Best Car Accident Law Firm in Colorado Springs
Giving documented statements to the insurance adjuster for the opposing party.
If you do not have legal representation, the unfavorable insurance adjuster will attempt to get a recorded statement from you. “Well, if you’re truly speaking the truth, why would you be frightened to give us a recorded statement?” they’ll imply, or remark if questioned, “well, if you’re telling the truth, why would you be hesitant to offer us a recorded statement?”
A person should ask themself the following question: “Why does the adjuster need to record what occurred if he just wants to know what happened? What I say may just as well be written or typed by him.”
The adjuster is well aware that you will almost certainly say something that may subsequently be used against you if you provide a recorded statement. It’s not so much that you wouldn’t tell the truth; it’s more that individuals would frequently use loose phraseology while chatting informally, such as over the phone with an adjuster, which lawyers may subsequently twist. The insurance company adjusters will ask you questions that have been prepared by their lawyers and are designed to seem innocent but are rather difficult in their structure. The question looks to be asking one thing at first, but as you read the transcript, it appears to be asking something completely different.
GIVING A RECORDED STATEMENT TO THE AT-FAULT PARTY’S INSURANCE ADJUSTER HAS NO BENEFITS AND ONLY DISADVANTAGES.
BELIEVING THAT IF YOU DON’T HAVE A LAWYER, AN INSURANCE COMPANY WILL OFFER YOU PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.
Insurance corporations have persuaded the American people that engaging an attorney to handle a personal injury claim is unethical, if not immoral. Insurance companies have established a myth/perception that consumers who do not engage lawyers for accident claims are more trustworthy and treated more fairly by adjusters.
Consider this: an insurance business exists to generate money. They are not philanthropic or social organizations. They don’t give a damn about you, and they shouldn’t. It is their responsibility to make money for both policyholders and investors.
When you don’t have an attorney, they may appear pleasant toward you, but this is a ruse. They are pondering something “This individual is a moron. Let’s take advantage of them as much as possible till they realize what’s going on.”
SIGNING INSURANCE COMPANIES’ CARTE BLANCHE RELEASE AUTHORIZATIONS.
While it is true that you must sign various types of restricted release permission if you file a lawsuit on a matter,
that the insurance attorneys can obtain copies of your medical records from relevant doctors, a good attorney will ensure that the release authorizations you sign are limited to specific records and do not allow the insurance attorney or insurance company to see more than they are legally entitled to see. If you don’t have an attorney or are represented by one who isn’t very good, you may sign a carte blanche release permission, which the insurance companies will use to “go to town.” They will “dig for dirt” if you sign a carte blanche release license. They have legal access to every insurance database on the planet. They have the legal right to look for things like records from an old child custody case, military records, health insurance records dating back to when you were a child, any psychological or marital counselling records you have, traffic ticket citations, credit card records, credit reports, telephone company records, and so on.
According to Colorado law (Schlatter case), just because you are an innocent victim of someone else’s carelessness does not imply that your life is suddenly an open book for someone else to “dig for dirt” on you. So, even if the insurance adjuster or attorney says it’s simply an “informal issue,” don’t sign blanket release authorizations.
USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO DISCUSS YOUR CASE.
People get the sense that social media platforms like Facebook are in some manner semi- private. No, they aren’t. Insurance investigators may easily access your social networking sites, even if you have turned your privacy settings to private. If you make “jokes” about your case on social media or speak about it with other people, especially about how much money you hope to collect, it will come back to hit you hard. It will come back to bite you if you post anything on social media criticizing your physicians, attorneys, and other professionals. Simply assume that everything you write on a computer is not private in the eyes of an insurance company. Insurance firms are now making it a point to look into the social media profiles of everyone who claims them. They’ve discovered that these are really “gold mines” of unpleasant details and “funny” that don’t seem to be jokes when shown on a PowerPoint in a courtroom.
USING SOCIAL MEDIA TO MAKE ABUSIVE, VULGAR, OR OTHERWISE HUMILIATING POSTS AND DIARIES.
Insurance firms like getting copies of your diary and social media postings and poring through them for anything they can use to shame you. Don’t give them anything to work within this aspect. Consider carefully what you write in them. You can’t undo what’s already been done, but you can influence what goes into them in the future.
Insurance firms are increasingly passionate about checking into people’s opiates usage, only to dig into people’s diaries and social media accounts. They want any medical documents that prove you were administered an opiate medicine in the past. Even the most injuryless usage of pain pills, such as Hydrocodone after a root canal, maybe twisted to make you seem to be a pain pill addict. Any use of opiates has a genuine negative value in today’s culture, and if you can be called an “abuser” of opiates, the insurance company just has to show a few things. As a result, if you are wounded in a car accident, do all you can to avoid or severely restrict the usage of opiate drugs like Hydrocodone and OxyContin. If you must take these pills for severe, chronic pain, do not abuse them. If the option to “come off” these prescriptions presents itself, such as via a professional programme, it will seem very good to a jury later on that you attempted to do so. There is a “witch hunt” mindset concerning insurance companies persecuting people who use opiate drugs right now (in 2018) while I write this book.
Persons who legitimately take opiates for long periods will probably be thought of more humanely by the general public in five years. Still, right now, the media narrative is to unfairly demonize them, and insurance company lawyers, particularly their hired gun medical experts, are quick to exploit this.
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ANY PAST ACCIDENT CLAIMS
For insurance adjusters and attorneys, the “holy grail” is to have you on video or in writing, denying that you’ve ever had a previous accident claim, and then come up with evidence that you have.
Insurance firms have sophisticated computer systems that can trace any insurance claims you’ve ever filed throughout your life. If you tell your lawyer about previous accidents, he or she can probably keep the majority of them out of the evidence. Judges often reject accidents that occurred more than five years ago or did not result in injury. However, if you say, “No, I didn’t have any accidents other than that one last year.” It turns out that you did have two accidents in California last year, the judge will allow evidence of those prior accidents to be admitted, not because they have anything to do with your current condition, but because they are arguably indications that you lie or conveniently forget things, and thus affect your credibility. Jurors believe that failing to disclose past accidents is a cardinal violation, and even when done inadvertently, the insurance counsel will infer malice.
Even if you have a past accident claim, the majority of the time, as long as you completely disclose it, judges and juries are unaffected. They just reason that he’ll be more susceptible the second time around if he’s been injured before.
However, if you do not tell quickly, people may draw a bad conclusion from your failure.
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ALL PAST MEDICAL ISSUES, SUCH AS PRIOR BACK THERAPY.
Suppose you tell the insurance company, the insurance adjuster, or the doctor treating you that “yes, I had this issue years ago” or whatever. In that case, the doctor may argue that it has nothing to do with your present condition or that the former condition rendered you more
prone to damage. Suppose you fail to declare a past injury or ailment, and the insurance company discovers it via its extensive databases. In that case, the insurance lawyer will accuse you of having a malicious motive, claiming it was part of a plot to conceal information. On the other hand, as long as you reveal it, you and your lawyer will be able to put it into perspective. If this occurs, a jury will place a high value on the fact that you “failed to disclose” a past injury or medical condition. As a result, err on the side of transparency when it comes to previous comparable medical issues.
HIRING A LEGAL COMPANY THAT DOES NOT GO TO TRIAL REGULARLY.
Computer systems at insurance companies keep track of which law firms go to trial and which do not. They pay considerably greater settlements to businesses like mine who go to trial regularly, as opposed to the numerous ‘poser’ firms that only do short one-day trials or no trials at all. Many attorneys will take a year or two off from frequent jury trials.
WITH INSURANCE BUSINESSES, THIS TYPE OF REPUTATION SPREADS QUICKLY
I’ve even seen attorneys who never go to trial advertise on television as “genuine trial tigers,” or something like since they understand the value of this and carefully pick their phrases to avoid plain lying. To my knowledge, I addressed one such individual who claimed to have done “over a hundred trials” on TV when he had not done even one. “When I was a deputy in the city attorney’s office, I performed well over a hundred traffic ticket trials,” he added, laughing as if this was some ingenious deceit that I should appreciate. (Traffic ticket cases aren’t even close to a jury trial; they normally run 15 minutes, and the motorist isn’t represented.) This was extremely revolting to me.
Unfortunately, since this information is not stored on widely accessible public databases, there is no clear method for a layman to determine which law firms go to trial and which do not. (Some periodicals provide this information for a fee to lawyers who subscribe to them, but these publications are not available to the general public.) This, I guess, is the wisest course of action. If you’re at the office of an attorney you’re considering employing to handle your case, ask him directly, “How many times have you been the first witness in a jury trial?
In the recent five years, have you held the position of chair attorney?” If his response is less than 8, you may need to seek legal counsel from another company.
If you know someone who works at the courts, you might inquire about handling pi cases in the area. They are aware of the situation. People who work for judges who preside over civil jury cases would be excellent sources.
IGNORING THE ADVICE OF A QUALIFIED ATTORNEY.
If you’ve engaged a skilled lawyer to represent you, you should pay attention to what he or she says when they say this or that course of action is the best. These lawyers are motivated by a desire to make as much money as possible. They’re rooting for you. They are more
knowledgeable about the system than you are.
Asking well-meaning friends and family for guidance, or, worse, seeking advice on the internet, will not provide you with the finest advice. You may be able to persuade someone to tell you what you want to hear, but what good is that if it isn’t the truth?