Personal injury (PI) cases seek to compensate people who have been injured due to the negligence of others.
However, obtaining fair compensation can be very difficult. Insurance companies employ claims adjusters to minimize losses, and they often employ a variety of strategies to achieve this.
Victims are advised to hire lawyers for personal injury cases to represent them. In doing so, they can safeguard their rights and ensure they get fair compensation for their injuries by being aware of these strategies.
Here are some of the most typical tactics employed by insurance adjusters.
Misleading or manipulative statements
Making misleading or manipulative claims is one of the first strategies an insurance adjuster can employ. An insurance adjuster may contact the claimant following an accident and suggest that it would be best if they accepted a low settlement offer. They may attempt to create a false sense of urgency by giving the applicant the impression that this is the only offer being considered or that it is only available for a short period of time.
Insurance adjusters may minimize the extent of injuries or medical costs by claiming that the claimant’s injuries are not as serious as they appear or that they do not need continued care. For example, they may say that the injuries are “minor” and would resolve quickly, which could persuade a claimant to accept an insufficient offer in an effort to close the deal at minimal costs. These remarks are intended to weaken the plaintiff’s confidence in their case and persuade them to settle for less money.
Delay tactics
Insurance adjusters are aware that claimants may choose a lower settlement due to financial hardship. Delaying the claims process is a popular strategy to achieve this. By requiring unnecessary examinations from multiple doctors, obtaining redundant medical records, or requesting an excessive number of documents, insurance adjusters can prolong negotiations.
Failing to respond to calls or emails can also cause delays, making it difficult for claimants to obtain the information they need to pursue their case. The likelihood that the applicant will experience financial difficulties and eventually escape from despair increases with the length of the process. Unfortunately, applicants often accept lower offers simply to alleviate their anxiety and uncertainty.
Low initial offer
At the initial stage of the claims process, insurance adjusters offer a low settlement offer. This strategy, called “lowballing,” attempts to persuade the plaintiff to accept an offer significantly lower than what they are entitled to for their injuries. The offer is often only a portion of the actual value of the claim, although it may seem tempting at first, especially if you are eager to settle the claim.
Insurance companies offer a low price from the start because they know that many consumers do not fully understand the extent of their injuries or the long-term costs of medical treatment. An applicant may accept the offer without knowing that they are entitled to much more money if they do not exercise due diligence. You can avoid being taken advantage of in this way by having an experienced personal injury lawyer on your side.
Dispute responsibility
The insurance company can challenge the decision of the insured responsibility in a number of situations. Insurance adjusters attempt to argue that the plaintiff was partially or fully at fault, even if it is obvious that their client is responsible for the accident. Insurance adjusters attempt to reduce the compensation they must pay by reducing the perceived liability of the insured.
An adjuster could argue, for example, that the plaintiff contributed to the injury by failing to follow proper safety protocols or that the plaintiff was driving at a high speed at the time of the collision. In addition to reducing the insurance company’s liability, this strategy may encourage the claimant to accept less compensation by making them feel like they bear some of the blame.
Question the seriousness of the injuries
To reduce compensation, insurance adjusters may question the claimant’s claims of serious injuries. They may employ medical professionals who will challenge injury diagnosis, treatment or long-term consequences. Some adjusters may even argue that the plaintiff’s injuries were preventable with proper care or were pre-existing.
Insurance adjusters can take advantage of situations where medical reports appear contradictory or ambiguous by claiming that injuries are not as serious as they claim. To reduce the cost of medical bills, they could also claim that the plaintiff’s treatment plan is excessive or unnecessary. For example, the adjuster may question whether physical therapy is actually necessary if the claimant is required to take it, resulting in a settlement that does not cover the full cost of long-term care.
Social Media Monitoring and Monitoring
Insurance adjusters may employ private investigators to keep tabs on the claimant’s daily actions once the claim is submitted. They will argue that the plaintiff is exaggerating his injuries or recovery by using surveillance footage or supporting documents.
For example, it can be used to refute an injured person’s claims if they are observed walking or doing other activities that do not appear to be related to their alleged injuries.
In order to find evidence of actions that suggest the plaintiff’s injuries are not as serious as claimed, insurance adjusters may also keep an eye on their social media accounts. It could be argued that a plaintiff’s disabilities are not as disabling as they claim if social media posts reveal that they are engaging in activities that appear normal.
Pressuring claimants to provide written statements
Pressuring claimants to provide written or recorded statements about the accident and their injuries is another typical strategy used by insurance adjusters. Adjusters can exploit these seemingly innocuous remarks to influence history to their advantage. The adjuster may ask leading questions or foster an atmosphere in which the claimant feels pressured to provide information that contradicts his or her position.
Once the comment is made, the adjuster can use it to manipulate the facts. The adjuster may challenge the validity of the claim if the claimant’s statement conflicts with their initial description of the incident or their reported injuries. This may lead to a reduced refund or, in certain situations, to the complete rejection of the request.
Discouraging Hiring a Lawyer
Claims Adjusters Try to Discourage Claimants from Hiring legal advisor claiming that it is unnecessary or would cause delays in the process. They could suggest that the plaintiff can manage their case themselves and keep a larger share of the settlement funds. Claims adjusters can encourage claimants to resolve their dispute quickly by making the process appear easy, especially if the initial offer is “generous.”
They fail to inform applicants that legal representation is essential to handling the intricacies of an IP case. An attorney can protect the claimant from these deceptive practices, ensure they will be fairly compensated, and prevent the insurance company from taking advantage of them. When a lawyer is involved, insurance companies are much more likely to make a better settlement offer.
