Personal Injury - Settlement Advice

il_principe

As some of you are aware I was (through no fault of my own) knocked off my bike last October, sustaining a broken clavicle. Now 14 months later the driver's insurers have finally offered a settlement, it's a figure that is higher than I was expecting. Significantly higher if I'm honest.

My solicitor is saying that the offer is not unreasonable, and if I accept then the money will be in my account with in 3 weeks. Sounds good to me, however he has tempered that by advising I reject this offer and submit a counter offer demanding more (about 42% more). He says this is optimistic, but he should be able to get at least some increase.

So, what the hell should I do? Be greedy and try for more or settle for the offer which is better than I'd hoped for anyway? I'm assuming that this is all part of the game and we'll end up with a slightly higher figure - is that representative of other people's experience?

Advice/thoughts appreciated!

rf6

I'd follow his advice. If he feels you can get more, why not go for it? The only potential fly in the ointment is how much longer you will have to wait?

I guess it boils down to whether or not you need or want the money quickly?

Clever Pun

dogma...

Maxticate

Tricky one,

But if you were truly comfortable with going for the higher amount then you wouldn't be on here now asking the question.

Which must mean there is a reason you associate going for the higher amount with doing something slightly wrong?

Mr Plum

Maxticate wrote:

Which must mean there is a reason you associate going for the higher amount with doing something slightly wrong?

Or possibly risk it going to court and getting less? I don't know if there's any chance of that happening?

jonginge

Clever Pun wrote:

dogma...

...with some sort of electronic gruppo *drool*

dhope

Il Principe wrote:

As some of you are aware I was (through no fault of my own) knocked off my bike last October, sustaining a broken clavicle. Now 14 months later the driver's insurers have finally offered a settlement, it's a figure that is higher than I was expecting. Significantly higher if I'm honest.

My solicitor is saying that the offer is not unreasonable, and if I accept then the money will be in my account with in 3 weeks. Sounds good to me, however he has tempered that by advising I reject this offer and submit a counter offer demanding more (about 42% more). He says this is optimistic, but he should be able to get at least some increase.

So, what the hell should I do? Be greedy and try for more or settle for the offer which is better than I'd hoped for anyway? I'm assuming that this is all part of the game and we'll end up with a slightly higher figure - is that representative of other people's experience?

Advice/thoughts appreciated!

My experience was quick, reasonable offer. Accepted it, got cash, moved on. I didn't break anything though and their offer was a couple of weeks later. Given you've had to wait 14 months I'd probably be tempted to go with the lawyer's suggestion and accept whatever the next offer was.

jonginge

Tricky one really. I always thought the opening gambit from an insurance company would be on the low side. You did have a badly broken collarbone and it got infected a number of times until the plate was removed. The injury still affected you in september nearly a year on from the incident...

navt

Woman walks into shoe shop to get children's feet measured. She then proceeds to buy a pair of shoes 1/2 size larger.

Why seek advice only to ignore it?[/i]

dhope

navt wrote:

Woman walks into shoe shop to get children's feet measured. She then proceeds to buy a pair of shoes 1/2 size larger.

Why seek advice only to ignore it?

A measuring is somewhat more exact than advice :roll:

W1

Mr Plum wrote:

Maxticate wrote:

Which must mean there is a reason you associate going for the higher amount with doing something slightly wrong?

Or possibly risk it going to court and getting less? I don't know if there's any chance of that happening?

Yes, there is. But the OP knows (and the insurance company knows to) that he's unlikely to take it to court, particularly if it's a decent offer. So they may either (a) revoke or lower the offer or (b) stand their ground should he seek to negotiate it upwards. On the flip side, they may be prepared to offer a bit more. It's up to the OP whether the risk of it being revoked is higher than the benefit of possibly more cash.

bigmat

I'd follow the solicitor's advice. There's minimal risk of the offer being revoked, the solicitor will have a feel for the likelihood of an improved offer being made and may have experience of similar claims involving the same insurance company. The only downside I can see is that you will have to wait a bit longer, but realistically it will be a case of your solicitor saying "we won't accept £5,000, we want £10,000" and the insurance company saying "we'll give you £7,000 but that's it" (or something like that). Just a couple of letters, maybe an extra week? Sounds like its worth waiting for to me...

snailracer

navt wrote:

Woman walks into shoe shop to get children's feet measured. She then proceeds to buy a pair of shoes 1/2 size larger.

Why seek advice only to ignore it?[/i]

Women buy shoes one season ahead eg right now, they are buying stuff they'll wear in spring.

jeremyrundle

BigMat wrote:

I'd follow the solicitor's advice. There's minimal risk of the offer being revoked, the solicitor will have a feel for the likelihood of an improved offer being made and may have experience of similar claims involving the same insurance company. The only downside I can see is that you will have to wait a bit longer, but realistically it will be a case of your solicitor saying "we won't accept £5,000, we want £10,000" and the insurance company saying "we'll give you £7,000 but that's it" (or something like that). Just a couple of letters, maybe an extra week? Sounds like its worth waiting for to me...

Exactly what I would say, the worst is that you will get what is on offer now.

greg66_tri_v2.0

If you were to saw the limb from a litigation solicitor, and examine the stump, you would see written quite clearly in a circle just under the skin; "Never accept the first offer".

His advice is almost Pavlovian. He can't help it. That's what he does. That's how he thinks he helps you.

Now, sure, he may be able to get some more. He may not. He may still be able to get what's on the table once the negotiations stall. He may not. Who (TF) knows? It's a bit like re-opening a house price negotiation on the day of exchange.

The chances are he will get a bit more. Chances. Simply because first offers are rarely final offers.

Whether you want to play this game (and don't kid yourself: it is a game, no more, no less), depends on two factors: (1) (and most importantly) what is your appetite for risk? Do you like the idea of gambling what's on the table for the chance of a bit more (or a bit less)? (2) are you happy with what's currently on offer?

One tactic I quite like in the "game" is to accept the first offer immediately. It always leaves the offerer feeling pretty sheepish, and more than a bit uneasy that they went in way too high. YMMV.

bigmat

Greg66 wrote:

If you were to saw the limb from a litigation solicitor, and examine the stump, you would see written quite clearly in a circle just under the skin; "Never accept the first offer".

His advice is almost Pavlovian. He can't help it. That's what he does. That's how he thinks he helps you.

Now, sure, he may be able to get some more. He may not. He may still be able to get what's on the table once the negotiations stall. He may not. Who (TF) knows? It's a bit like re-opening a house price negotiation on the day of exchange.

The chances are he will get a bit more. Chances. Simply because first offers are rarely final offers.

Whether you want to play this game (and don't kid yourself: it is a game, no more, no less), depends on two factors: (1) (and most importantly) what is your appetite for risk? Do you like the idea of gambling what's on the table for the chance of a bit more (or a bit less)? (2) are you happy with what's currently on offer?

One tactic I quite like in the "game" is to accept the first offer immediately. It always leaves the offerer feeling pretty sheepish, and more than a bit uneasy that they went in way too high. YMMV.

Calling it a "game" implies that there is some fun involved which sadly isn't the case. :P The insurance company probably has a case management system and some monkey will be waiting to get your solicitor's "offer rejected" letter before hitting a button sending out the next offer. Obviously its the OP's choice, but I really don't see any risk here. They aren't going to flounce off screaming "we'll see you in Court" if you just ask for a bit more. If (as appears to be the case) liability isn't in issue, there is no way in hell they will allow this to go to trial, unless the OP demanded a totally unrealistic amount - just follow the solicitor's advice, its what they are getting paid for!

bendertherobot

Woah there horseys. The solicitor who has conduct of the is best to advise, full stop.

That said, let me share some knowledge.

It is likely that the offer has been made pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 36. This is known as a PART 36 OFFER.

Basically an offer made under this rule is open for 21 days. You can make a counter offer if you want. They have 21 days to accept or reject that.

Now, if you don't accept their offer and make your own you may not be able to accept theirs (being outside the 21 days etc).

If that happens then they may insist, if you backtrack, on you paying their costs from the date that you could have accepted to the date that you did.

So there are risks. Without knowing any more about the case or the offers that's as much as can be said.

greg66_tri_v2.0

bendertherobot wrote:

Woah there horseys. The solicitor who has conduct of the is best to advise, full stop.

That said, let me share some knowledge.

It is likely that the offer has been made pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 36. This is known as a PART 36 OFFER.

Basically an offer made under this rule is open for 21 days. You can make a counter offer if you want. They have 21 days to accept or reject that.

Now, if you don't accept their offer and make your own you may not be able to accept theirs (being outside the 21 days etc).

If that happens then they may insist, if you backtrack, on you paying their costs from the date that you could have accepted to the date that you did.

So there are risks. Without knowing any more about the case or the offers that's as much as can be said.

Without knowing whether or not it was a Pt 36 Offer, that quite a bit more than can be said

jonny_trousers

I'm guessing it's a guilt issue? You were injured, but have healed; you were brought up to understand that accidents do sometimes happen; you have been offered a good sum of money, so wanting more is just greedy? Insurance premiums rise because of people like you right?

I totally get that rationale and am feeling it myself as my own damages claim progresses, but there are two things you need to remember: Firstly, you were seriously injured through no fault of your own, your life was no doubt badly disrupted because of it and, as we get older, our bodies have a nasty habit of never completely recovering after trauma (even if you only experience the occasional ache when the weather gets cold). Secondly, you making a stand against litigation culture, while noble in principal, will do nothing to change rising insurance premiums.

I agree with the lads above who say the first offer will never have been expected to be taken seriously and the insurance company will be much happier offering more than taking the matter to court. My advice, reject this offer, accept the next one and enjoy the money (if you really want to absolve any guilt then give something to a favourite charity).

lost_in_thought

I doubt it's a guilt issue

IP, if you need the cash now, go for it, if you don't go for more. I did the latter.

cjcp

bendertherobot wrote:

Basically an offer made under this rule is open for 21 days. You can make a counter offer if you want. They have 21 days to accept or reject that.

Sort of. I think they tweaked the original wording so that 36(2)(c) now states that the offer must "specifiy a period of not less than 21 days within which the defendant will be liable for the claimant's costs in accordance with rule 36.10 if the offer is accepted".

I think the High Court recently ruled (C v D) that the offer cannot be said to only be open for 21 days, otherwise it's straying into Calderbank territory, so I think the offer needs to state that it's capable of acceptance unless and until it is changed or withdrawn by service of a notice under CPR 36.9(2). Part 36 does not make for easy reading. I thought the idea was to simplify the rules!

bendertherobot

cjcp wrote:

Sort of. I think they tweaked the original wording so that 36(2)(c) now states that the offer must "specifiy a period of not less than 21 days within which the defendant will be liable for the claimant's costs in accordance with rule 36.10 if the offer is accepted".

I think the High Court recently ruled (C v D) that the offer cannot be said to only be open for 21 days, otherwise it's straying into Calderbank territory, so I think the offer needs to state that it's capable of acceptance unless and until it is changed or withdrawn by service of a notice under CPR 36.9(2). Part 36 does not make for easy reading. I thought the idea was to simplify the rules!

Bonkers case. Will be interesting to see where that goes next. The general point remains though, acceptance is possible but there may be costs consequences. Of course, we don't know the dates etc or much about the case at all, so his solicitor is best to advise.

Zachariah

Take it. It's more than you were expecting, and attempting to go for a higher amount is a risk. While I have the utmost respect for those in the legal profession, remember he makes more money by extending the negotiations as long as possible.

TuckerUK

Remember, your solicitor's primary concern is earning a living, the more you use him, the more his fees are. Of course he wants you to continue.

Tell him you are happy to do so if he will guarantee in writing making up any deficit between any final settlement (which may be lower) and the existing offer.

Simples.

cee

presumably...the more your solicitor wins for you....the more he earns in fees, whether by percentage of your compo...or by charging fees to the losing party...

my question would be..if you are happy with the offer...whose interest is it in to drag it out further?

its always a tricky one though...i was offered a settlement which was higher than i expected...and just accepted it...

el_presidente

I love reading these conversations when I see my insurance premiums increase AGAIN. Sure, hold out for more money, but remember it doesn't come for free, we all pay for it.

spen666

el_presidente wrote:

I love reading these conversations when I see my insurance premiums increase AGAIN. Sure, hold out for more money, but remember it doesn't come for free, we all pay for it.

What is wrong with seeking the compensation you are ENTITLED to?

Red Rider

What is wrong with seeking the compensation you are ENTITLED to?

+1 to that Spen.

@ el presidente - it's not the OP's fault insurance premiums are rising. It's those who were at fault for causing the incident in the first place. Compensation gives money to put you back in the position you would have been in before someone did something to you that they shouldn't have done. This isn't a groundless claim.

@ OP and FWIW - I think I'd agree with the general advice so far. Do what you're comfortable with, and if you're not uncomfortable then follow your solicitors advice - he knows the case better than we do.

He should have explained the costs consequences of rejecting the offer to you... if not, that's naughty.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Red Rider wrote:

He should have explained the costs consequences of rejecting the offer to you... if not, that's naughty.

Again, this assumes that the offer was a Part 36 Offer (or WPSATC). It's not (yet) clear that it was.

il_principe

el_presidente wrote:

I love reading these conversations when I see my insurance premiums increase AGAIN. Sure, hold out for more money, but remember it doesn't come for free, we all pay for it.

:roll:

I'm not suffering from guilt. Oh and I have paid for it - via 2 sodding operations, almost 4 months of the bike, repeated infections, ruined kit, lost earnings etc etc, so I'm not gonna roll over and worry about how this might affect premiums (don't own a car anyway). It's not like I cut my hand whilst breaking into someones hous, or slipped on a pea in Tesco and am claiming for that.

People can say what they like about 'accidents', but if she'd actually bothered looking properly before driving across the road I wouldn't have ended up with a broken bone. I'm not gonna feel bad about claiming some money of insurance firms, I spend enough on home insurance etc, so it's nice to actually get something back.

Yeah, I'm gonna twist and hold out for a bit more. Thanks for the advice peeps.

rolf_f

Il Principe wrote:

Yeah, I'm gonna twist and hold out for a bit more. Thanks for the advice peeps.

Good! The other party can hardly incur much additional cost by deciding whether or not to make a counter offer. They could have sorted this out a lot sooner as well but presumably chose to drag it out. I'd make a counter offer and accept their counter counter offer!