Whose fault?

[teng_fred]

When the insurance company of the other party sends u a letter to pay u certain amount for my side of claims, does it means that the other party has admitted his fault or is it the insurance thinks it's his fault to have the claim settle ASAP?

[yoshi]

Originally posted by teng_fred@Dec 4 2006, 05:59 PM

When the insurance company of the other party sends u a letter to pay u certain amount for my side of claims, does it means that the other party has admitted his fault or is it the insurance thinks it's his fault to have the claim settle ASAP?

why ask here wheer u got ur own insurance people help u do teh claim .if that person cannot answer u the question what make u think u can get an answer here.

 

 

of course the case must be solve then they pay the amount one.

[teng_fred]

Don get u .. Do u mean that the other party admitted his fault and insurance agreed with the other party thus resulting the payment for claims ?

[contrarian]

Originally posted by teng_fred@Dec 4 2006, 05:59 PM

When the insurance company of the other party sends u a letter to pay u certain amount for my side of claims, does it means that the other party has admitted his fault or is it the insurance thinks it's his fault to have the claim settle ASAP?

When you receive this letter, you should see a "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" header somewhere on the letter. These are common in settlement negotiations.

 

They are offering to settle with you for a certain amount. Because these are without prejudice, they do not admit any liability. Any matters in without prejudice negotiations cannot be used in a court of law as evidence. Evidence has to be constructed separately outside of what happens in without prejudice negotiations.

 

This is to encourage parties to openly discuss their case or to make offers to settle, without prejudicing their own positions if they have to defend themselves in court if the settlement offers don't work.

 

Why is this good? It helps information flow, reduces legal costs for all parties, court time and costs, and the claimant gets his compensation faster. Either party can still refuse to settle and try the case.

[teng_fred]

Originally posted by contrarian@Dec 5 2006, 06:37 PM

When you receive this letter, you should see a "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" header somewhere on the letter. These are common in settlement negotiations.

 

They are offering to settle with you for a certain amount. Because these are without prejudice, they do not admit any liability. Any matters in without prejudice negotiations cannot be used in a court of law as evidence. Evidence has to be constructed separately outside of what happens in without prejudice negotiations.

 

This is to encourage parties to openly discuss their case or to make offers to settle, without prejudicing their own positions if they have to defend themselves in court if the settlement offers don't work.

 

Why is this good? It helps information flow, reduces legal costs for all parties, court time and costs, and the claimant gets his compensation faster. Either party can still refuse to settle and try the case.

So can I say that in a way "without prejudice", the insurance also find that the other party is at fault and he admitted it (Meaning they did check with the person) so that's why they are offering to settle out of court to save cost and further future troublesome?

[Arcfire]

It doesn't mean that he admitted to it. The insurance company doesn't have to admit that the insured party is at fault to issue compensation.

But of course the standard procedures of going through the claim has been done before the insurance company is willing to offer compensation.

It simply means that if you choose to accept the offer, there is no need to try the claim in court and waste the time and money of both sides. It in no way implies that the party is guilty(sounds ironic isn't it? hehe)

[contrarian]

Originally posted by teng_fred@Dec 7 2006, 03:09 PM

So can I say that in a way "without prejudice", the insurance also find that the other party is at fault and he admitted it (Meaning they did check with the person) so that's why they are offering to settle out of court to save cost and further future troublesome?

Without prejudice means "I don't admit anything, let's talk freely and see if we can come to a solution that satisfies us both". It's nothing more than an offer to negotiate or settle with you.

 

You can either accept or reject - it's up to you the claimant to decide.

If you reject, you now take the risk of losing everything or the chance of winning a higher settlement.

 

There are many reasons why someone might offer to settle. For example:

1. evidence is clearly not favourable, likely to lose - settle quickly instead of dragging the case and pay more legal fees

2. evidence is at best 50-50 - prefer to settle instead of taking the half-chance and losing everything

3. your claim amount is low - prefer to settle instead of paying a loss adjuster, a lawyer, etc. which would cost more to investigate than to pay you

 

Usually the decision on whether to accept depends on the strength of the two cases. If the claimant has a good case, and the defendant's offering a reasonable settlement (say 80-100% of the liability and an agreed amount for the total loss), then more likely the claimant will accept. If the claimant has a good case but he's offered a 30% settlement then he's likely to reject.

 

Your lawyer will tell you how good (he thinks) your case is, and whether you should consider the offer as a reasonable settlement or not.

At this point I should warn you that everyone tends to think they have a good case - whether that's true or not may be a different story. It's important to hear from your lawyer what his professional view is.

[teng_fred]

Ok guys thanks for ur info.. being a great help.. appreciate it very much..