A smart claimant should always strive for achieving a fair settlement. Those claimants that focus on settling quickly do not always settle for a fair compensation. Some disputes take time to resolve.
Some disputes allow introduction of unique issues
Sometimes the identity of the liable party is not entirely clear. That lack of clarity could aid creation of a demand for proof that the defendant was at fault. The opposing party might argue that the victim of the accident was at least partly at-fault.
Alternatively, the disputed issue could center on a need for proof that the defendant’s negligence caused the plaintiff’s injury. Should the plaintiff have been trying to minimize the chances for an injury, by using some device, in addition to a seat belt? That question could be raised if the plaintiff had some pre-existent medical condition.
Sometimes the dispute created by an accident concerns the distribution of a large amount of money.
That could be the case if the insurance policy of the allegedly at-fault driver had very generous limits. The existence of such generous limits would push the insurance company to investigate a whole list of factors, as per personal injury lawyer in Calgary.
The company’s legal team would try to identify the basis for a good defense. One of the team’s tasks would concentrate on studying the severity of the reported injury. Another task might involve looking for ways to cast doubt on the credibility of the plaintiff.
If a policy’s generous limits had given an adjuster a lot of money to play with, then he or she might create problems, and hope that the opposing party would give up, and go along with the adjuster’s suggested, and low compensation.
Some claimants try to avoid any hold-up by allowing negotiations to start before reaching the point of maximum medical improvement (MMI).
That deprives the impatient claimant of all the information required, in order to present a strong argument, during the negotiations. If someone were to get compensated for recovery of a known injury, but that same person remained at-risk for developing a related injury, then he or she could be cheated of funds that should be part of any reward.
By the same token, if a driver’s lack of injuries were viewed as proof that no one else in the same vehicle had been injured then that assumption could also work to cheat an injured victim of money that he or she deserved.
Adjusters never check to see if some injury has been overlooked. Adjusters focus on the veracity of the presented information, and not on the chances that some piece of the puzzle might be missing, Unfortunately the missing piece could be some fact that would be in the victim’s favor.