The victim of an accident could suffer great losses. He or she might desire the ability to obtain money in a hurry. Still, a settlement process that moves forward very rapidly could bring less money that one that was carried out over a longer period or time.
What might cause a lengthening of the timeline for the pre-settlement negotiations?
The opposing sides have failed to agree on the issue of fault. Each side blames the opposing party for causing the accident, or the injury that was sustained by the victim. The opposing sides have not agreed on the severity of the reported injuries. It could be that the victim had chosen to see a chiropractor, rather than a medical doctor.
The plaintiff has failed to produce proof of negligence on the part of the defendant. Negligence is the basis for most personal injury complaints. The insurance company expects to be providing the claimant with a large amount of money. For that reason, the insurer has devoted time and resources to an examination of possible defenses, as well as any available information on the plaintiff’s credibility.
How a plaintiff could benefit from a lengthening of the timeline for the pre-settlement negotiations?
Personal injury lawyers in Sudbury always tell their clients to delay negotiations until their treating physician has assured them about their attainment of the level of maximum medical improvement (MMI). That is the point at which a doctor has no further treatment options to offer.
Until a claimant has attained to the level of MMI, he or she might develop new symptoms, or have to deal with emerging complications. Claimants that have settled with an insurance company cannot seek any more money from the insurer. Some claimants think that their refusal of any offer from the insurance company could benefit them. Their misguided thinking reflects their belief that plans for facing the opposing party in a courtroom would encourage the chances for getting more money.
That belief manages to cloud the thinking of the misguided plaintiff. It keeps him or her from realizing that the jury could issue a small award, just as easily as it could a large one. The plaintiff’s collection of evidence might not be complete enough to convince all of the jurists of the plaintiff’s right to win a large amount of money.
Furthermore, even experienced lawyers cannot predict every decision that a judge might make, when issuing a ruling from the bench. The uncertainty that has become associated with a judge’s decisions helps to underline the lack of wisdom in those plaintiffs that have visions of winning a huge sum of cash. Such visions could trigger a lawsuit. Yet those would not guarantee achievement of a win.