Insurance companies must seek to remain “in-the-black.” That means making an effort to limit the size of the payoff that must go to any deserving customer.
A denial of liability can remove the need for a payoff
A claimant must prove a charge of negligence. The adjuster in the defendant’s insurance company could challenge the evidence that was meant to support that charge of negligence. If there were no proof that the other party had been careless and neglectful, then the claimant would have no grounds for seeking money from the insurance company.
There are 2 allegations that get used to deny liability.
—Assumption of risk
An adjuster might also allege that a personal injury claim had been submitted after a given deadline. In fact, there is no deadline for submitting such a claim to an insurance company.
Seeking a reduction in medical expenses
• Seek evidence that can refute the reported severity of a given injury
• Claim that the type of accident did not match with the nature and extent of the reported injury
• Request victim’s appearance at an independent medical exam (IME)
Lack of evidence, such as that found in medical record
This is not really a trick. All victims should seek medical attention, in order to create a record of any observed or potential injuries.
How could an allegation of shared blame become a trick?
When making that allegation, the adjuster might not come forward with convincing evidence. Still, the claimant/plaintiff could have trouble fighting that allegation, if the adjuster had suggested the existence of verified evidentiary material.
Personal injury lawyers have become familiar with such tricks. That is why a smart claimant or plaintiff would make a point of hiring a personal injury attorney.
How could an allegation of assumption of risk qualify as a trick?
A court normally recognizes a signed waiver as an assumption of risk. Still, the court assumes that the person signing that document has read it, and has understood what it says. Suppose, however, that a personal injury lawyer in Medicine Hat were to prove that the client, the person that signed the waiver, had been tricked into signing it. Suppose that he or she had been illiterate, and had not been told the exact meaning of what was in the signed document.
If a court were to discover that someone had obtained a signature in such a fashion, it would not agree to accept a defense that was based on an assumption of risk.
Furthermore, that assumption must pertain to a recognized danger, and not one that cropped up unexpectedly, due to an act of negligence, one that had been committed by the business or person that had caused the injury-linked accident.