At some point in every case I handle the client will ask me, "What's my case worth?" That's a difficult and complicated question to answer. Case valuation, in my humble opinion, can often be the most difficult aspect of the case.
A variety of facts are considered in assessing the value of a personal injury case. Among them are the venue, the types of injuries, the permanency of the injuries, the property damage done to the vehicles, the parties, the witnesses, and the amount of economic losses the plaintiff suffered. This is by no means a comprehensive list. Using these factors, your lawyer should be able to provide you with a well-reasoned estimate of what your case may be worth in front of a jury or other tribunal. But, an estimate is all it will ever be.
No matter how good or bad the case, it is ultimately only worth what the jury says it is worth. Aside from medical bills, lost wages, and other economic losses, a jury is instructed by the judge to base their award on the same logic and common sense they use in their everyday lives. There is no mathematical formula (i.e., no "multiply everything by two" or "multiply everything by three") that they are required to follow. It's all based on their common sense...the same common sense they use when they choose to watch Snooki on MTV's Jersey Shore tonight. Scared? Don't be. I believe for the most part jurors take their job seriously.
The point is that we have no way of knowing what your case is truly worth until the jury tells us. There are no guarantees with trial and going to trial is a risk and a gamble. Fortunately, the risk is often a calculated one. The decision whether to settle your case with the insurance company or to go to trial is not one that should be taken lightly and it should a well-informed decision you are comfortable with.
Showing posts with label trial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trial. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
What the Evidence Won't Show
When I speak to jurors after one of my trials, at least one of the twelve members always asks me, “Why didn’t insurance take care of this?” That’s a good question. The truth of the matter is in most personal injury cases insurance is involved all the way through satisfaction of any judgment entered on the jury verdict. Who do you think pays for that defense attorney? The insurance company does. They have a contractual duty to defend the policyholder under the policy should they be unfortunate enough to get sued by somebody like me.
Even though insurance is involved, the jury never gets to hear about it in the majority of cases. North Carolina has a rule and much case law establishing a prohibition against mentioning the existence (or non-existence) of insurance at trial. The prevailing theory behind this prohibition is the Courts are afraid the monetary resources of the insurance company, rather than the evidence presented at trial, will be what serve as the basis for any verdict. In short, the Courts are afraid that the jury might use the existence of insurance as an excuse to compensate the victim without hurting the wrongdoer (or, not compensating the deserving victim to avoid hurting the uninsured wrongdoer). They’re afraid that a jury will award an amount just because the company made big profits last year and Dennis Haysbert tells us we’re “in good hands” at least twice per hour during primetime television (read: really expensive advertising slots). This fear may or may not be unfounded. Some jurors have told this trial lawyer that it would impact their decision. On the other hand, in one trial where evidence of insurance was allowed to be considered by the jury (there are exceptions to the rule), one juror stated that the fact there was insurance didn’t even come up in deliberations.
Some clients become upset with this rule. They feel it’s unfair to them and that it deceives the jury. This is a reasonable belief. But, the defendant and the insurance carrier could say the same thing about another rule established by the North Carolina courts. The collateral source rule prohibits evidence from being introduced of payments made to the Plaintiff by health insurance plans, Medicare, Medicaid, medical payments coverage, and many other different sources of payment. This benefits the Plaintiff because it allows the Plaintiff to recover the entire amount of the bills incurred even if health insurance or some other benefit has paid out already (in some cases the health plan has a right to reimbursement for what it has paid) and the jury will likely never know some of the bills were paid. This rule, of course, usually results in more money to the client.
Insurance plays a big part in any personal injury case. Despite its large role, the jury most likely will never know of its existence and will be specifically instructed by the Court in most cases to not assume that it is or is not there. Insurance, ladies and gentlemen, is what the evidence at trial won’t show.
Even though insurance is involved, the jury never gets to hear about it in the majority of cases. North Carolina has a rule and much case law establishing a prohibition against mentioning the existence (or non-existence) of insurance at trial. The prevailing theory behind this prohibition is the Courts are afraid the monetary resources of the insurance company, rather than the evidence presented at trial, will be what serve as the basis for any verdict. In short, the Courts are afraid that the jury might use the existence of insurance as an excuse to compensate the victim without hurting the wrongdoer (or, not compensating the deserving victim to avoid hurting the uninsured wrongdoer). They’re afraid that a jury will award an amount just because the company made big profits last year and Dennis Haysbert tells us we’re “in good hands” at least twice per hour during primetime television (read: really expensive advertising slots). This fear may or may not be unfounded. Some jurors have told this trial lawyer that it would impact their decision. On the other hand, in one trial where evidence of insurance was allowed to be considered by the jury (there are exceptions to the rule), one juror stated that the fact there was insurance didn’t even come up in deliberations.
Some clients become upset with this rule. They feel it’s unfair to them and that it deceives the jury. This is a reasonable belief. But, the defendant and the insurance carrier could say the same thing about another rule established by the North Carolina courts. The collateral source rule prohibits evidence from being introduced of payments made to the Plaintiff by health insurance plans, Medicare, Medicaid, medical payments coverage, and many other different sources of payment. This benefits the Plaintiff because it allows the Plaintiff to recover the entire amount of the bills incurred even if health insurance or some other benefit has paid out already (in some cases the health plan has a right to reimbursement for what it has paid) and the jury will likely never know some of the bills were paid. This rule, of course, usually results in more money to the client.
Insurance plays a big part in any personal injury case. Despite its large role, the jury most likely will never know of its existence and will be specifically instructed by the Court in most cases to not assume that it is or is not there. Insurance, ladies and gentlemen, is what the evidence at trial won’t show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
