Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No time issues on the plaintiff side it seems. The insurance company may be the side to consider increasing their offer by maybe 6.5%. Then again $1,000 or $2 may be worth more to them than it means to the plaintiff so the insurance company may decide to drag it out. When they could end it today.
And from their point of view, you could end it today by accepting the current offer. When it comes to something as subjective as the value of a bodily injury claim, no one is 100% right because there is no objective "right" value.
And from their point of view, you could end it today by accepting the current offer. When it comes to something as subjective as the value of a bodily injury claim, no one is 100% right because there is no objective "right" value.
True.
I have a story that is rather instructive. I had a client who would not accept the highest offer an insurance company made for his car accident injuries. I thought the offer fell within the "reasonable range", but he would not take it. In this case, I could take the case to arbitration and I did so, but not before writing the cilent a letter. In the letter, I reviewed his case, his injuries, and the offer made by the insurance company. I told him that even if we did better in arbitration that he might not see it as much of a victory if we only got $5,000.00 more and in the meantime went through a process that took six months and involved out of pocket costs of $1,500.00 that would be subtracted from any recovery he made. He signed a place on the letter indicating he understood all this and still wanted to go to arbitration.
So, we went to arbitration. The arbitration award was almost exactly $5,000 more than he had been offered. Further, our costs were almost exactly the $1,500.00 that I described. Client was upset. I made him read through the letter I had sent him and that he had signed. He finally took his share of the money and that was the end of that. I think to this day, he believes that I had to have done something wrong or that the arbitration result was dishonest. He couldn't accept the notion that everyone else just valued his case differently. It is indeed, a very subjective process.
I have a story that is rather instructive. I had a client who would not accept the highest offer an insurance company made for his car accident injuries. I thought the offer fell within the "reasonable range", but he would not take it. In this case, I could take the case to arbitration and I did so, but not before writing the cilent a letter. In the letter, I reviewed his case, his injuries, and the offer made by the insurance company. I told him that even if we did better in arbitration that he might not see it as much of a victory if we only got $5,000.00 more and in the meantime went through a process that took six months and involved out of pocket costs of $1,500.00 that would be subtracted from any recovery he made. He signed a place on the letter indicating he understood all this and still wanted to go to arbitration.
So, we went to arbitration. The arbitration award was almost exactly $5,000 more than he had been offered. Further, our costs were almost exactly the $1,500.00 that I described. Client was upset. I made him read through the letter I had sent him and that he had signed. He finally took his share of the money and that was the end of that. I think to this day, he believes that I had to have done something wrong or that the arbitration result was dishonest. He couldn't accept the notion that everyone else just valued his case differently. It is indeed, a very subjective process.
Do you think that he thought others would see his injuries as "worth more" or do you think he thought it was just a bottomless well he would ultimately get more money from? Just curious...
I have a story that is rather instructive. I had a client who would not accept the highest offer an insurance company made for his car accident injuries. I thought the offer fell within the "reasonable range", but he would not take it. In this case, I could take the case to arbitration and I did so, but not before writing the cilent a letter. In the letter, I reviewed his case, his injuries, and the offer made by the insurance company. I told him that even if we did better in arbitration that he might not see it as much of a victory if we only got $5,000.00 more and in the meantime went through a process that took six months and involved out of pocket costs of $1,500.00 that would be subtracted from any recovery he made. He signed a place on the letter indicating he understood all this and still wanted to go to arbitration.
So, we went to arbitration. The arbitration award was almost exactly $5,000 more than he had been offered. Further, our costs were almost exactly the $1,500.00 that I described. Client was upset. I made him read through the letter I had sent him and that he had signed. He finally took his share of the money and that was the end of that. I think to this day, he believes that I had to have done something wrong or that the arbitration result was dishonest. He couldn't accept the notion that everyone else just valued his case differently. It is indeed, a very subjective process.
Perfect example and it parallels current situation to a tea. File suit cost around $300, deposition around $600-$700. So per a discussion we are investing $1000 and hoping for an increase that goes upward toward the demand. If that increase is $1000 then a wash. If higher increase than $1000 then 33% are legal fees.
** Since the difference between demand and offer is 9% of the offer how would a mediator feel about such a small gap? Would they chuckle under their breath as to why they were even needed for such as minimal gap?
Is $1000 is worth much to an insurance company?
If they do not care how much they spend for depositions, etc. then they may very well spend $2000 (example only) and then raise their offer by the same amount.
They could have just done that before a suit. Maybe the have to justify to their supervisors each step that is taken. Make an offer, receive complaint, pass it on the the litigation adjuster, the their lawyer, then begin discovery and depose the plaintiff, mediation.
Maybe each step has to be justified even if they spend $$$ that could have be added to the offer to end it without all those steps.
How common are there that companies have a litigation adjuster. We hope they do have one since that would give a chance to more negotiation talks before their attorney would get involved.
Perfect example and it parallels current situation to a tea. File suit cost around $300, deposition around $600-$700. So per a discussion we are investing $1000 and hoping for an increase that goes upward toward the demand. If that increase is $1000 then a wash. If higher increase than $1000 then 33% are legal fees.
** Since the difference between demand and offer is 9% of the offer how would a mediator feel about such a small gap? Would they chuckle under their breath as to why they were even needed for such as minimal gap?
Is $1000 is worth much to an insurance company?
If they do not care how much they spend for depositions, etc. then they may very well spend $2000 (example only) and then raise their offer by the same amount.
They could have just done that before a suit. Maybe the have to justify to their supervisors each step that is taken. Make an offer, receive complaint, pass it on the the litigation adjuster, the their lawyer, then begin discovery and depose the plaintiff, mediation.
Maybe each step has to be justified even if they spend $$$ that could have be added to the offer to end it without all those steps.
How common are there that companies have a litigation adjuster. We hope they do have one since that would give a chance to more negotiation talks before their attorney would get involved.
I think what you are missing is this: Insurance companies are overwhelmed with claimants who "just want another $5000". Paying any individual claim would be nothing at all. However, if every injury claimant suddenly wants another $5000 it becomes a serious problem for insurance companies.
My legal practice has always been a little different than that of many attorneys. I never did a "high volume" business that depended on generating new clients through advertising. Instead, my "advertising" is largely word-of-mouth. I depend on satisfied clients to send me new business. I do more for my clients than the big law firms with lots of t.v. advertising do. I am more inclined to push harder for an individual client than these firms are. Nevertheless, one day I had an interesting experience. I met with the claims manager for a local insurance company that sold a high percentage of car insurance in northern Utah. On that day, he volunteered something to me. He told me that "I'd like to give your more money than I do on you cases because we don't like to deal with your lawsuits, but I can't do it". He than explained to me that he had dozens of similar cases from "high volume" law firms. He said if these firms learned that I was being paid a lot more money than they were for the same case "there would be hell to pay".
This is what you have to understand. Your case does not exist in isolation. It exists along with hundreds of other similar case files. If you get $X the argument becomes: Why shouldn't everyone with a similar case get the same amount? If they all did, it would change the claims picture significantly. It might even necessitate a raise in liability insurance rates.
Anyway, Howard, I've said it before. You'd be best off listening to your own lawyer than trying to get advice here.
I think what you are missing is this: Insurance companies are overwhelmed with claimants who "just want another $5000". Paying any individual claim would be nothing at all. However, if every injury claimant suddenly wants another $5000 it becomes a serious problem for insurance companies.
My legal practice has always been a little different than that of many attorneys. I never did a "high volume" business that depended on generating new clients through advertising. Instead, my "advertising" is largely word-of-mouth. I depend on satisfied clients to send me new business. I do more for my clients than the big law firms with lots of t.v. advertising do. I am more inclined to push harder for an individual client than these firms are. Nevertheless, one day I had an interesting experience. I met with the claims manager for a local insurance company that sold a high percentage of car insurance in northern Utah. On that day, he volunteered something to me. He told me that "I'd like to give your more money than I do on you cases because we don't like to deal with your lawsuits, but I can't do it". He than explained to me that he had dozens of similar cases from "high volume" law firms. He said if these firms learned that I was being paid a lot more money than they were for the same case "there would be hell to pay".
This is what you have to understand. Your case does not exist in isolation. It exists along with hundreds of other similar case files. If you get $X the argument becomes: Why shouldn't everyone with a similar case get the same amount? If they all did, it would change the claims picture significantly. It might even necessitate a raise in liability insurance rates.
Anyway, Howard, I've said it before. You'd be best off listening to your own lawyer than trying to get advice here.
That's interesting because the carriers I worked for absolutely gave more money to the attorneys we respected and less to the high volume ambulance chasers. And the ambulance chasers didn't really care because they, well, made it up in volume. And a lot of their cases were handled by non-attorneys on their side - sure, an attorney signed off on the letter of representation, but they had staffs of non-attorney claim representatives or whatever titles they used who handled the case, often including negotiating a settlement unless they reached an impasse and then it got kicked to an attorney to file suit. So it cost them less in employee expenses and they could accept a little less on the settlement.
And generally speaking, someone like you does a better job of screening clients and doesn't take the real dog cases anyway, and those cases are worth less to start with.
I think what you are missing is this: Insurance companies are overwhelmed with claimants who "just want another $5000". Paying any individual claim would be nothing at all. However, if every injury claimant suddenly wants another $5000 it becomes a serious problem for insurance companies.
My legal practice has always been a little different than that of many attorneys. I never did a "high volume" business that depended on generating new clients through advertising. Instead, my "advertising" is largely word-of-mouth. I depend on satisfied clients to send me new business. I do more for my clients than the big law firms with lots of t.v. advertising do. I am more inclined to push harder for an individual client than these firms are. Nevertheless, one day I had an interesting experience. I met with the claims manager for a local insurance company that sold a high percentage of car insurance in northern Utah. On that day, he volunteered something to me. He told me that "I'd like to give your more money than I do on you cases because we don't like to deal with your lawsuits, but I can't do it". He than explained to me that he had dozens of similar cases from "high volume" law firms. He said if these firms learned that I was being paid a lot more money than they were for the same case "there would be hell to pay".
This is what you have to understand. Your case does not exist in isolation. It exists along with hundreds of other similar case files. If you get $X the argument becomes: Why shouldn't everyone with a similar case get the same amount? If they all did, it would change the claims picture significantly. It might even necessitate a raise in liability insurance rates.
Anyway, Howard, I've said it before. You'd be best off listening to your own lawyer than trying to get advice here.
Mark will reply to you later.
--------------------------------------
The first attorney we visited was interested in the case and stated that the insurance company for the at fault driver was not to bad to work with. They said they did not often take cases where too many bridges had been burned. They told us to let them know if we were interested in their services. We never called them back and they never called us. We went with a firm that had a full staff whereas that first one had a staff of only themselves and a paralegal.
So from their comment it likely means that many do not take cases if too many bridges have been burned.
Yes. My approach is an individual one. I know every client by name and can recognize every one of them out on the street. When I conduct an initial interview there are certain obligatory questions that have to be asked. However, I sometimes have an assistant ask the obligatory questions. Or, I have the client complete a questionnaire after I have spoken to them.
I try to let the client talk during my portion of the interview. How do they come across? Are they sincere? Do they strike me as whiny or do they act like someone who had injured that part of their body would act? I have learned that if you let people talk, they will tell you most of what you need to know in about twenty minutes.
I'm at a point in my career where I can afford to turn cases down if I don't like something about them. I am not extremely picky, but there are certain things that set me off. I don't like people who exaggerate their injuries and there are a fair number of them. On the other hand, there are some clients, generally men, who downplay the seriousness of what is wrong with them. Sometimes, you have to really dig to discover how much of a problem they really are having.
I work in a field where very much is nebulous, unspecific, and not precise. Insurance companies don't like to pay what cases are worth. Clients tend to overvalue their cases. The truth lies somewhere in between. Finding the "in between" is perplexing. I absolutely love what I do for a living. I can't imagine doing anything else.
Would a mediator chuckle under their breath if he or she arrived & the two parties were 4-5 thousand apart?
(Mediator A: "These two parties could not settle this small difference without me" "Easy money in my pocket" )
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Easy money in my pocket" 
)
