One big advantage to settling a personal injury claim relates to the issue of certainty. The outcome for a settlement is more certain than the outcome for a trial, as per personal injury lawyer in Scarborough.
Not every aspect of settlement negotiations is certain.
There is a chance that the insurance company could fail to respond to a claimant’s demand letter. That would stall the negotiation process. The adjuster that has received a claimant’s demand letter could elect to respond by offering a very low opening bid. Smart claimants respond to such a low-ball bid by asking in a written letter for an explanation, concerning the reason for the ridiculously low offer.
A claimant might become so confused about how to deal with the situation, and the whole claim process, that he or she might simply choose to go along with the adjuster’s most recent offer. That would be a risky move, because the accepted offer might not ensure achievement of a fair agreement/settlement.
A discovery session should precede any trial.
The exchange of evidence, which takes place during the discovery session, could lead to the emergence of new evidence. That new evidence might push either of the opposing parties to settle the dispute.
In other words, the act of reaching a settlement could get carried out during any part of the discovery session. In fact, the opposing sides could even elect to settle their dispute during any stage of the trial.
How does an understanding of that fact help to minimize the risk of a trial? It underscores the way that the legal system seeks to limit the number and extent of confrontational events. Furthermore, it helps to highlight the fact that the chances for receipt of an acceptable offer are good, whenever the same offer’s presentation has become added to a trial’s expected events.
Claimants benefit the most from the fact that trials have the ability to minimize the level of the plaintiff’s risk.
As stated above, offers made during any stages of the litigation process tend to be good ones, fair ones. The insurance company would not suggest an unfair deal in front of a judge.
What about any deals made during the discovery session? Would those be fair as well? The chances are good that each of them would be. The insurance company would know that if it tried to push for an unfair deal, then the plaintiff could simply reject the company’s proposed approach to resolution of the dispute.
Both parties had already traveled quite far down the path towards a trial. The plaintiff could easily insist on an effort that set the stage for further progress down that same path. The chances for settling, eventually, had not vanished.