Personal injury (PI) cases aim to compensate individuals who have been injured due to the negligence of others.
However, getting fair compensation can be very difficult. Insurance companies use claims adjusters to reduce claims, and often use a variety of strategies to do so.
It is recommended that the victims be hired Lawyers in personal injury cases To represent them. By doing so, they can protect their rights and ensure that they receive fair compensation for their injuries by being aware of these strategies.
Here are some of the most common methods used by insurance adjusters.
Image source
Misleading or manipulative data
Submitting misleading or manipulative claims is one of the first strategies an insurance adjuster may use. A settlement officer may contact the plaintiff after an accident and suggest that he or she would be better off accepting a lower settlement offer. They may attempt to create a false sense of urgency by giving the claimant the impression that this is the only offer being considered or that it is only available for a short time.
Adjusters may underestimate the extent of injuries or medical costs by claiming that the claimant’s injuries are not as serious as they appear or do not require ongoing care. For example, they may say that the injuries are “minor” and will go away quickly, which may persuade the plaintiff to accept an insufficient offer in an attempt to close the case at the lowest cost. These remarks are intended to weaken the plaintiff’s confidence in his case and convince him to accept a lower amount of money.
Delaying tactics
Insurance experts recognize that claimants may choose a lower settlement due to financial pressures. Delaying the claims process is a common strategy to achieve this. By requiring unnecessary examinations from multiple doctors, obtaining redundant medical records, or requesting excessive documents, settlers may prolong negotiations.
Delaying responses to calls or emails may also cause delays, making it difficult for claimants to get the information they need to pursue their case. The likelihood that a claimant will encounter financial difficulties and ultimately settle out of desperation increases the longer the process drags on. Unfortunately, claimants often accept lower offers simply to alleviate their anxiety and uncertainty.
Low initial offer
In the first stage of the claims process, insurance adjusters make a low settlement offer. This strategy, referred to as “lowballing,” attempts to convince the plaintiff to accept an offer that is significantly lower than what he is entitled to for his injuries. The offer often represents just a fraction of the actual value of the claim, although it may seem tempting at first, especially if you’re keen to settle.
Insurance companies make a low offer early on because they know that many consumers don’t fully understand the extent of their injuries or the long-term costs of medical treatment. The claimant may accept the offer without knowing that he or she is entitled to much more money if he is not diligent. You can prevent being exploited in this way by having a personal injury attorney on your side.
Disputed liability
The insurance company can challenge the insured party Legal liability In a number of cases. Officers try to argue that the plaintiff was partially or completely at fault, even when it is clear that their client is responsible for the accident. Settlers attempt to reduce the compensation they must pay by reducing the perceived liability of the insured party.
The adjuster could argue, for example, that the plaintiff contributed to the injury by not following proper safety protocols or that he or she was speeding at the time of the collision. In addition to reducing the insurance company’s liability, this strategy may encourage the plaintiff to accept lower damages by giving them the impression that they bear some guilt.
Questioning the seriousness of the injuries
In order to reduce compensation, insurance adjusters may question a claimant’s statements regarding serious injuries. They may employ medical professionals who challenge the diagnosis of injuries, course of treatment, or long-term consequences. Some officers can argue that the plaintiff’s injuries could have been prevented with proper care or were pre-existing.
Officers may take advantage of situations where medical reports appear contradictory or ambiguous by emphasizing that injuries are not as serious as reported. To reduce the cost of medical bills, they may also claim that the plaintiff’s treatment plan is excessive or unnecessary. For example, a settlement adjuster could question whether physical therapy is really necessary if the plaintiff is required to receive it, resulting in a settlement that is insufficient to cover the full cost of long-term care.
Surveillance and monitoring of social media
Assessors may hire private investigators to monitor a claimant’s daily procedures after a claim is filed. They will argue that the plaintiff overstates his injuries or recovery using any surveillance footage or supporting documentation.
For example, it can be used to refute an injured person’s claims if they are observed walking or performing other activities that do not appear to be related to their alleged injuries.
In order to find evidence of actions that imply the plaintiff’s injuries are not as serious as claimed, officers may also monitor their social media accounts. It may be argued that a plaintiff’s disabilities are not as disabling as they claim if social media posts reveal them engaging in seemingly normal activities.
Pressure claimants to submit written statements
Pressuring claimants to provide written or recorded statements about the accident and their injuries is another typical strategy used by insurance adjusters. Officers can exploit these seemingly innocuous words to sway the story in their favor. The officer may ask leading questions or foster an atmosphere in which the plaintiff feels pressured to provide information that conflicts with his or her position.
Once the comment is made, the proofreader can use it to process the facts. The adjuster can contest the validity of a claim if the claimant’s statement conflicts with his first description of the accident or his stated injuries. This may result in a reduction in the amount paid, or in some cases, a denial of the claim altogether.
Discouraging the use of a lawyer
Insurance adjusters try to discourage claimants from hiring Legal advisor By emphasizing that it is unnecessary or would cause a delay in the process. It may imply that the plaintiff can manage the case himself and keep a larger portion of the settlement money. Settlers may encourage claimants to settle quickly by making the procedure appear easy, especially if the initial offer is “generous.”
They fail to inform claimants that legal representation is necessary to deal with the complexities of the PI’s case. An attorney can protect the plaintiff from these deceptive practices, ensure they are fairly compensated, and prevent the insurance company from taking advantage of them. When a lawyer is involved, insurance Companies are likely to make a better settlement offer.