CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
TULSA COUNTY • CJ-2026-1134

Deborah Lindsay-Henry v. Moragen Ferrel

Filed: Mar 12, 2026
Type: CJ

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: rear-end collisions happen every five minutes on American roads. But what makes this one special is that a 45-year-old woman is suing her neighbor—yes, neighbor—for $137,511 over a fender bender on the way home from work, and the legal filing reads like a courtroom version of The Omen, except instead of demonic children, we’ve got IRS life expectancy tables and a 2011 Camry that allegedly failed to stop. It’s not just a car crash. It’s a full-blown life-altering trauma lawsuit, all because someone braked for traffic.

Now, let’s meet our players. On one side, we’ve got Deborah Lindsay-Henry, 45, driver of a sleek 2021 Toyota Sienna (the minivan of suburban dreams and soccer practice runs), who says she was just minding her business, driving north on South Memorial Drive in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on April 30, 2024, around 5:57 p.m.—rush hour, but not crazy rush hour. Clear skies, dry road, green light at East 33rd Street. Nothing out of the ordinary. Except, according to her, a black sedan suddenly appeared in front of her, having just been in a collision of its own. She slammed on the brakes. And then—wham—she got rear-ended by the car behind her: a maroon 2011 Toyota Camry driven by Moragen Ferrel. Also 45. Also from Tulsa. Also, allegedly, her neighbor. That’s right—this isn’t just a random act of highway aggression. This is personal. These two probably wave at each other at the mailbox. Or used to, before one allegedly turned the other’s spine into a medical drama.

Ferrel’s version? She says she was behind Deborah, traffic was slow but moving, she had a green light, and then—bam—Deborah just “slammed on her brakes” with no warning. No time to react. Collision. Ferrel walked away with zero injuries. Deborah, however, claimed a possible back injury and was hauled off by EMS to Hillcrest Medical Center. The police report lists her injury as “(C) Possible Injury,” which sounds about as serious as “mildly inconvenienced,” but in the world of personal injury law, “possible” is the starting gun.

And oh, how the starter pistol echoed.

Because fast-forward to January 2, 2026—over a year and a half later—and Deborah, now represented by The Rode Law Firm (yes, really), files a petition in Tulsa County District Court. Not a small claims form. A full-blown legal assault. She’s not mad about the car damage—Progressive already paid that. No, this is about her body. Her spine. Her future pain. Her life expectancy, which, according to IRS Publication 590-B (2023), is 41.0 more years. That’s right—she’s citing tax tables to prove she has decades of suffering ahead of her. And she wants to be compensated for it. All of it. Every twinge, every MRI, every sleepless night possibly caused by a rear-end collision that, by all appearances, barely dented her minivan.

The legal claims? One big, juicy count of negligence. But not just any negligence—Deborah’s lawyers go full thesaurus mode: ordinary negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se, reckless driving, inattentive driving, following too closely—they even throw in a kitchen sink of Oklahoma statutes and Tulsa city ordinances. She wasn’t just rear-ended. She was legally violated on multiple fronts. The filing accuses Ferrel of failing to keep a proper lookout, driving too fast for conditions (though no speed was recorded), failing to maintain an assured clear distance (a classic rear-ender trope), and basically operating a vehicle like a sleep-deprived college student during finals week.

And what does Deborah want? $137,511. Not a round number. Not $150K. Not even $140K. $137,511. It’s oddly specific, like someone added up medical bills, future therapy, pain and suffering, and then threw in an extra $511 for emotional distress from having to explain to her kids why Mommy can’t lift them anymore. Of that, we know $42,783.71 is for past medical expenses. The rest? “To be proven at trial.” Translation: “We haven’t decided how much we’re really worth yet, but it’s definitely more than your insurance will cover.”

Now, is $137,511 a lot for a rear-end collision? Well, it depends. If you’re talking about whiplash and a few chiropractor visits, no. But if you’re talking about permanent spinal injuries—disc protrusions, annular tears at L2-3, L4-5, and L5-S1 (which sounds like a WiFi password but is actually your lower back falling apart)—then sure, maybe. But here’s the kicker: the police report says Deborah’s car had minor damage. The most damaged area? “No damage.” The vehicle wasn’t even towed. And while we believe people can get seriously hurt in low-impact crashes, the optics are… strained. It’s hard not to side-eye a claim this big when the only physical evidence is a slightly dented bumper and a woman who now allegedly suffers “physical pain, past and future; mental anguish, past and future” for the next four decades.

And let’s talk about that life expectancy thing. Deborah is 45. Table says she’s got 41 more years. That’s not just a number—it’s a multiplication factor. The longer you’re expected to live, the more future medical care, therapy, and pain you can theoretically bill for. It’s like the insurance version of compound interest. “You hurt me now? Great. I’ll be billing you in 2045 when I throw my back out reaching for a pickle jar.”

So what’s our take? Look, we’re not saying Deborah isn’t in pain. We’re not doctors. We’re entertainers, not lawyers. But the most absurd part of this case isn’t the crash. It’s the escalation. A routine traffic incident—two neighbors, one abrupt stop, one unavoidable tap—has been transformed into a high-stakes drama with IRS tables, statutory violations, and a demand that could buy a small house in rural Oklahoma. And for what? A collision so minor the driver who caused it didn’t even need medical attention.

We’re rooting for common sense. We’re rooting for the idea that not every bump in traffic needs to become a 40-year financial obligation. We’re rooting for the day when people say, “Yeah, sorry I hit your minivan, let’s exchange insurance,” and that’s it. But in 2026, in Tulsa County, that ship has sailed. Now it’s about precedent, pain multipliers, and the cold, hard math of human suffering. And if you think that’s dramatic, just wait for the depositions.

Case Overview

$137,511 Demand Petition
Jurisdiction
District Court, Oklahoma
Relief Sought
$137,511 Monetary
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 negligence rear-end collision on South Memorial Drive

Petition Text

3,375 words
IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA DEBORAH LINDSAY-HENRY, an individual, Plaintiff, v. MORAGEN FERREL, an individual, Defendant. Case No.: CJ-2026-01134 Judge: William D. LaFortune Attorney Lien Claimed PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Deborah Lindsay-Henry (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), and for her claims against the Defendant Moragen Ferrel (hereinafter "Defendant"), states as follows: 1. On or about April 30, 2024, Plaintiff was driving her 2021 Toyota Sienna north in the outside lane on South Memorial Drive at or near the intersection with East 33rd Street in Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 2. On or about April 30, 2024, Defendant was driving a 2011 Toyota Camry also north in the outside lane on South Memorial Drive at or near the intersection with East 33rd Street in Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 3. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant was behind Plaintiff. 4. Plaintiff stopped her vehicle for traffic ahead of her. 5. The front of Defendant's vehicle collided with the rear of Plaintiffs' vehicle. 6. Defendant rear-ended Plaintiffs' vehicle. 7. At the time of the rear-end collision, around 5:57 p.m., it was daylight, the weather was clear, and road was dry. See, Oklahoma Official Collision Report attached hereto as Marked Trial Exhibit 20. 8. At the time of the rear-end collision, there was nothing to prevent Defendant from seeing Plaintiffs’ vehicle in front of her. See, Google images of location of collision attached hereto as Marked Trial Exhibit 24. 9. Defendant is at fault for causing the rear-end collision. 10. Defendant was negligent in the operation of her vehicle in that: a. Defendant breached her duty to use ordinary care to prevent injury to others; b. Defendant failed to keep a proper lookout; c. Defendant drove carelessly; d. Defendant was inattentive; e. Defendant failed to maintain an assured clear distance from the vehicle in front of her; f. Defendant was driving too fast for conditions; g. Defendant was following too closely; h. Defendant was negligent per se; i. Defendant was driving recklessly; and j. Defendant was grossly negligent.¹ 11. Defendant was negligent per se in that she violated the following statutes and ordinances: a. 47 O.S. § 11-310: Following Too Closely: The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway. ¹ 25 O.S. § 6 – Types of Negligence defined. Slight negligence consists in the want of great care and diligence; ordinary negligence in the want of ordinary care and diligence; and gross negligence in the want of slight care and diligence. b. 47 O.S. § 11-801: Basic Rule – Maximum (Speed) Limits – Fines and Penalties: Any person driving a vehicle on a highway shall drive the same at a careful and prudent speed not greater than nor less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface and width of the highway and any other conditions then existing. No person shall drive any vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than will permit the driver to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead. c. 47 O.S. § 11-901: Reckless Driving: It shall be deemed reckless driving for any person to drive a motor vehicle in a careless or wanton manner without regard for the safety of persons or property or in violation of the conditions outlined in Section 11-801 of this title. d. 47 O.S. § 11-901b: Full Time and Attention to Driving: The operator of every vehicle, while driving, shall devote their full time and attention to such driving. e. Tulsa Revised Ordinance Title 37 § 618: Conditions affecting speed: Notwithstanding the posted speed limits, any person driving a vehicle shall drive the same at a careful and prudent speed not greater than nor less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface and width of the roadway and any other condition then existing; and no person shall drive any vehicle upon a roadway at a speed greater than will permit him to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead. f. Tulsa Revised Ordinance Title 37 § 645: Inattentive driving: A. It shall be unlawful and an offense for any driver to fail to remain alert and give full attention to the safe operation of his vehicle while it is in motion. B. It shall be unlawful and an offense for any driver to engage in any activity while driving that interferes with the safe control of his vehicle. C. It shall be unlawful and an offense for any person to engage in any activity or to do any act which interferes with a driver's safe operation of a vehicle. g. Tulsa Revised Ordinance Title 37 § 647: Reckless driving: It shall be deemed reckless driving for any person to drive a vehicle in a careless or wanton manner without regard for the safety of persons or property or in violation of the conditions outlined in Section 618. 12. Defendant’s negligence is the sole and proximate cause of the rear-end collision. 13. As a result of the rear-end collision, Defendant’s vehicle sustained damage rendering it inoperable, and it had to be towed from the scene of the collision. See, Oklahoma Official Collision Report attached hereto as Marked Trial Exhibit 20. 14. As a result of the rear-end collision, Plaintiff’s Toyota Sienna suffered property damage, and Defendant’s liability carrier, Progressive, paid Plaintiff’s property damage claim, property damage is no longer an issue in this case. 15. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff was injured. 16. Defendant’s negligence was the sole and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s bodily injuries. 17. Plaintiff is 45 years of age (DOB: ##/##/1980) and according to life expectancy tables, she has a life expectancy of 41.0 more years. See, Life Expectancy Tables from IRS Publication 590-B (2023), attached hereto as Marked Trial Exhibit 61. 18. As a result of this collision, Plaintiff suffered personal injury to her body of a permanent and lasting nature including, but not limited to, injuries to her cervical, thoracic and lumbar spines, with disc injuries to the neck and low back with protrusions and annular tears at L2-3, L4-5 and L5-S1, suffered physical pain, past and future; mental anguish, past and future; and has been forced to incur medical expenses, past and future, all in a sum in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to section 1332 of title 28 of the United States Code. 19. Pursuant to 12 O.S. 3226(A)(2), Plaintiff provides initial disclosures as follows: a. Plaintiff has a life expectancy of 41 more years. b. Physical Pain and Suffering Past: To be proven at time of trial Future: To be proven at time of trial c. Mental Pain and Suffering Past: To be proven at time of trial Future: To be proven at time of trial d. The Nature and Extent of her Injuries To be proven at time of trial e. Whether the Injuries are Permanent To be proven at time of trial f. The Physical Impairment: To be proven at time of trial g. The Reasonable Expenses of the necessary Care, Treatment, and Services Past: an Amount in excess of $42,783.71 Future: To be proven at time of trial 20. On January 2, 2026, Plaintiff's counsel mailed a time limit demand to Defendant's liability insurance carrier, Progressive Insurance Company, demanding the amount of $137,511.00 or the limits of Defendant's liability policy, whichever is less. 21. Plaintiff's time limit demand was issued in accordance with Badillo v. Mid Century Ins. Co., 2005 OK 48, ¶ 33, 121 P.3d 1080 ("Contrary to insurers' position(s), a carrier's duty of good faith and fair dealing in the situation reasonably shown by this record involves more than making an offer to settle for or within policy limits, or simply not refusing unconditional settlement offers within those limits."). See also, SRM, Inc., v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 798 F.3d 1322, 1323 (10th Cir. 2015) ("Under Oklahoma law, a primary insurer owes its insured a duty to initiate settlement negotiations with a third-party claimant if the insured's liability to the claimant is clear and the insured likely will be held liable for more than its insurance will cover."). 22. Plaintiff's claims that are in excess of Defendant's liability carrier's policy limits are herein claimed against any present or future assets of Defendant including, but not limited to, any potential claims Defendant may have against his insurance company, Progressive, for bad faith. 23. Plaintiff agrees to make available for inspection and copying, at the office of Plaintiff's counsel, the documents or other evidentiary material, not privileged or protected from disclosure, on which the above computations are based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered at a mutually agreed time for Defendant and Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that she be granted judgment against Defendant for the total sum of Plaintiff's damages caused by or sustained as a result of Defendant's negligence in a sum in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to section 1332 of title 28 of the United States Code, plus such costs, prejudgment interest, and other relief this court deems equitable and just. Respectfully submitted, [Signature] Robert L. Rode, OBA #14307 Nathan W. Solomon, OBA #35237 The Rode Law Firm 6136 East 32nd Place Tulsa, OK 74135 918-599-8880 Fax: 918-599-8863 Attorneys for the Plaintiff Oklahoma Official Collision Report Type: Crash Vehicles: 2 Commercial: 0 Pedestrians: 0 Pedalcyclists: 0 Injuries: 1 Fatalities: 0 Photos Taken: No Location: S MEMORIAL DR and E 33RD ST S Date of Collision: 04/30/2024 Day of Week: TUESDAY Time of Collision: 17:57 Date of Report: 05/01/2024 Locality: Mixed Use County: Tulsa City: Tulsa Latitude: 36.11444 Longitude: -95.88651 Unit 1 # Occup: 1 Last Name: ferrel First Name: moragen MI: SFX Address: 10620 s lakewood ave City: Tulsa Zip: OK 74137 Date of Birth: 28 Sex: F DLN: DL State: OK DL Class: D/Regular DL Status: Valid License Injury Severity: (O) No Apparent Injury Condition: Apparently Normal Restraint Systems: Air Bag Not Deployed Ejected: Not Ejected Not Ejected: Endorsements: Alcohol Suspected: Test Status: Test Not Given Alcohol Method: BAC: Pending Drug Use Suspected: Test Status: Test Not Given Drug Method: Drug Test Results: Pending Owner Information: Driver is Owner: ✓ Owner Last Name: First Name: MI: SFX Restrictions: Owner Address (Street, City, State, Zip): Vehicle Information: Year: 2011 Make: Toyota Model: Camry VIN: 4T1BK3EK8BU613571 Color: Maroon Plate #: NAZ329 Plate State: OK Plate Exp: 9/2024 Insurance Company: progressive Insurance Phone #: 8886714405 Policy #: na Passenger Car Special Function Unknown Vehicle Removal Not towed Removed By: Personal Wrecker Contributing Circumstance: Steering Visibility Obscured By: Unknown Traffic Control Device: Not Applicable Traffic Control Signal: Not Distracted Contributing Factor 1: Followed Too Closely - Human Element Contributing Factor 2: Failed To Stop - Other Pre-Crash Action: Extent of Damage Disabling Damage Movements Essentially Straight Ahead: Surface Type: Blacktop Speed Involved: NO Roll: NO Burned: NO Direction: North Alignment: Straight Grade: Level Total Lanes: 2 Legal Speed: 40 Most Damaged Area: No Damage Motor Vehicle in Transport Sequence of Events: Motor Vehicle In Transport Unit 2 # Occup: 1 Last Name: henry First Name: Deborah MI: SFX Address: 3123 s 88th ea City: Tulsa Zip: OK 74145 Date of Birth: 43 Sex: F DLN: DL State: OK DL Class: D/Regular DL Status: Valid License Injury Severity: (C) Possible Injury Injury Area: Spine Condition: Apparently Normal Restraint Systems: Air Bag Not Deployed Ejected: Not Ejected Not Ejected: Endorsements: Alcohol Suspected: Test Status: Test Not Given Alcohol Method: BAC: Pending Drug Use Suspected: Test Status: Test Not Given Drug Method: Drug Test Results: Pending Owner Information: Driver is Owner: ✓ Owner Last Name: First Name: MI: SFX Restrictions: Owner Address (Street, City, State, Zip): Vehicle Information: Year: 2021 Make: Toyota Model: Sienna VIN: 6TDYRKEC8MS040854 Color: Silver Plate #: LHE667 Plate State: OK Plate Exp: 6/2024 Insurance Company: state farm Insurance Phone #: 8007828332 Policy #: 3825495175 Passenger Van (< 9 seats) Special Function: No Special Function Vehicle Removal Not towed Removed By: Contributing Circumstance: Body, Doors Visibility Obscured By: Driver/Distracted By Not Applicable Traffic Control Device: Traffic Control Signal: Not Distracted Traffic Controls Functional Functioning Properly Contributing Factor 1: Unknown/No Improper Act - Avoiding Other Vehicle Contributing Factor 2: Pre-Crash Action Movements Essentially Straight Ahead Extent of Damage Minor Damage Surface Type: Blacktop Speed Involved: NO Roll: NO Burned: NO Direction: North Alignment: Two-Way - Divided Grade: Level Total Lanes: 2 Legal Speed: 40 Most Damaged Area: No Damage Most Harmful Event: Motor Vehicle In Transport Sequence of Events: Motor Vehicle In Transport Oklahoma Official Collision Report Type Crash Vehicles 2 Commercial 0 Pedestrians 0 Pedalcyclists 0 Injuries 1 Fatalities 0 Photos Taken No No LV/CMV Data Entered. No Passenger Data Entered. Unit # 2 Last Name Henry First Name Deborah MI Address (Country, Street, City, State, Zip) USA 3123 S 88th ea, Tulsa OK 74145 EMS Run # 138 EMS Agency Name EMSA Transported By EMS Ground Transported to Medical Facility Hillcrest No Trailer Data Entered. Weather Condition Clear Light Condition Daylight Road Surface Conditions Dry Type of Intersection T-Intersection Relation to Junction Non-Junction Interchange Related NO Railroad Crossing # Type of Work Zone Workzone Information Location of Work Zone Collision Workers Present Secondary Crash Type Other (Narrative) Any Roadways/Lanes Blocked NO Secondary Crash Information Original Collision Start Date Start Time 00:00 Original Collision Cleared Date Cleared Time 00:00 Lane(s) Blocked Lane Blocked Date Block Time 00:00 Lane Cleared Date Cleared Time 00:00 No Property Damage Data Entered. Investigating Officer AARON WOLFE Agency TULSA POLICE DEPARTMENT Badge 02593 Troop/Division TULSA POLICE DEPARTMENT Reviewing Officer James Peters Agency TULSA POLICE DEPARTMENT Badge 01927 Troop/Division TULSA POLICE DEPARTMENT Oklahoma Official Collision Report Type Crash Vehicles 2 Commercial 0 Pedestrians 0 Pedalcyclists 0 Injuries 1 Fatalities 0 Photos Taken No Diagram Narrative On 4/30/2024 @ 1757 hrs I was dispatched to the above location for a 2 car collision. Upon arrival I found that there were actually 2 separate, 2 car collisions. One collision, caused the other. I then made contact with all units to make sure nobody was injured. I found that the driver of unit 2, in this collision, Deborah Henry had a possible injury to her back. She was then transported to Hillcrest by EMSA Unit 138. Her husband was on scene when I arrived and took possession of the car after the investigation was complete. I then spoke with the Driver of unit 1 Moragen Ferrell: Ferrell said that she was in the outside lane going northbound on S. Memorial directly behind unit 2. She said that she noticed traffic was moving slowly but she had a green light so she proceeded forward. Then all of the sudden unit 2 slams on their brakes and she didn't have enough time to stop and she ran into the back of unit 2. *Office Dawes got unit 2 driver, Deborah Henry's statement before she was loaded onto the EMSA Bus. Unit 2, Deborah Henry's statement: Henry said that she was going northbound on S. Memorial and that she had a green light at 33rd St. She proceeds forward with the green light and all of the sudden she notices that there is a black sedan directly in front her that she thinks was just in a collision. She immediately slams on her brakes not to hit this other car and is struck in the rear by unit 1. Unit 2 in this collision did not collide with unit 1 of the collision directly in front of them. Collision occurred in the city and county of Tulsa E 33rd St S & Memorial Dr E 33rd St S & Memorial Dr Google Maps Imagery ©2026 Google, Imagery ©2026 Airbus, Map data ©2026 20 ft. EXHIBIT 24 Google Images of location of collision [https://www.google.com/maps/place/E+33rd+S+&+Memorial+Dr,+Tulsa,+OK+74145/@36.1145061,-95.8870354,105m/data=!3m11!1e3!4m63!5i1s0x87b68d4dc1439ac5:30x4f8288434b122681c8m213d36.11437551] https://www.google.com/maps/place/E+33rd+S+&+Memorial+Dr,+Tulsa,+OK+74145/@36.1145061,-95.8870354,105m/data=!3m11!1e3!4m63!5i1s0x87b68d4dc1439ac5:30x4f8288434b122681c8m213d36.11437551... 24.2 Google images of location of collision https://www.google.com/maps/place/E+33rd+St+S+%26+Memorial+Dr,+Pulsa,+OK+74145/@36.114443,-95.8867336,41m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x87b68d4dc1439ac5:0x4f828a43b122bb81e8m2!1d36.1143755!4d… Google Maps E 33rd St S & Memorial Dr Imagery ©2026 Google, Map data ©2026, Map data ©2026 10 ft E 33rd St S & Memorial Dr Intersection Tulsa Houston Directions Save Nearby Send to phone Share Sugar Land Tulsa, OK 74145 Add a missing place Casey's Add your business Bomringa. Add a label Your Maps history Photos Rise Souffle... 24:3 Google images of location of collision E 33rd St S & Memorial Dr Intersection Tulsa Directions Save Nearby Send to phone Share Super LEOC Add a missing place Casey's Add your business Boeinga... Add a label Your Maps history Photos 24.4 Google images of location of collision Appendix B. Life Expectancy Tables Table I (Single Life Expectancy) (For Use by Beneficiaries) <table> <tr> <th>Age</th> <th>Life Expectancy</th> <th>Age</th> <th>Life Expectancy</th> </tr> <tr><td>0</td><td>84.6</td><td>30</td><td>55.3</td></tr> <tr><td>1</td><td>83.7</td><td>31</td><td>54.4</td></tr> <tr><td>2</td><td>82.8</td><td>32</td><td>53.4</td></tr> <tr><td>3</td><td>81.8</td><td>33</td><td>52.5</td></tr> <tr><td>4</td><td>80.8</td><td>34</td><td>51.5</td></tr> <tr><td>5</td><td>79.8</td><td>35</td><td>50.5</td></tr> <tr><td>6</td><td>78.8</td><td>36</td><td>49.6</td></tr> <tr><td>7</td><td>77.9</td><td>37</td><td>48.6</td></tr> <tr><td>8</td><td>76.9</td><td>38</td><td>47.7</td></tr> <tr><td>9</td><td>75.9</td><td>39</td><td>46.7</td></tr> <tr><td>10</td><td>74.9</td><td>40</td><td>45.7</td></tr> <tr><td>11</td><td>73.9</td><td>41</td><td>44.8</td></tr> <tr><td>12</td><td>72.9</td><td>42</td><td>43.8</td></tr> <tr><td>13</td><td>71.9</td><td>43</td><td>42.9</td></tr> <tr><td>14</td><td>70.9</td><td>44</td><td>41.9</td></tr> <tr><td>15</td><td>69.9</td><td>45</td><td>41.0</td></tr> <tr><td>16</td><td>69.0</td><td>46</td><td>40.0</td></tr> <tr><td>17</td><td>68.0</td><td>47</td><td>39.0</td></tr> <tr><td>18</td><td>67.0</td><td>48</td><td>38.1</td></tr> <tr><td>19</td><td>66.0</td><td>49</td><td>37.1</td></tr> <tr><td>20</td><td>65.0</td><td>50</td><td>36.2</td></tr> <tr><td>21</td><td>64.1</td><td>51</td><td>35.3</td></tr> <tr><td>22</td><td>63.1</td><td>52</td><td>34.3</td></tr> <tr><td>23</td><td>62.1</td><td>53</td><td>33.4</td></tr> <tr><td>24</td><td>61.1</td><td>54</td><td>32.5</td></tr> <tr><td>25</td><td>60.2</td><td>55</td><td>31.6</td></tr> <tr><td>26</td><td>59.2</td><td>56</td><td>30.6</td></tr> <tr><td>27</td><td>58.2</td><td>57</td><td>29.8</td></tr> <tr><td>28</td><td>57.3</td><td>58</td><td>28.9</td></tr> <tr><td>29</td><td>56.3</td><td>59</td><td>28.0</td></tr> </table> EXHIBIT 61 Appendix B. (Continued) Table I (Single Life Expectancy) (For Use by Beneficiaries) <table> <tr> <th>Age</th> <th>Life Expectancy</th> <th>Age</th> <th>Life Expectancy</th> </tr> <tr> <td>60</td> <td>27.1</td> <td>91</td> <td>5.3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>61</td> <td>26.2</td> <td>92</td> <td>4.9</td> </tr> <tr> <td>62</td> <td>25.4</td> <td>93</td> <td>4.6</td> </tr> <tr> <td>63</td> <td>24.5</td> <td>94</td> <td>4.3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>64</td> <td>23.7</td> <td>95</td> <td>4.0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>65</td> <td>22.9</td> <td>96</td> <td>3.7</td> </tr> <tr> <td>66</td> <td>22.0</td> <td>97</td> <td>3.4</td> </tr> <tr> <td>67</td> <td>21.2</td> <td>98</td> <td>3.2</td> </tr> <tr> <td>68</td> <td>20.4</td> <td>99</td> <td>3.0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>69</td> <td>19.6</td> <td>100</td> <td>2.8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>70</td> <td>18.8</td> <td>101</td> <td>2.6</td> </tr> <tr> <td>71</td> <td>18.0</td> <td>102</td> <td>2.5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>72</td> <td>17.2</td> <td>103</td> <td>2.3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>73</td> <td>16.4</td> <td>104</td> <td>2.2</td> </tr> <tr> <td>74</td> <td>15.6</td> <td>105</td> <td>2.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>75</td> <td>14.8</td> <td>106</td> <td>2.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>76</td> <td>14.1</td> <td>107</td> <td>2.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>77</td> <td>13.3</td> <td>108</td> <td>2.0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>78</td> <td>12.6</td> <td>109</td> <td>2.0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>79</td> <td>11.9</td> <td>110</td> <td>2.0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>80</td> <td>11.2</td> <td>111</td> <td>2.0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>81</td> <td>10.5</td> <td>112</td> <td>2.0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>82</td> <td>9.9</td> <td>113</td> <td>1.9</td> </tr> <tr> <td>83</td> <td>9.3</td> <td>114</td> <td>1.9</td> </tr> <tr> <td>84</td> <td>8.7</td> <td>115</td> <td>1.8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>85</td> <td>8.1</td> <td>116</td> <td>1.8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>86</td> <td>7.6</td> <td>117</td> <td>1.6</td> </tr> <tr> <td>87</td> <td>7.1</td> <td>118</td> <td>1.4</td> </tr> <tr> <td>88</td> <td>6.6</td> <td>119</td> <td>1.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>89</td> <td>6.1</td> <td>120+</td> <td>1.0</td> </tr> </table>
Disclaimer: This content is sourced from publicly available court records. Crazy Civil Court is an entertainment platform and does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers. All information is presented as-is from public filings.