1-800-931-7036
There is no single way to settle a claim. Every personal injury case has some special or challenging feature.
Factors affecting a settlement’s size:
The nature of the claimant’s injuries: Claimants with a broken bone would have grounds for seeking more than those with only damaged soft tissues. Naturally, someone that had sustained a catastrophic injury could demand a extremely large compensation.
The extent of the claimant’s injuries: Someone that had been forced to live with multiple scars would have reason to expect more money than someone that had just a single scar. However, the scar’s location would also affect the size of any settlement. If a claimant’s face had been scarred, then that same personal injury lawyer in Hamilton representing the claimant would certainly seek a large compensation.
How clearly did the evidence indicate that the other party was at-fault? If the other party could claim that the plaintiff/claimant was partly responsible for the accident, then the insurance company would almost certainly reduce the size of its proposed settlement.
At times, claimants’ motives affect the size of a settlement. Some claimants seek revenge against the person or business that caused the injury-linked accident. Their desire could push them to refuse to settle. Instead, each of them would be hoping to win a large amount of money from the court, following a trial.
Limits on the defendant’s policy: No insurance company would agree to pay more than the limit, as stated on the policyholder’s/defendant’s policy. Still, those representing a defendant that had purchased a policy with generous limits would do their best to avoid a need to offer the maximum amount, as specified by the policy’s terms.
Some cases reflect the influence of multiple factors.
The interplay of factors could shape the size of a settlement. Imagine, the situation if someone with a preexisting condition were to get rear-ended by a young man that had been able to afford a one of the policies with high limits.
In that case, the young man’s insurance company would try to put pressure on the claimant’s lawyers, so that the size of the compensation could be reduced. For instance, the defendant’s representatives might try to suggest that the plaintiff should have used some type of safety device, while driving. The suggested device would almost certainly be one that seemed to match with the nature of the injured party’s preexisting condition.
The outcome for that imaginary case would reflect the ability of the defense team to convince the opposing party that it had presented a sound argument, in relation to the responsibilities of the driver with the pre-existing condition. A lawyer that lacked access to any medical expert would struggle to challenge the other side’s claims.