The Way Attorneys May Proceed After Insurance Company Denies Insured Is At Fault For Accident
It is not uncommon for an individual hurt in a motor vehicle accident to be confronted with a driver who denies fault
. Frequently, these defendants basically place responsibility with the plaintiff for the accident. As many motor vehicle accidents are not witnessed by bystanders such claims may depend on the credibility of the plaintiff versus the credibility of the defendant. Lawyers who handle these types of cases find that if this goes on the adjuster for the insurance company insuring the defendant will often align themselves with the defendant.Lawyers seasoned in dealing with such claims, most notably in those that deal with major injuries to the victim, understand that they actually do carry the burden of demonstrating that the driver was responsible. Relying on a credibility battle is not likely to result in a settlement and gambles on the outcome at trial. Despite the fact that it is not always economically viable to work up a case using experts, in cases where the damages are enough and there is sufficient insurance coverage or there are assets that could be used for a recovery, it may be proper to do so.
Look at the documented case in which a truck hit a male messenger on a bicycle as the truck was turning right. The bicyclist's path was cut off by the truck. The front of the truck slammed into the bicyclist who was knocked down and was run over first by the trucks front tire and then by the trucks rear tire. The plaintiff sustained pelvic fractures and suffered significant internal injuries. He was twenty two years old when the accident took place.
The defendant claimed that he was not at fault for the accident. In what is an all too common defense position the defendant ascribed responsibility to the victim for the accident. The truck driver maintained that he signaled prior to making the turn, maintained that the bicyclist went into the intersection without stopping for the stop sign, and denied twice running over the plaintiff. The victim on the other hand, stated that the defendant never used his turn signal and that the defendant could not have been paying attention when he made the turn.
The law firm that handled this case rebutted the defendant's account of the accident aided by the assistance of an accident reconstruction expert. In demonstrating that the truck did in fact run over the plaintiff twice the law firm established defendant must not have been paying attention to traffic on his right when he made the turn. As a result, the law firm reported that the claim settled in the amount of $400,000 on behalf of the victim.
by: Joseph Hernandez Basketball Autographed By Teams, Players Are Best With Coa Auto Accidents Both Common and Stressful Will Your Auto Insurance Premiums Go Up after an Auto Accident? Auto Accident Checklist Who Should Treat My Injuries After an Auto Accident? Saint Louis Injury Accident Lawyer- A Savior In Difficult Times Never Ever Accept Any Settlement Offer Without Consulting An Auto Accident Lawyer Auto Accident Concerns Senior Citizens and Auto Accidents Several automobiles included in lethal rush hour accident Will An Accident Affect Insurance Rates Car Accident Injury Attorney - Injured? Orange County Auto Accident Lawyer - Your Pain? Get Paid