Low Property Damage Motor Vehicle Accidents- Why Are People Injured In These Accidents?

Anybody that tells you that people cannot be  injured in low property damage-bumper kiss type accidents is presenting a generic and biased point of view.

Human logic has a tendency to equate the severity of auto accident property damage to the  severity of injury potential produced by these accidents. This is a common misunderstanding of intuitive reasoning.

Most jurors have this bias, however they still tell us during voir dire that they can be fair and impartial jurors.

Just about everyone that has been driving long enough has rear-ended someone. It isn’t a pleasant experience to have a claim brought against you for a minor property damage car accident for which you were at fault. Personal integrity is often compromised when the person who caused the accident fails to take responsibility for their negligence. They take the position that,  Yes, I rear ended him but he didn’t get hurt.

Logically, you can’t say that neck and back injuries that develop within 24 hours after a low property damage accident have no causal connection to the accident that preceded them.

Insurance companies take the advantage of this intuitive misunderstanding in defending these cases. They use biomechanical experts, who make a good living expressing opinions that low property damage equates to no injury potential despite their lack of medical training.

If that proposition is true, then there should be a direct correlation between the accident-related  property damage and the severity of injuries sustained by the occupants of a vehicle. However, some people walk away unscathed from a motor vehicle accident where their vehicle is totaled while others are injured in accidents with low property damage.  So there is no direct correlation between property damage and injury potential.

Some people do walk away from minor property damage rear-end car accidents without injury. In my experience, however, many are legitimately injured, and some never recover from their injuries.

Do we fully understand the connection between low property damage accidents and the musculoskeletal injuries that follow them? The answer to that is, no.  However, today we know more about how people are hurt in these accidents than we did in the past.

Whiplash injuries commonly referred to as Cervical Acceleration De-acceleration trauma (CAD trauma) cause unusual spinal movement. Sudden acceleration of the occupant’s body is followed by sudden de-acceleration of the body (whiplash).  If the rear of a vehicle is not hit straight on, there can be oblique forces of rotation further complicating the biomechanical sequence of a whiplash body movements  which increases injury potential.

Torso overspeed means that energy released  form a compressed seat back during a rear-end collision can occur at the same time as forward movement of the body, which occurs during de-acceleration phase of a rear-end accident.  This recoil of the seat back adds energy to the forward movement of the body during de-acceleration and contributes to the potential to injure the lower back.  Older  governmental standards for stiffer seat backs have contributed to this injury potential sequence.

Vascoelasticity is a property of human tissue’s reaction to  forces and loads. Under  loading the tissue becomes stiffer and more brittle.   Since acceleration and de-acceleration loading and unloading, including path reversals, occur in one-third of a second, this makes  normal muscles, cartilages, tendons and ligaments more prone to injury when exposed to whiplash body movements. The most vulnerable tissues to vascoelasticity injuries are the discs, facet joints and supportive ligaments of the spine.

The problem with crash testing is that these tests cannot be done at increasing incremental speeds until an actual spinal  injury occurs.  This would increase energy imposed upon the volunteers to the point where they would actually be injured.  This approach would be highly unethical and would violate  human rights and result in legal consequences to the researchers. Cadavers and crash test dummies can’t provide us with 100% accurate crash test results. Therefore, due to these research limitations and the complexity of head and torso movement during a rear end collision, the threshold collision changes of velocity that produce spinal injury at this juncture have not be accurately determined.

The most accurate way for jurors to determine the injury potential of a low property damage rear end motor vehicle accident is to compare the plaintiff’s physical condition before the accident  to the plaintiff’s physical condition that develops after the accident. If there is no evidence of any other trauma in the interim between the accident and the appearance of spinal symptoms, then this lends credence to the proposition that the low property damage accident was the cause of the injuries claimed by the plaintiff.

Therefore, contrary to popular belief, and contrary to what intuitive logic suggests, low speed rear end impacts often do result in cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine injuries.

What Jurors Should Know About Low Property Damage Auto Accidents (Alleged By the Insurance Industry to be Minimum Impact Soft Tissue Motor Vehicle Accidents

Unless you have had to unfortunate experience of being an injured victim of a low property damage motor vehicle accident, you may have difficulty understanding that people do get injured as a result of these accidents.

The purpose of this blog is to educate readers, who may end up on a jury, that there are two sides to every low property damage motor vehicle accident.

The definition of a low property damage accident over the years has expanded from cases where the property damage was under $500.00 to cases involving thousands of dollars worth of damage. The definition is whatever the insurance company representing the at fault driver defines it to be.

In my experience with auto accident claims and litigation for approximately 30 years,  I have seen hundreds of victims develop serious spinal and other musculoskeletal injuries from low property damage accidents.

Obviously, insurance companies hate these case claims, and they will force the victims of personal injury accidents into litigation and even Trial.  Many personal injury attorneys won’t take them – or won’t keep them if they cannot settle them without resorting to litigation.East Inflatables

Once, while backing out of a driveway and moving very slowly, I ran into a pole supporting a basketball backboard.  The impact was to the rubber part of my steel bumper.  The bumper of my car was  the older type which incorporated bumper shock absorbers. The shock of this impact was so great that I thought that I would develop injury symptoms.  Although I was fortunate not to have been injured in the accident, the impact  really rang my bell mainly because of the unexpected nature of the collision.

I did get hurt from rear end collision where that was part of a four vehicle chain reaction rear end accident. My new Corvette was first in line at an intersection when I was struck from behind and pushed out in to the intersection.  I thought that the rear end of my Corvette was demolished.  When I got out  of the car the only damage that  was visible was a crack in my bumper cover about 2 inches long and the rear quarter panel red lights popped out of their of their sockets.  After this accident  my back started hurting, and it kept getting worse with time. I kept denying that I  was injured but eventually had to get some chiropractic treatment because of horrible low back and leg pain.

Insurance companies often deny these low property damage claims, or offer very little to settle them.  They know that many attorneys will not dedicate the time and expense to litigate them. Juries that hear these cases often do not understand the medical complexities involved with whiplash injuries and  are predisposed to think that people who make claims for these types of accidents are trying to take advantage of the system.  As a result it is difficult to obtain a fair verdict that compensates the victims for the injuries they suffer as a result of these car accidents. However, it is my experience that jurors are reluctant to admit this prejudice during voir dire examination.

Skilled defense attorneys defend these cases.   So, the insurance companies motive in strongly defending these claims is an effort to discourage victims of injury accidents from seeking compensation and attorneys from representing those who do.  The advantage to the insurance company is the production of a ripple effect though the legal community.

Since so many people are hurt in these rear-end low property damage accidents, it cannot be said that these accidents do not produce injury.  It is true that some people walk away from them without injury.  Most adverse drivers that cause these accidents often do not get injured because they have the opportunity to see them coming and prepare for the impact. Their bodies also move in different directions than those whose cars they hit.

Many factors enter into the injury potential of these accidents.  Factors that can increase susceptibility to injury include: body position at the time of impact, lack of head rests, seatbelts locking on shoulder harness straps that only go over only one shoulder, bracing, unexpected nature of the collision, susceptibility to injury due to prior injuries or  pre-existing conditions, weight, age, sex (women have more susceptibility to cervical injuries) or presence of osteoarthritis or other degenerative conditions.

Whiplash injuries are caused by the unique and unusual head and spinal movement produced by rear end, side, and frontal impacts.  The symptoms associated with sprain and strain injuries to the supporting structures of the spine may come on hours or even days after the accident. Delayed symptoms associated with spinal injuries are the rule rather than the exception.  Despite this medical truth, insurance companies hire doctors who will testify that the victim of an injury accident may not have been injured, or may have been only slightly injured if they did not complain of pain immediately after the accident.

Insurance companies will argue that there is a scientific correlation between the amount of visible damage sustained to a vehicle’s components, which are  mostly metal and plastic,  and the seriousness of injury sustained to the flesh and connective tissue of a human occupant.

The simple defense argument presented in thousands of courtrooms across the country each day is that injury victim could not possibly have been injured because there was no or very little property damage to the victim’s vehicle.

Insurance companies spend millions of dollars on their commercials talking about fakes, frauds and cheaters who are trying to exploit and defraud  an insurance company out of billions of dollars. They always take the position that injury claims are exaggerated.  Insurance companies make money selling insurance and investing that money in the stock market and other investments. They advertise about fake and fraudulent claims in an attempt to  give the impression that they are actually losing money. In  reality insurance companies have us convinced us that we should not make a claims even against our own policies because our rates will go up, or our policies will be cancelled. Jurors think that if they award money damages to auto accident victims that this may indirectly affect their own insurance rates.

To analyze the effect of a low property damage auto accident one cannot compare apples to oranges.  Trying to make a statistical correlation between damage to  inanimate objects like an automobile and a human body is comparing apples to oranges. Metal and human tissue share little  similarities. Some people herniate a disc when bending over to tie their shoes. And some people walk away from accidents where their cars are totaled.  Therefore, there is no correlation between property damage and human  injury.

In order validate the proposition that little vehicle property damage equates to little injury, the analysis must also  include the proposition that major vehicle  damage must equate to major bodily injury.  Insurance companies will deny such a direct correlation in high property damage cases.  Body movement in a low impact accident can be incredibly complex.  The injury potential of any accident is a matter of medical opinion.  The opinions of treating physicians and defense experts concerning the injury potential of any accident will be divergent.  Defense experts are called upon to provide favorable answers on critical injury potential issues – and are paid to do so. Insurance company experts won’t get repeat business unless they give favorable opinions to their insurance company clients.  Accident Reconstructionists and Biomechanical Engineers can make a lot of money rendering these opinions.  A cottage industry of low property damage auto accident experts has evolved in this country which is supported financially by the insurance companies.  There certainly is money to be made,  however the perceived legitimacy of these experts rests upon the application of junk science.

A multi-disciplinary education involving medicine, physics and biomechanics should be required to qualify a  low property damage expert.  Seldom does the expert have credentials in all three areas. A person who has not treated the victim of the personal injury car accident should be required to be an accident reconstructionist,   medical doctor, engineer,  and mechanical engineer  to render injury potential opinions on low property damage accidents.

Cars absorb energy of a crash by crushing.  Energy is not absorbed by the car if it does not crush. The less crush the  more energy is transferred by the crash to the occupants.

Harmful hyper-extension followed by immediate hyper-flexion  of the head and neck results  from a low property damage rear end accident.  This causing a shearing force to the supporting structures of the spine.  But, insurance experts take the position that a change  of velocity of the impacted vehicle under 5 mph  means that someone that who was legitimately injured and sought medical treatment is always a fake or a fraud.

So, potential jurors should not automatically accept the defense arguments on a low property damage impact auto accident.  They should look to the injured party’s medical condition before the accident.  Was the victim predisposed to injury from a motor vehicle accident  because of arthritis or some other medical condition that would make them more susceptible to injury from a low impact accident?   Are the injuries that are reflected in the post-accident medical records supported by standard orthopedic and neurologic testing?  What was the  range of motion deficit identified by the treating physician and to what extent does it  to verify the musculoskletal injury? Do the x-rays show loss of the normal curvature of the spine caused by muscle spasm?    Does the doctor relate it the injuries to the  accident even considering the low property damage and why?  Was the injured party symptom free prior to the accident? If so, is there any other explanation for the development of the symptoms other than the subject accident? Does the MRI show disc bulges or herniation?  Do the bulges or herniations cause nerve root impingement or irritation consistent with the patient’s symptoms? Did the symptoms develop within a few days of the accident? In determining what injury was caused by the accident, jurors must compare the patient’s condition before the accident to how the patient’s condition after the accident.

Since your job as jurors is to be fair and impartial, you must consider both sides of the story on low property damage motor vehicle accident cases in rendering your verdict.

The picture above is from an accident in which we represented a client in a low property damage accident.  The repairs totaled less than $500.00 to replace the bumper.  The case was tried to a Jury in the Short Trial Program. After considering the facts, including our client’s long history of similar, and chronic, back pain the Jury awarded $3,000.00 to compensate him for the medical bills incurred as a result of the accident and $9,000.00 in pain and suffering as a result of the accident.

Legal Liability of Physical Education Teachers and Coaches

Prior to becoming an attorney, I taught high school physical education in Western Pennsylvania for 12 years. I also coached  gymnastics and track.  I have a masters degree in the  scientific basis of physical education and sports.  I then came to UNLV to work on my doctorate in Education Administration.  I taught physical education classes at UNLV for two years prior to entering law school.

My education and experiences in these areas gives me the unusual background which enables me to comment on the topic of legal liability of physical education teachers and coaches.

The thing that exposes physical education teachers  and coaches to  more  liability than classroom teachers is “movement”.  The amount of student movement in the classroom is limited; therefore, the classroom teacher does not have the liability exposure of a PE teacher or coach.  Add to that the fact that PE teachers and coaches deal with many students moving at the same time. We also have projectiles mixed in with his movement – such as baseballs, softballs, footballs, tennis balls, discus, shot-put, javelin,  etc. – which can cause injuries.   We also deal with various instruments that propel these projectiles to high speeds.  These include bats, golf clubs and  tennis rackets, etc.  You get the picture.  So, because of “movement” the chance of  injury to  our students and athletes is exponentially higher than the liability of the classroom teacher.

The premise of physical education is that movement of the human body carries with it certain physical,  social and emotional benefits.   So there is no way to eliminate movement form what  coaches and PE teachers do.

Furthermore, your facilities are of greater size than that of classrooms.  There is more areas for PE teachers to cover and supervise.  Your facilities include both indoor and outdoor areas.

Many of you also must deal with the presence of water in the form of swimming pools and showers.

Obviously, no students or athletes should ever be left in a swimming pool without teacher or coach supervision.  A swimming pool should remain locked when not in use and the teacher or coach should be the first person in the pool and the last person out.  The danger of drowning and slips and falls goes hand-in-hand with pools and shower facilities.

It is my position that a PE teacher should be the first person into a gym or pool, especially when equipment is present which can create a potential for injury.  The gym or pool should always remain locked when not in use, and the PE teacher and coach should be the last to leave.  This rule is probably a bit  idealistic; however I strongly believe that it is necessary.

Accordingly, in order to prevent accidental injury to our students and athletes, PE teachers and coachs must be concerned with safety of students and athletes much more so than the classroom teacher.

The law that applies to the primary liability exposure  of a PE teacher or coach is “negligence”.  Under the law of negligence a person has the duty to act in a reasonable manner when it come to the safety of others.  If you create an unreasonable risk of harm (by omission or by commission) and somebody gets hurt, your are responsible for the injured person’s damages in the form of medical expenses, loss of income and earnings capacity and for intangible damages for physical and mental pain and suffering.

In Nevada , if you are acting within the course and scope of your employment with a city, county or the state, you have a statutory  limit on your liability exposure of $75,000.00.  However, teachers and coaches get involved with little league, midget football, AAU sports programs, etc.,  where they are not in the course and scope of your employment with a public school. Thus, not every liability exposure will be protected by the statutory cap on damages. Private school teachers do not have the benefit of this liability cap.

When we coach activities outside the public school, we often use our personal cars to transport students. This exposes us to potential liability for injuries caused by our  negligent driving.

If an at fault accident occurs while we are working for a public school, then the school district will pay for damages, subject to the statutory cap.  You will be protected by the cap and you  won’t have to pay, so long as you were  in the course and scope of your employment. When you are involved in coaching or teaching an activity outside of the course and scope of your employment, your assets  are personally exposed.

Therefore,  it is important to be concerned about safety, because following reasonable safety procedures is your duty of reasonable care to your students and athletes.  Anytime that you cut corners on any safety procedure, you can be exposed to potential liability.

If you belong to any professional association, they may offer liability insurance at a nominal rate.  Volunteer coaches may be protected by liability coverage of the league in which you involved.   If you coach, you should inquire into these types of liability insurance protections which may or may not be available to your athletic association or league.

There are many basic rules that can protect you from liability.  These are too numerous to list, however the following are some of the more basic safety rules:

 

  1. Don’t hide in your office between classes.  You have the responsibility to supervise your students.  They can wander off and get involved in all sorts of mischief.  Students can get into fights and altercations with other students which may require your intervention.  There  are many entrances and exits to a PE or athletic complex.  You and your fellow teachers and coaches have  the duty to provide reasonable supervision  these entrances and exits.  This will involve the establishment of a plan and cooperation of your co-workers.
  2. Always keep your pool and gym locked between classes.  Don’t give your keys to students.  These areas should be locked between classes especially when there is equipment set up in the gym. Always check the pool and gym for the presence of students and athletes before you lock the doors.
  3. Mats should always be under any equipment which creates the possibility that as student may fall.  The greater the danger the more matting is required. Never allow the use of any equipment without adequate matting.
  4. It is my strong opinion that some activities should not be taught in PE classes.  Gymnastics should be limited to basic tumbling and basic vaulting skills.  If vaulting activities are used then students must be individually spotted.  Most students do not have the strength to perform skills while hanging or supporting their bodies with their arms.  Therefore there exists the likelihood of falls. If the fall occurs while some is in an inverted position this can cause is spinal injuries, paralysis and even death.  Trampoline (including various types of mini tramps) should ever be taught in PE classes.  If these tramps are used in extracurricular activities such as cheerleading and gymnastics, make sure that there is you have insurance to cover accidents.  You may be surprised that many insurance companies  won’t insure trampolines, or the premium for this coverage may be unaffordable.
  5. For example, remember that even innocent activities  like softball can be dangerous if basic rules are not followed. When there is a fly ball students must be instructed to call for it, and the persons not calling for the catch should back off.  There is always a risk of collision between students  especially when you have 30 students on the fielding team and not just 9.  Head to head collisions and collisions between large and small students carry with them the likelihood of serious injuries.  Remember that there are safety rules that apply to all sports.
  6. Check surfaces where water is present to determine if slip resistant surfaces are inadequate or worn.
  7. Do an inspection of your facilities on a monthly basis.  Report any maintenance repair problems to your maintenance department and to the school administration.
  8. Use appropriate safety equipment for each sport or activities.  If eye protection is reasonable then make provisions to obtain and to use it.
  9. Keep non-participating students out of harms way.
  10. If a student gives you a doctor’s excuse follow the physicians instructions.
  11. Go over safety rules with your students for each new sport or activity.
  12. Do not use strenuous exercise to discipline or punish students. Consult with your school nurse to determine if you have any students who have medical conditions that cannot tolerate any strenuous activity. Never have any physical contact with any student, unless he your safety and the safety of your students is in jeopardy.

When I taught PE, our high school district established a safety committee.  One person from each department was assigned to identify and report  safety hazards to buildings and grounds (maintenance) and to the superintendent.  We identified hazards and immediately repaired them so that they would not be a source of potential injury.

Risk management is concerned with the identification, assessment and control of risks that can endanger students and cause injuries.  Identifying risks is critical to safety.  Risk probabilities can be dividend into he following categories:

 

  1. Very likely to occur- high potential for serious injury.
  2. Some chance of occurrence- high potential for serious injury.
  3. Small chance of occurrence- high potential for serious  injury.
  4. Very little chance of occurrence- high potential for serious injury.

These should be addressed immediately and given high priority.

When the risk involves a medium and low potential for serious injury, these potential risks should be immediately addressed but should have less priority of than those risks which have the potential for serious injury.

Much of what is presented in this article may seem like common sense procedures to you. If this article does not trigger any proactive response from you, go back and read it again, because when it comes to safety, there is always room for improvement.

There always will be risks that cannot be fully identified, prevented or contained. Chances are that you will not be held responsible for those types of  risks because they are not foreseeable.  In preventing accidents decisions should be made that will prevent accidents thus mitigating your liability exposure.   Always be proactive and when it comes to preventing accidents and make sure that you have adequate insurance to protect your personal assets.

Nevada Auto Insurance Companies – Potential for Settlement of Car Accident Claims

INTRODUCTION

I was browsing the internet recently for information on auto insurance company settlement ratios.  The first information that I found involved the country of  India. That post stated that  insurance company settlement ratios ranged from 97.03 per cent to 53.85 percent.  Most  settlement ratios went down slightly from 2011 to 2012. This may be due to the current worldwide economic conditions.

I then found the website for Ohio Department of Insurance which indicated that in 2011, Ohio residents paid $5,056,298,077.00 in auto insurance premiums. Of that, State Farm companies collected about $959,000,000.00 and Allstate companies  collected $429,000,000.00. The complaint ratio for Ohio is  one complaint for each million dollars of auto premiums paid.  Insurers on the Ohio list include Allstate companies, American Family, Farmers, Geico,  Liberty Mutual Noationwide, Progressive, Safeco,  State Farm and USAA, which also are carriers that write auto insurance in Nevada.

I then came across a post entitled Top 6 Worst Auto Insurance Companies – 2011  on the Michigan Auto Law Blog.  This article listed Dairyland Insurance Company as receiving the  Worst Insurance Company in Michigan Award.

Allstate and State Farm were  rated 3d and 4th worst.  Allstate was criticized for cutting payments to its own customer as a way to boost its profits.  Further criticisms were for the use of a computer program designed to reduce claims payments, and for  pushing  injury victims to accept quick, but very low, settlements.

State Farm is the number one provider of auto insurance in the county. In 2009 it had a $777,000,000.00 profit nationally.  Michigan is a no-fault state.  State Farm is the most aggressive insurance company in Michigan accusing its own customers of fraud and putting them under investigation and fighting payment of their no-fault insurance benefits.

Progressive was the winner of the Michigan Auto Law’s Worthless Coverage Award, indicating that Progressive’s uninsured motorists coverage was worthless.

There are many internet postings indicating that Farmers is rated the worst insurance company overall.  They had the most complaints in California, Washington, Texas, Oregon, Arkansas, Arizona and Colorado.  They were criticized for worst ratings for collision repair, overall claim experience, worst claim  settlement representative, worst claim process and settlement procedures and consumer reports ratings. Their employee salaries and bonus encouraged and condoned delay, denial and underpayment of claims and forced litigation of claims.

Affiliated, subsidiary, sister and related companies of Farmers include domestics state companies with the Farmers in their name,(Example: Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona), Truck Insurance Exchange,  FFS, FIG, Fire Underwriters Association, Foremost Insurance Company, Mid Century Insurance Company, Prematic Service Corporation,  Truck Underwriters Association,  Civic Property and Casualty, Exact Property and Casualty, Bristol West Insurance, Neighborhood Spirit, Zurich North American, Zurich Financial Services Group and 21st Century Insurance.

Based upon my observations in handling personal injury claims against insurance companies for the past 30 years, I have come up with the following chart which rates the settlement potential of the major auto insurance carriers doing business in Nevada.  If you are a claimant you may want to refer to this chart to before you criticize  your attorney for not promptly settling your auto insurance claim.

BEST SETTLEMENT POTENTIAL

State Farm is by far the most solvent insurance company in the world. The chance of his insurance company becoming insolvent, I am told, is very low.  They are the number one auto insurance carrier in the nation.  Therefore, they can afford to pay more to settle an auto claim than any other insurance carrier in Nevada.  I do find that State Farm is quick to assign special investigators to first party claims where any fraud is alleged.  They will hire an attorney who will subject the insured to EUO (examination under oath). In the EUO the first thing that the attorney doses is to read insurance fraud statutes into the record and they have told my clients that they are sending a copy of the EUO  transcript the Attorney General.

WORST SETTLEMENT POTENTIAL

It is very difficult to settle car accident claim against Farmers Insurance in Nevada. I am told, and experience bears this out,  that Farmers doesn’t offer more than 1.3 times the claimant’s medical bills to settle a  pre-litigation personal injury car accident claim.  Farmers will also try to devalue the injured victim’s medical bills.  This makes it almost impossible to settle a Farmers claim, unless the claimant has Medical Payments Coverage that pays for all he claimant’s medical bills. Therefore, the chances of settlement of a Farmers claim are dismal  and litigation is almost necessary.

Farmers will pay car accident claims that have a value well in excess of their insured’s liability policy limits.

In litigation Farmers mostly uses in house counsel. Their in house counsel are very busy.  Each attorney has handles a lot of cases.  The attorneys are generally likeable individuals.  They sometimes, on egregious liability claims (i.e. drunk driving) or very high property damage car accident claims, will settle prior to an arbitration hearing or trial. In most cases, if the claimant gets a good arbitration award they will be willing to offer a more reasonable settlement offer, generally less than the arbitration award, to get the claim settled.  In some cases they will agree to pay the arbitration award plus any costs and prejudgment interest that may be awarded by the arbitrator.  Farmers, I believe tries to weed out those cases where the claimant’s attorney does not strongly believe in his client’s case to the extent that he is willing to go thorough litigation to get a higher settlement for his client. I believe that this strategy works with some attorneys.

Mercury,  Dairyland, American Access, Prudential and Progressive Insurance are companies that write a lot of minimum liability policies $15,000.00/$30,000.00) for their insureds.  They employ a strategy to low ball cases.  They do not want to pay out their minimum limits. They hire aggressive attorneys to handle cases and they often make you go through the time consuming arbitration program. And, when you win the arbitration, then they will exempt the small case out of the short trial program and now the attorney is in normal litigation.  In normal litigation the cost of trying  the case, including the cost of paying doctor to come to trial to testify,  is in many cases higher than the amount in controversy.  Of course, the down side exposure to the client associated with not prevailing in excess of a low offer of judgment is very high.  This potential downside exposure could be tens of thousands of dollars to the claimant. This puts pressure on the attorney and the claimant to accept a lowball offer of judgment served by the defense.

Progressive writes a lot of a minimum policies because of their television commercials and low premium advertisements.  Often they  get large claims against minimum policies and there is no underinsurance available. In these cases you try to get their insured to personally contribute to the settlement. However, with or current economy (most people don’t have any saving) this strategy doesn’t often work.

MEDIUM POTENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT

Companies that fall into this category  are Geico, Allstate, USAA, American National, American Family, Met Life and  Nationwide.  However, these companies do not like low property damage cases. They do not like case that involve any questionable liability or comparative fault.  If there is comparative negligence element involved with a claim, they offer only a minimal settlement, and force the claimants attorney in litigation. On low impact cases they will hire biomechanical expert to inspect the vehicles, and he always renders an opinion  that nobody could have been hurt in the accident.

CONCLUSION 

The purpose of his article is to give you some indication of how various insurance companies in Nevada will react to your claim. You need to know what you are  up against on an auto insurance claim. This is the only way that you can make an intelligent decision to either settle or not settle your claim. I think that it is good policy to  explain to each client the adverse insurance company’s idiosyncracies on settlement , so that the client can be prepared for what is likely to transpire on his claim.


SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline