It is worth examining motor vehicle accident cases in which insurance companies have made offers well below the amount ultimately recovered at trial. These cases illustrate the factors that might come into consideration in the offer and the factors that might influence the ultimate outcome.
For example, consider a case in which a bicyclist was injured. The driver in this case was operating an SUV. The bicyclist described seeing the driver come from the opposite direction then make a U-turn immediately in front of him giving him no time to stop his bicycle. He ended up going over the hood of the vehicle. The bicyclist suffered from a wrist injury in which his cartilage was torn. Due to his injury he had problems when he returned to his job as a mechanic with a dealership of high-end motor vehicles.
Testimony from a doctor indicated that the bicyclist will probably require surgery to fuse the bones in his wrist at some point in the future and that when this happens it will probably prevent him from continuing to work as a mechanic. As a result the bicyclist would probably not be able to make as much money in the future leading to a loss of earning capacity.
During its investigation into the circumstances of the case the law firm that represented the bicyclist discovered that, at the time of the accident, the driver was test-driving the SUV on behalf his employer. The purpose of the test drive was to put together an advertising review of the vehicle. With this information the law firm was able to name the employer as a second defendant. The insurance company made two settlement offers in the case. The first offer was for $10,000. The second offer, which they made the week prior to trial,
was for $30,000.
The bicyclist, no doubt with the advice of the law firm representing him, did not accept these settlement offers. The law firm was able to report that the case went to trial where they obtained a verdict from the jury in the amount of $550,000. Part of this amount ($250,000) was for economic damages and part ($300,000) was for the non-economic damages such as pain and suffering and the nature of the injury.
Both sides knew the facts of this case before trial. The testimony of the doctor was not a surprise. Yet, each side saw the case from a very different perspective and thus reached a very different conclusion as to the value of the case. The insurance company adjuster and defense attorney no doubt viewed the case as one that involved an injury from which there was a full recovery. They probably discounted the bicyclist's claim that he had problems from the injury when he returned to work. And they probably felt that the doctor's testimony was either too speculative or too far removed from the present.
The law firm that represented the victim, however, realized that it was not that simple. This injury was one was not resolved but rather one which left the bicyclist with a weakened wrist - a wrist that in time would need serious surgery after which the wrist would never be the same again. The law restricted the amount of time the bicyclist had to pursue a lawsuit so he could not wait until the wrist failed him as by then it would be too late. But the law does allow him to recover now for long term effects of the injury. This is how the law firm positioned the case on behalf of the bicyclist and the jury agreed.
Author Resource:-
Joseph Hernandez is an Attorney focused on catastrophic injury cases. To learn more about how a bicycle accident lawyer can help you visit his website at www.vehicle-accident-law.com.
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://cdnimages.articlefriendly.net/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites
