subject: Driver's Insurance Company Makes Low Offer To Injured Victim [print this page] Driver's Insurance Company Makes Low Offer To Injured Victim
In this article we focus on still another lawsuit in which an insurer made only low ball offers to settle a vehicle case in which the plaintiff sustained a significant injury, this time an injury that definitely affected the victim's ability to work.
To illustrate, consider a case in which a bicyclist was hurt. The driver in this lawsuit was operating an SUV. The plaintiff recounted seeing the driver come from the opposite direction then make a U-turn immediately in front of him giving him no time to stop his bicycle. He ended up going over the hood of the vehicle. The plaintiff suffered from a wrist injury in which his cartilage was torn. Because of his injury he had problems when he returned to his job as a mechanic with a dealership of high-end vehicles. And a physician testified that the victim's wrist will probably at some point need to be fused and that this will likely end his career as a mechanic. Consequently the bicyclist would probably not be able to make as much money in the future leading to a loss of earning capacity.
This added the driver's employer as a defendant. At the beginning the insurance company for the defendant made an offer to settle the case for $10,000. The week before the trial they raised their offer to $30,000.
This sum represented $250,000 in economic damages (which would typically include medical expenses and loss of earning capacity). Additionally, it included $300,000 in non-economic damages (this is the pain and suffering caused by the injuries).
The defendant and the plaintiff agreed to the particulars of this matter before trial. The testimony of the doctor was not a surprise. But, each side saw the claim from a distinct perspective and thereby reached a very different conclusion as to the value of the claim. The insurance company adjuster and defense lawyer no doubt saw the claim as concerning an injury from which there was a full recovery. They most likely discounted the bicyclist's assertion that he had difficulties from the injury when he returned to work. And they probably thought that the doctor's testimony was either too speculative or too far removed from the present.
But the law firm representing the bicyclist positioned the matter so that it was not about an injury from which there was a full recovery but about an injury that would do even more significant damage in the future. The injury may not have necessitated surgery right away but it brought on enough damage to the wrist that it would need in all likelihood, not only surgery but a fusion. And this would probably put an end to the victim's career as a mechanic of high-end cars. By letting the jury consider the full effect of the injury the law firm was able to achieve a verdict over eighteen times the sum offered by the insurer.
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
