the plaintiffs? What does the October 2 dismissal stipulation say? Do the final ledger and invoices confirm the defense total, and were there any additional closing costs?

The applicable insurance policy, executed release, payment records and court filings would resolve those questions. The City Clerk’s records page provides a public-records request route; the underlying court documents must be obtained through the court's document-access or records-request process.

The documents reviewed do not identify a collision-related change to driver training, vehicle operations or safety procedures. Whether such a review occurred remains a reporting question. The available record establishes a unanimous settlement authorization and the City's reported insurance accounting; it does not establish that all payments and legal closure are complete.