Sources of Support When Speaking With Insurance Adjuster
Insurance adjusters have no legal or medical training. Still, each of them has learned how to be persuasive. If you have filed a claim with an insurance company, an adjuster might try to persuade you that you have a weak case and should accept a low offer.
Yet someone that has not become skilled at the art of persuasion might be able to fight an adjuster’s tactics. Sometimes that can be accomplished by using facts from specific sources. Some useful and supportive facts come from official sources; others come from Personal Injury Lawyer in Vancouver.
Sources of official support: These strengthen the claim that the other driver was at-fault.
The police report: Check to see if it makes any mention of careless driving. That would suggest that the other driver was negligent. A demonstration of careless or neglectful behavior can be used as evidence that the other party should be held responsible for a given accident.
The violation of a traffic law: Study the laws on the books. Look for one that applies to the circumstances surrounding the accident that has been assigned to the adjuster.
Evidence of how the vehicles collided with each other: The situations surrounding certain accidents have been described as no-doubt situations. That means the evidence makes it rather obvious which driver should be pointed to as the one at-fault. Both rear-end collisions and left-turn accidents are viewed as examples of no-doubt situations.
Location of damage: Certain types of damage can only be caused by specific movements of a motor vehicle. For instance, it would seem next-to- impossible for any driver to maneuver in a way that would cause damage to the side of his or her vehicle, and also the vehicle that was driven by another motorist.
Issues that could create a need for support from a medical professional
If a claimant had a chronic medical condition, then he or she would need proof that the same condition had been stabilized. A doctor’s report should serve as proof that the claimant’s chronic condition was under control during the moments before the accident that had given rise to specific questions from the insurance company.
Alternately, a claimant might become the target of an unfounded claim from the insurance company. For instance, a driver that had a chronic condition might be told that he or she should have used 2 seat belts.
That claim would lack veracity, if a medical professional were to say that no legal doctrine in existence had stipulated the utilization of 2 seat belts by any similar patients. Naturally, such a statement would need to come from a professional that had gained expertise in the field of medicine that related to the claimant’s chronic condition.