I would say the smarter course would be the way you went IF it means future lawsuits wont be filed because of it.
Disney used to do the same thing regarding lawsuits at Disneyland. Event the smallest claim would be handled full force simply because they knew settling would cause an flood of claims and in the end, they felt they saved money.
Guess the only way to know for sure is try both ways and see which one actually saves money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvr2mny
It's very costly to defend defenseless claims. My company was involved in a class action suit brought about by disgruntled ex-drivers I had employed. We had coverage for a part but decided to "scorch the earth" with these slackers. We prevailed, but at a cost close to me of 200k. I could have "settled" (although it wouldn't have been settling) for 15% of that. So, tell me - what's "smarter"? Unfortunately the scum (employees who do this & the attorneys who represent them) know this and BANK on settling.
|