After pleading guilty to manslaughter stemming from the 2017 death of a passenger in the car he was driving, Adam Lee Forguson was ordered by a Gila County judge to pay the woman’s parents more than $6,200 as restitution.
State law requires a convicted defendant to pay criminal restitution to a victim’s family for their “economic loss.” But Forguson later challenged the order, arguing that a $30,000 payment the parents received from his insurance carrier covered the amount due under the restitution order.
Cera Marie Annis died at age 27 when Forguson crossed the center line and drove head-on into another vehicle. Her parents provided evidence to the judge in Forguson’s criminal case supporting a restitution claim to cover cremation, lost wages, traveling time, motel rooms, and “out of pocket expenses.”
Forguson later challenged the restitution order, arguing that when his insurance company paid the family $30,000 there was a release form signed which noted the payment released him from “all claims, demands, actions and causes of action.”
A Gila County judge rejected Forguson’s arguments and left the restitution order in place. On appeal, Forguson renewed his arguments of being entitled to credit against the restitution order for the insurance payment. He also argued the language of the insurance settlement precluded the victim’s parents from receiving restitution.
The Arizona Court of Appeals recently released its decision rejecting Forguson’s claims. The unanimous May 13 decision authored by Vice Chief Judge Christopher Staring pointed to a 1991 case (State v. Iniquez) which highlighted that insurance settlement agreements may compensate for economic as well as non-economic losses.
Which is why a judge cannot assume a settlement precludes a criminal restitution order without evidence to the contrary.
“We agree a trial court should, under Iniguez, determine if an insurance settlement includes economic loss that should be excluded from a restitution award lest the victim obtain a windfall,” Staring wrote. “Forguson has identified nothing in the record suggesting the victim’s parents received a windfall here.”
Staring added that the language of the insurance release did not spell out Annis’ estate was being fully compensated for economic loss. Instead, the form states “it is a compromise settlement” paid out at the limit of Forguson’s insurance policy, the decision notes.
“Absent evidence that the $30,000 payment included compensation for the specific economic loss forming the restitution award, there was no basis for an offset,” Staring wrote.
Forguson has until May 31 to file a motion for reconsideration and until June 13 to petition the Arizona Supreme Court for review.
Court records show Forguson, now 30, also pleaded guilty in the same case to one count of aggravated assault stemming from injuries sustained by the driver of the vehicle he drove into. That victim’s economic losses, including medical bills, were covered by insurance and there was no restitution order issued.
Forguson is serving a 13.5-year prison sentence as a result of his convictions.
