What To Consider Before Filing Lawsuit?

Normally, an accident victim files a complaint with the appropriate court, for the purpose of seeking compensation from the responsible party. Consequently, each such victim ought to entertain these considerations, before proceeding to move forward with the filing process.

What is the proof that the defendant should have access to enough money to cover the demanded compensation?

If the defendant had purchased insurance, then the insurance company would be asked to provide the victim with the desired compensation, as personal injury lawyer in Brantford.

If the defendant’s insurance policy had come with a low limit, then the defendant’s ability to access sufficient funds could be compromised. Still, that would not be a problem, if the plaintiff had purchased an underinsured motorist option.

For what questions would the potential plaintiff need answers, if the responsible driver (the defendant) did not have insurance?

Had the plaintiff purchased an uninsured motorist option? If so, then the plaintiff’s own insurance should be ready to cover the damages.

If the plaintiff had not purchased such an option, then how deep were the defendant’s pockets? In other words, did the defendant have any assets that could be used to cover the reported damages?

In what state had the accident taken place? Was it a state that had chosen to adopt a no-fault auto insurance rule? In such states, the plaintiff’s own insurance is supposed to cover the cost of a policyholder’s damages.

What sort of challenge might the holder of an uninsured motorist option receive, after seeking funds from the company that had sold him/her an uninsured motorist option?

Depending on the circumstances at the time of the accident, had anyone presented a valid charge of negligence against the plaintiff? That charge would not have to come from the defendant. If 3 or more vehicles had been involved, it could have come from an injured driver or occupant in one of the other vehicles.

Did the plaintiff have a lawyer that could help him or her to deal with such a challenge? Was that lawyer experienced in making a case for a plaintiff that had been charged with shared blame? Such a charge would suggest that the size of the plaintiff’s compensation should be reduced.

—Did the plaintiff’s insurance company have proof for the existence of all the essential elements of negligence, with respect to the plaintiff’s alleged actions?
—What principle was followed in the state where the accident took place? Was it the principle of comparative fault or contributory fault? If it was the principle of comparative fault, did it copy the rules that had been adopted in states with traditional fault, or those adopted in states that had chosen to recognize the rules that applied to modified fault?