Adjusters are familiar with the claims process, but none of them has any medical or legal training.
The advantages enjoyed by all claimants
• Each of them was there at the time of the accident.
• Each of them has felt the pain that was caused by the accident-related injury.
• Each of them has experienced the extent to which the accident’s effects have affected their daily life.
None of them is under great pressure to get a certain task done in a limited amount of time. Still, any one of them could destroy that advantage by becoming a procrastinator.Claimant’s mind remains focused on a single case; adjusters need to work on multiple cases simultaneously.
An effort to understand the worth of their own claim: Adjusters do not use stalling tactics, when a claimant has demonstrated an understanding for the value of a given claim. By the same token, an adjuster’s tendency to introduce a low-ball bid might evaporate, if a claimant had demonstrated an appreciation for the value of a given case.
A note of caution
Sometimes an insurance company has chosen to use an attorney as an adjuster. As a result, the chosen lawyer/adjuster might have a tendency to bluff, to a degree that would exceed the amount of bluffing used by a fair number of adjusters.
That could become a real problem, if the injured claimant were someone with a pre-existing condition. Those circumstances would invite the practice of bluffing.
Defendants are supposed to be held responsible for their actions, regardless of how easily any victim might be injured. Still, adjusters realize that not all claimants appreciate that fact.
Injury Lawyer in Sudbury knows that a claimant’s knowledge of liability issues might include an understanding for shared fault. Hence, the adjuster/lawyer might try to take advantage of that specific understanding. It is common knowledge that motorcycle riders need to wear a helmet, while riding their form of transportation.
Hence, a lawyer/adjuster might try to suggest that the claimant should have been wearing some sort of protective garment. Skillful lawyers/adjusters have learned how to frame such a suggestion in a way that has an air of authority.
In other words, those hearing that same suggestion could think that members of the medical community would stand behind the message in the authoritarian-like remark. Indeed, that would have been the remark’s true purpose.
Sometimes bluffing can confuse even an experienced lawyer. That is certainly true, if that same attorney has lacked access to any medical experts, and the representative for the insurance company has learned how to fain extensive medical knowledge. Both lawyers and claimants should make a point of considering the possible ramifications for a highly effective bluff.