Quote:
Originally Posted by milt
I have been having a PM conversation with an attorney indicating that in most cases an ins co would be better off settling directly vs. paying the 30% premium that goes to the attorney. That is predicated on the idea that the claimant and the ins co understand the amount of damages w/o having a attorney building the amount.
|
While you can't predict the outcome (whether an atty would get you 30%+ more), I disagree with the above.
I agree with the theory of it. That it is better for both you and the insurance company to settle directly, thus cutting out the lawyer's 30%. That makes perfect sense, in theory.
Unfortunately, that's not the way insurance companies operate.
You are a good guy, and a reasonable guy. The insurance company is therefore going to eat your lunch.
If I were you, I'd take the opposite approach. I would have the atty send a letter, with an aggressive demand (high $$), and enclosed with that letter would be a draft complaint against the insured for an even more aggressive demand (really high $$$), and descriptions of the actual medical procedures, the injuries, and the *continuing* injuries that may continue forever. And for recovery of atty fees, if there is a basis.
The letter would invite a settlement dialog, and state that unless the matter is resolved, the complaint will be filed.
That is what insurance companies understand and respond favorably to. Letters from husbands, not so much.