Some claimants refuse to accept an offer that has been made by an insurance company, during an attempt at reaching a negotiated settlement. Frequently, those same claimants have chosen to seek some form of revenge. Yet it makes no sense to forego the advantages linked with a settlement, in hopes of obtaining a decidedly large award.
A claimant that has agreed to settle has limited the total cost for pursuit of a personal injury claim.
Lawyers often increase the percentage of the client’s award that could become a given lawyer’s contingency fee. Most of them introduce that increase when the claims process has advanced from the stage of negotiations to the litigation stage.
Moreover, some of the additional costs that arise during a trial do not enter the picture during an attempt at reaching a negotiated settlement. That fact underlines another advantage to settling.
Large blocks of a claimant’s time do not get sacrificed to participation in legal procedures, when a trial has been avoided.
The plaintiff could have to spend many hours sitting in a courtroom. There is no limit to the length of a trial, as per Personal Injury Lawyer in Dartmouth. By the same token, the plaintiff would have to wait longer for delivery of any promised compensation. The insurance company would demand presentation of a signed release form before it would make arrangements for delivery of the promised compensation package.
Furthermore, plaintiffs must deal with large blocks of lost time at their workplace, if their desire for revenge has discouraged their acceptance of negotiated terms.
Claimants enjoy a greater level of certainty than plaintiffs in a courtroom setting.
That uncertainty could trigger development of stress. Obviously, it makes no sense to invite the emergence of stress.
A claimant has more control over the results that could be possible, following an exchange of offers. On the other hand, claimants’ control vanishes when a jury gets to pick the winner in a personal injury case.
An injured claimant would face an added problem, namely an imposition on his/her privacy, if he/she were to reject the terms that have come from pre-settlement negotiations.
Only a small circle of people hears what facts could get exposed during any pre-settlement negotiations. That rather private situation contrasts starkly with the many pairs of ears that listen intently to any remark that might be spoken during the litigation stage.
Moreover, members of the press could gain admission to the courtroom where the plaintiff’s case could be decided. That would mean that the results of the trial could be published in the paper, where many members of the public could see them. The press cannot gain easy access to the results produced by any period of structured negotiations.
