BUT MY INSURANCE ADJUSTER SAYS I DON'T NEED A LAWYER
You wouldn't believe how many times I have heard seriously injured people make this comment to me during an initial free consultation. It is a little like one gunfighter telling the other "Don't worry, you really don't need any bullets, I have plenty". Usually by the end of our discussion they understand better what has been going on and elect to hire this firm to represent them.
Question: What is an insurance adjuster?
If, for example, you are involved in a car accident that was not your fault, you may be contacted by someone associated with the other driver's insurance company. That "adjuster" is a person who is either an employee of the insurance company responsible for your injuries and damages or one who works for an independent adjusting company who has been hired by that insurance company. He is not a lawyer. One could think of an adjuster as an investigator and negotiator for the insurance company.
Question: But he says he is "my" adjuster. Isn't he working for me to get my claim settled?
Make no mistake about this. He is NOT working for you. He is not looking out for your best interests. His job is to settle the case under terms that are favorable to his employer, the insurance company. The less money he can convince you to accept and still settle the case, the better job he is doing for his employer, the insurance company.
Question: But he seems like such a nice guy. I really like him and he wants me to trust him.
Someone employed as an insurance adjuster may be friendly and personable. He may belong to the same church that you do and coach youth soccer on weekends. But again, his job is to do the best job he can for his employer, the insurance company. Insurance companies are in business to make money and the less they have to pay you to settle your claim, the more they get to keep.
Question: Why would he tell me that I don't need a lawyer?
Because he knows how the system works and you do not. Your unfamiliarity with your rights in the legal system puts you at a distinct disadvantage. He knows how it all works and you do not. He would rather keep it that way. Imagine a basketball game where one team gets five players who know all the rules and the other side gets only one player who knows none of the rules. Who is going to win?
Unfortunately, it is a common practice for adjusters to tell people they don't need to hire a lawyer because the adjuster "will take care of them". The implication is that the adjuster is working for the injured person. Nothing could be farther from the truth. His allegiance is to his employer, the insurance company, pure and simple.
Question: The adjuster says that if I hire a lawyer, I will have to pay the lawyer and that I will end up with less money than if I just handled it myself. Is he right?
He would like you to think so. But now we know the reason why he may say this....it will save his employer, the insurance company money. Certainly there are times when it may not be necessary to hire a lawyer to settle a small claim. A good lawyer will tell you if it does not make economic sense to hire a lawyer. But if the injuries are at all serious, you will most likely come out way ahead at the end even though you had to pay the lawyer for his services.
Question: The adjuster says it will take longer to settle my claim if I hire a lawyer. Is he right?
Possibly. The reason this may be true is that a lawyer knows the appropriate time to begin settlement discussions. That time is when all the damages and injuries have been fully identified. He needs to know whether there will be future expenses and whether the injuries will be permanent. He needs to put together records and documents that will convince the insurance company that they should pay the amount he is demanding on behalf of his client. If he does a poor job of this, he may overlook the need for an expensive future surgery or not consider how significantly the injuries affect the life of his client. Doing the job right may take some time. On the other hand, an insurance adjuster can settle a case with you as soon as he can convince you to do so......whether all the expenses and disability has been considered or not!
Question: The adjuster told me that I am at least 10% at fault for the accident because that is the law in Wisconsin. Is this correct?
NO, NO, NO!! This is such a common misconception. There is no law in Wisconsin that automatically assigns negligence to any party to an accident. There are literally dozens of legal rules that must be considered when determining which party is at fault and in what percentage relative to one another. In spite of what he may tell you, he does not know how much at fault any party was in your accident. The best he can do is try to predict how much fault may be assigned to those involved if the case went to trial. His job is to try to convince you that you should take less money because he thinks you are at fault. If he can convince you that you are automatically 10% at fault, he will only have to pay you 90% of your damages because you can't recover for the 10% of the damages you caused yourself. If he can convince you that you were 40% at fault, he will only have to pay you 60% of your damages. If he can convince you that you were more at fault than the other driver, he won't have to pay you at all.
Question: Would an insurance adjuster tell me something that was not true in order to convince me I do not have a good case?
We would like to think not, but we at Herrick and Hart have had clients tell us that the insurance adjuster told them that:
- a passenger in a car could not be a witness at a trial because that was the law;
- someone standing on the corner and seeing the accident could not be a witness because they did not report it to the police;
- Wisconsin law requires that everyone in an accident is at least 10% at fault;
- two months of lost wages could not be recovered by an individual who was injured on a Saturday and was unable to start his new job on Monday because he was not employed at the time of the accident;
- the damage to the car had to be fixed at a particular body shop;
- because a driver did not get a traffic ticket, he cannot be at fault in causing the accident;
- an injured person had no right to recover damages if he was not wearing a seatbelt;
None of these things are true, but each would have benefitted the insurance company if our clients had not come to us and learned otherwise.
Question: What do I have to lose by making an appointment to talk about my accident with a lawyer?
Nothing. The initial conference with injury clients at Herrick and Hart is free. You may then decide the best way to proceed after having been educated about the process.
