Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Lee
That leads to another question. Why do insurance companies always settle so easily, when it's so unlikely a claimant would bother with a lawyer to fight a denial for a dubious claim? Seems to me, putting up any kind of fight would not only save the insur. co. the payout, but might discourage more frivolous claims in the future. Look, if this guy is really hurt, then I want things made right, regardless of who's at fault legally or morally. But if his injury is directly proportional to my insur. coverage, then I'd like to see USAA put up a bit of a fight, both to protect themselves, me and future victims.
|
My theory is that insurance company lawyers are in a way in cahoots with trial (plaintiff's) lawyers on this one: it is better for all lawyers if a precedent is never set so there is a chance any claim can go to trial--and lawyers on both sides are needed.
If a precedent is set, a claim can be denied, or paid, depending on the precedent with less chance of a legal challenge.
If no precedent is set, both side's lawyers still need to get involved, but nothing is decided that is applicable to other cases so the lawyers ALWAYS need to be involved.
I really think it is a case of lawyers looking out for themselves.