As a New York car accident lawyer, I have been on the other side of car insurance adjusters for decades now. So I know the score. I know our respective jobs. They are supposed to try to pay a little as possible to save their employer money. I am supposed to get as much for my injured client as possible. I get that.
But what I don’t get is why a few of the auto insurance carriers — not all — seem to believe that offering my client an unreasonably small amount of money to settle actually saves their employer money. Most of them understand that, if they offer me something on the short side of reasonable, but still within the range of reasonable, my client will probably take it to avoid having to go through protracted litigation and a stressful trial. This saves the insurance carrier money because they don’t have to pay a lawyer to defend a lawsuit and because they don’t have to risk a big verdict at trial.
But a few “bad” car insurance companies don’t get that. Instead, they feel that unless they make my client settle for 1/2 or even 1/3 the value of the case, they have not done their job. That just makes me sue them, and then they have to pay their lawyer to defend the case, and on top of that they have to pay my client the reasonable verdict the jury will likely give my client and which they should have offered me to begin with! So they end up making their employer pay more, not less.