If a TV show or a movie focuses on a courtroom trial, it usually highlights the winning side. No one wants to watch a show where the main character loses. Still, that possibility does exist.
At any trial one side loses.
The plaintiff in a personal injury case has already lost a great deal. He or she does not look forward to losing more money. The insurance company wants to avoid the possibility of witnessing a runaway verdict from the jury. That fact can push the insurer to settle.
A settlement provides a certainty.
The settlement follows negotiations. The 2 disputing parties take part in the negotiations. Each of them has some measure of control over the offers that are negotiated. In contrast to that situation, a trial does not guarantee a certain outcome. The jury determines the outcome. No one can be sure what the jury’s verdict might be. It might be far greater than the amount discussed during the negotiations. On the other hand, it could also be much lower than the amount of money that was tossed back at forth by the 2 side, as they negotiated.
Both sides tend to think in terms of ranges
The plaintiff usually has a minimum figure, along with an estimate of the highest possible offer. Ideally, the adjuster’s first offer falls somewhere within that range. The adjuster does not have a set figure. The insurer normally thinks in terms of a range of figures. That range has a definite maximum. The insurer does not want to pay more than a given amount of money.
Personal Injury Lawyer in Kitchener knows that unless the adjuster starts the negotiations by making a low-ball offer, the minimum for one range could well overlap the maximum for the other side’s range. That possibility highlights the likelihood that the 2 disputing sides might settle, during the negotiations.
Even if the adjuster does make a low-ball offer, the other party can ask for an explanation. That request can push the adjuster to increase the size of the offer. That increase might create a figure that fall within the range established by the opposing party. In other words, the entire process can proceed in a manner that seems to make a settlement more-than-likely. It makes sense to negotiate, when the endpoint seems clear. It is harder to present an argument, when the endpoint appears quite uncertain.
Those contrasting outlooks help to showcase the advantages to going along with an out-of-court settlement. Both sides can see those advantages. Neither side can afford to ignore those same advantages. Hence, an entire list of factors manages to increase the likelihood for a pre-trail agreement between the 2 sides. There are many reasons for that eventuality.