solicitors/victims - unusual accident compensation offer?
nvingo
Posts: 8,619 Forum Member
✭
I was involved in an RTA in May, and was injured/operation/laid up several months.
The "adverse insurers" have made a cash offer via my solicitor, who was quite taken aback at this unusual move.
My question is simply, is this a one-off event, or a trend insurers may now be following more often in order to settle earlier.
Has anyone else been made up-front offers by insurers without having to submit a "claim" ?
I'm thinking if this is pretty unique, there may be something fishy going on
The "adverse insurers" have made a cash offer via my solicitor, who was quite taken aback at this unusual move.
My question is simply, is this a one-off event, or a trend insurers may now be following more often in order to settle earlier.
Has anyone else been made up-front offers by insurers without having to submit a "claim" ?
I'm thinking if this is pretty unique, there may be something fishy going on
0
Comments
If the cash offer is acceptable to you, you might want to take it and avoid the stress of court which can take many months.
if you think you can hack the court case and want/deserve more than their offer then do that. There is no obligation for you to do one or the other. Your solicitor can advise you whether they think it is a reasonable offer given the circumstances but it is your decision in the end.
So look at the offer and whether it compensates you well - compensates you for loss of earnings, trips to hospital, prescription charges and everything that has lost you money or cost you money due to the accident plus consider if there is a possibility of future health problems because the award must consider that aswell.
But the solicitor will know the "going rate" in the way that his /her client won't.
Yes but the decision must always be with the victim. The solicitor can advise and say whether it is a good offer on the circumstances but ultimately it is whether the offer is acceptable to the victim.
Again, how can the victim of the accident know whether the offer will be suitable until he/she can add up the costs to be covered?
They don't need to know, they just have to make an offer and let the victim decide whether it is adequate or not.
It is down to the victim to decide whether this covers everything or not.
They have guidelines for themselves or a general scale of what to pay out for certain things. For example whiplash may be £1000, broken leg may be £3000 and having surgery may be a lot more. Then they have a rough calculation based on hospital stay etc.
But what if the insurers offer a value, it is accepted, and it later transpires that the victim requires ongoing palliative care that costs a lot more?
And what if the insurer offers more money than is actually needed? Don't forget they also have a duty to their own customers not to forego more costs than necessary. It doesn't have to go through courts, but to offer before a full submission of expenses seems foolhardy.
The final offer may not be inadequate for the victim. It just depends on their individual circumstances.
As an example, a friend had an accident and it cost him around £5,500 in loss of earnings and other things but his offer from the insurance company was around £14,000. It was adequate for him, he got his loss of earnings back plus the compensation for the actual injury.
The offer roughly tallies with the "going rate" the solicitor's guide book gives for the injuries I received.
This is an offer for "final settlement" with there having been no interim payment made.
The advice given is that a medical examination should take place to determine likely ongoing care/treatment costs and include that in the claim.
I just wondered since in my case this seems "backwards" whether it is unusual or the new norm.