Yeah, that’s what he did… :rolleyes:
No, I wouldn’t agree that there is a lot of room for exploitation, because insurance companies and law firms specializing in defence work are very knowledgeable in their areas. If they weren’t, they would go out of business. Again, the invisible hand of the market plays a role in insurance and legal business.
Take your own case, for instance. I understand you can’t talk about the details; that’s wise. But, it sounds as if you’re happy with the professional advice and decision that your insurance company is making, and that there won’t be a pay-out.
If that’s the case, why do you think that ABC Insurance would be any less proficient at weeding out frivolous claims? That’s their business. If they get a reputation as a “mark”, they’ll get into financial trouble.
Bottom line for me is that I assume that professionals whose livelihood depends on good judgment, whether that’s a plaintiff lawyer in private practice, or an insurance company receiving a claim, or a defence firm defending the claim, will bring careful professional judgment to the issue. Since their pay cheque depends on it, both their judgment, and the market, ensures that frivolous claims get weeded out.
It is not the lawyer’s job to judge the case-he represents his client, and if the client happens to be lying, it is not the lawyer’s job to determine this. It is quite simple-client says she was struck by a vehicle. Client goes to doctor/chiropractor…medical bills exceed tort threshold ($2500 in most states); lawyer sues. Lawyer “recovers” for client, lawyer gets percentage of the award. Insurance rates rise, everyone who buys car insurance pays.
Nothing wrong here-the lawyers has done nothing unethical, because he/she trusts that the client has been truthful. Should the client be found to be untruthful, the case will be dismissed. Of course, the insurance company would prefer to pay damages rather than risk a trial-so that is how fraud happens. Does the lawyer bear responsibility for perpetuating a fraud? Maybe. But there seems to be little to restrain such fraud.
Missed the edit window: I hadn’t noticed legalsnugs’ post about the study he mentions, but that’s exactly what I’m suggesting in my previous post.
It’s called poisoning the well. Based on your posts in this thread, I doubt that there’s anything I can say that will move you from your pre-conceptions. I see no reason to beat my head against a wall.
What exactly did he ask them? It’s not like you provided a link.
It’s called using puffery to avoid answering simple questions. If you think I’ve got preconceptions, please tell me how I could have gotten the information I’m seeking without “poisoning the well”.
I’ve read several Grisham novels, so feel that I’ve an informed opinion in these matters. No, really.
Actually, I’ve since done quite a bit of research, just based on my thirst for knowledge. OK, more based on my desire to understand what the ramifications could be for me, myself, and I.
I’ve gained a better understanding about some of the mechanisms that are already in place within the legal system. Bored myself nearly to tears with “summary judgment” and “contingency fee” and “tort reform” and how that terminology fits with the “myth” of frivilous lawsuits. I actually do buy into that; just still wonder how common it is for lawyers to contact insurance companies, file claims on client behalf, and then begin the negotiation process and settle the claim before the words “trial” ever pass anyone’s lips.
And my guess is, probably NOT very often with the big guys like Progressive and State “Take The” Farm (little bit of experience with them offering to pay for half a roof when a tornado swept through my area, which on the surface of things, could potentially make a slight bit of sense if not for the fact that we’re a bit picky about the shingles matching, and roofing companies are even pickier about liability issues). Probably far more routine with smaller businesses that can’t afford to hire an in-house legal team.
Moral? Stage that “slip and fall” in front of a Ma and Pa operation, people! 
That’s what that idot did in the 64 million pants damaged lawsuit, no slip and fall, but a lawsuit just the same.
That guy was an absolute IDIOT and made a mockery of the justice system and it cost him his job as an Administrative Judge.
See! The market works!
Very. In most states, where the legal minimum for PIP coverage is $10,000.00, there are few cases worth taking to trial unless there’s a bad faith element* involved. If you actually tried a case with a $10,000 policy limit and won the lawyer would get 40% and 30% (at a minimum) would be eaten by litigation costs. By the time you’ve paid the first emergency room bill there’s nothing left. Of course, the judgment could be for $100,000, but good luck collecting the other $90,000 directly from the other driver. Unless he’s Scrooge McDuck or he was working at the time he’s almost certainly judgment proof.
*in most states, an insured may sue his own insurer for bad faith in the claims handling process. In other words, if there are $50,000 in medical bills and the insurer refuses to offer a policy limit settlement, they are exposing their insured to liability and he can sue them - but rather than doing that he’ll just assign his bad faith rights to the injured driver and they can sue the insurer instead. That’s where most of the money is in no-fault motor vehicle accident litigation.
Actually, it’s pretty rare for matters to go to trial. Insurance companies are required to consider claims without the insured having to file a legal action. If an action is actually begun, odds are it will settle without trial. One stat I’ve seen in Canada is that 95% of all statements of claim are settled out of court. That’s not a bug, but a feature - the pre-trial process is designed to make sure everyone has full information about the other side’s claim, and encourages settlements by the parties.
But what you are talking about is fraudulent lawsuits, not frivolous. “slip and fall” and a letter from an attorney asking for a payoff or a lawsuit will ensue is different from suing for $64,000,000 for damaged pants-while both may be fraudulent, I think the latter case falls into the “frivolous” category just a bit.
You do realize that you are not allowed to block the crosswalk like that, right. I’m pretty sure your jurisdiction would require you to stop behind the limit line and only proceed into the crosswalk when making the actual turn. What they did was stupid but what you did was illegal.
As for the OP, I’m still having trouble with her reliance on the “almost”. First of all, the lady the was hit was probably stressed out and not thinking clearly because you hit her. Second, as someone that experienced something close to your victim, my first words may have been that he “almost hit me” meaning he “almost ran my ass over” instaed of just bumping me in the ribs. I have a really hard time that the OP who didn’t witness the impact is presuming a scam based on the word “almost” immediately after a stressful event that was immediately changed into “you hit me”. If I were a juror and this is tracijo’s defense I would definitely be voting for the plaintiff.
My stepson hit (really hit, as in broke-the-windshield hit) a pedestrian who who walked between two parked cars while texting or looking at her phone. Witnesses confirm it. When got out to help her, she motherf**ed him up one side and down the other. She got a ticket for J walking, he got nothing. Fortunately, she was not seriously injured. She is suing him. Depositions are in a couple of weeks.
Saint Cad - don’t presume to know what someone else was “probably” thinking. In my experience, excited utterances are usually accurate as far as what the speaker believes to be true. You are assuming OP actually hit her and that it not at all clear. There are plenty of scammers out there. To me, this sounds like one of them.
There were other concerns. This was a biggie to me but I did already list the others.
And I think if you would have been on that jury, you would have found some troubling discrepancies in what injury was claimed vs what the medical records showed. And I will leave it at that.
Damn it, I just can’t leave it at that.
Even though I know it is probably wiser to.
If you had a record of shopping for pain medications with a tidy summary of clinics that will no longer provide them for complaints of pain that cannot be confirmed (nor ruled out initially, until many such visits raised suspicions) … What better opportunity to get some Oxy?
My agent feels confident this will not go to trial. I do too. This is not a sympathetic young woman by any stretch of the imagination.
Exactly. But the OP is so sure she didn’t hit her even though she didn’t witness her own accident and I playing devil’s advocate that something happened with me as the victim to explain to the OP that she could have hit the victim and when she looked there was the appearance of a near miss.
Well, she lied about being pregnant.
She lied about where she was when the incident happened.
She lied about the extent of her injuries.
I am going to comfortably believe that yes, she lied about being hit, too. You are free to believe that I am lying, or that I’m wrong. I’m OK with that. I am certain that a jury of my peers would tear apart the holes and the inconsistencies in her version of events, and that is what matters to me.
No complaints of pain can be confirmed. Pain is subjective by definition. Pain can be correlated with specific diagnostic or clinical findings but not always.