What Is A Fair Settlement?

The difference between what an injured victim was hoping to receive and the amount that he/she finally received could be viewed as a measure of the settlement’s ability to be “fair.” Still a lawyer would judge the fairness by the difference between what a victim actually deserved and the size of the same victim’s compensation package.

Factors considered by a personal injury attorney

Did the victim/claimant have a strong case? The type of accident that caused the damage could indicate the strength of the claimant’s case. Some accidents, such as a rear end collision tend to push an insurance company to offer a generous compensation.

Someone that has been the target of a driver that had approached from the rear would be apt to gain the trust of the jury. The jurists would probably find the plaintiff’s testimony to be credible. Similarly, it would probably view the witness statements as credible.

What is the typical size for a jury award in the jurisdiction where any trial would take place? A personal injury lawyer in Niagara Falls would be able to answer that question, while a typical claimant would lack the ability to answer that same question. Insurance companies realize that not all claimants can judge correctly the value of their claim. An insurer welcomes a demand that falls far below the value of a submitted claim. The insurer instructs the adjuster to respond with an especially low counteroffer.

How do insurance companies approach the stage of negotiations?

The adjuster urges the claimant to make the first offer. Claimants that have hired a lawyer normally include their demand/offer in a demand letter. Those without an attorney simply state the amount that they want, while in a phone conversation with at the adjuster.

If an insurance company were to realize that a claimant did not expect a deserving compensation, then the adjuster might respond to each of the claimant’s offers with an especially low counteroffer.

An adjuster would understand how to take advantage of a claimant’s small demand, because it would not allow much room for negotiations. Consequently, the negotiations would come to an end rather rapidly.

How should a claimant proceed, when reducing the size of a presented demand?

Claimants that reduce the size of the demand rather in a short span of time tend to leave some money on the table, money that has not been requested.

Claimants that reduce the size of their demand too slowly risk the chance of frustrating the adjuster. A frustrated adjuster might hesitate to increase the size of any counteroffer.

Neither approach would help the claimant to receive a fair compensation. Yet both of them would ensure delivery of at least some money to the waiting victim/claimant.

More to explorer