Ok a lot of misunderstanding going on. I get it now though.
When you said:
Quote:
In the demand packages I got on the defense-side, the demand would usually be for the limits
What I thought you meant was
Quote:
In (all) the demand packages I got on the defense-side, the demand would usually be for the limits
I.e. I was expecting you might respond with something like 1. in FL you're statutorily (or by custom) required to state the max amount in the original demand or 2. lawyers just do this for X reason. I was asking why a case you would receive with $2000 in meds would have $100K demand, which is what I thought you meant. I thought maybe there might be a rule similar to here where when you plead, you demand a million dollars, even though the court can only award $30K.
The rest of what you said wasn't really on point, given that a few posts earlier I said a routinely settle for around 3x the meds, ie significantly more than what insurance usually comes back with after my demand, and certainly a lot more than what I've seen insurance offer before an attorney was involved.
Implied in that is that I also know a judge will usually only give me around 3-4x at trial (you can only pray a jury here for above $15K), so that's a good offer. It's also part of what I was saying earlier about attorneys willing to reduce their fee to 20% (due to competition) if the client agrees not to file, because they know the deal they will negotiate is roughly the same as trial.
Yes I'm sure about that. If you read the article it says that one of the requirements is at least 12.5K in medicals/lost wages. Also if you read the article (and the statute), the requirements to disclose to insurance in order to get the policy is basically what goes in a demand package. I guess below 12.5K they don't have to tell you limits, but if you have less than that you probably don't need to know, since even 30K is probably going to be around 3x your damages and that's a decent settlement and you can usually take the route I am of under insured coverage to supplement, the minimum required being $20K here.
Quote:
Part of "good faith" negotiation is looking at the strengths of the plaintiff's case and his lawyer. If there is a law firm that is known to go to trial often and winning hard, then they are going to get better offers than some guy that has a solo shop and is desperate to settle cases because he cannot go the distance.
The second you sent your demand letter, the adjuster asked himself whether he knew who you were. The adjuster may have even called some of the defense-side lawyers to ask whether they know who you are and whether you will go the distance. Being an aggressive trial lawyer will give you more respect and better offers. Being a lawyer that needs to settle the case just to keep the lights on will give you worse offers. That is how it works across all litigation, regardless of the specific area of law you are in at the moment.
Yeah my point there was just that there's no reason to put in some ridiculously high amount in the demand (because I thought you were saying everyone always demand the limit in EVERY case), because it's not binding. I think in practice demanding too much money would make you look like a n00b and be detrimental too.
I also said she probably looked me up in their system, so yes I know that they are evaluating me based on my potential to litigate etc. What I've been told is the insurance companies all share a DB with notes about what attorneys have settled for, when they've filed, and even if they are someone you can work with etc.
Quote:
I apparently phrased this badly, so let me try again. A plaintiff's attorney sends to the defense (whether that be the insurance adjuster or the defendant's attorney) an affidavit that the defendant has to fill out. The affidavit should have the amount that the defendants make per year, how many assets they have, the amount of debts, etc. That comes into play when you have a case that is potentially more than the limits; you have to ensure that the defendant does not have more money or assets to make going after the defendant personally worthwhile.
If the settlement is coming in for less than the limits, then it isn't a big deal to not require that type of affidavit. It still behooves you to ensure that the defendant's vehicle was not being used in the course of employment.
This now makes sense, you meant a BLANK affidavit. I hadn't heard of this specifically, but I didn't think that's what you meant because the other side isn't required to send either of these back (at least not here). I wouldn't. I think if I were the at fault insured, I would tell the other side to go pound sand I'm not telling you my assets. I think most lay people would take that position.
As far as the employment part, this filtering should have been done when insurance they talked to their client on day 1. If the purpose of the affidavit is to "remind" their insurance to maybe "double check" that's different?
I doubt I would get either of these affidavits back from insurance, maybe as a gesture of good faith.
Also, since my client has underinsured coverage, the preferred line is to file a claim with my client's insurance, and let them do the work of going after the at fault party. Which is what I said I would do. It will be a much faster recovery, and will actually pay a significant amount of money. In my case (and many people with low limit policies especially), the at fault party probably doesn't have any assets so suing them is a waste of time.
Quote:
Why are you asking your clients to call the insurance company for you? Is there some law in your jurisdiction that a lawyer cannot call the opposing party? I find this quite bizarre.
I guess I should have said "before they become my client" to be more clear. I can't call and insurance probably wouldn't talk to me, unless I represent that I am the client's attorney. This means signing a retainer and obligating myself to the case. Much easier to ask the potential client to ask if they are taking responsibility at the follow up call they will probably be getting from the other party insurance anyway. This is the number one thing on most people's mind anyway, so a lot of the time they already know before they talk to me. Liability has usually been fairly clear cut in the cases I've taken, but I've only done like 8 cases so far so I know not always the case.
PS I thought you were a former PD? What happened since then now that you're former insurance defense?