Settlement Loans, Car Wreck Cases, And Red Flags

Car wreck cases are the most frequently-encountered reason individuals seek settlement loans. Although it is true that most of these cases are relatively easy to fund, it is important to be aware of the red flags that exist in such cases for those seeking lawsuit loans.

The primary reason for which lawsuit funding is denied in such instances is the fact that plaintiffs have unrealistic expectations. For some bizarre reason, many individuals involved in car wrecks just assume they're going to able to retire as result of the awards received. Although it is true that many severe injuries occur as result of car wrecks, it is also true that the vast majority of car wrecks will not result in life-threatening injuries. (It is significant realize that individuals need not sustain life-threatening injuries to be able to obtain settlement loans. However, it is absolutely essential that the plaintiff present a case that is credible to both the opposing party and the jury, if the case goes to trial.)

This is an area in which there is a great deal of abuse. (Unrealistic expectations often preclude individuals from obtaining settlement loans.) In many instances, plaintiffs think that simply because they were rear-ended, they will prevail in the case. However, this simply is not true. There are many such cases that wind up going to trial in which the jurors are not sympathetic to the plaintiff, feel as though the plaintiff in some way provoked the car wreck (e.g., "jack-rabbit start"), and come back with the "defense" verdict. Obviously, one may not obtain lawsuit funding if it is likely that the individual seeking such funding played a role in causing the car wreck.

Due to the abuse often encountered in car wreck cases, jurors will often have a "jaded" view of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff fosters this perception by having unrealistic expectations, exaggerates the extent of injury, etc. jurors are likely to return either a zero-verdict or a "defense" verdict.

Any delays in seeking medical attention following a car wreck are also perceived as red flags. Insurance carriers often take a very hard-line against those individuals who wait more than two weeks prior to seeking medical attention. Furthermore, it is very likely that the insurance carrier's attorney will expend a great deal of effort in creating the impression that the services received were attorney-directed in such instances.

The absence of treatment in an emergency room is also likely to serve as a red flag in these cases. In the vast majority of cases, the Police Report will reflect that there were no injuries at the scene unless there was evidence of blood, loss of consciousness, obvious broken bones, etc. Make no mistake about it, the insurance carrier will rely heavily on the fact that no injuries were identified in the Police Report.

Plaintiffs who are inconsistent in following the healthcare provider's recommended plan of treatment are also likely to gain little sympathy if the case goes to trial. It is natural to assume that if an individual is injured, they will earnestly seek the care that is offered. Services that are received at the plaintiff's convenience are not services for which the opposing party will be responsible. Remember, the carrier will only be responsible for services deemed medically necessary.

If there is no objective evidence of significant injury, such as diagnostic imaging (e.g., MRI, CT, etc.), significant laboratory findings, etc. this will also be seen as red flag. Plaintiffs will find it extremely difficult to obtain an award in those cases classified as "minor impact soft tissue" (MIST). The well-known difficulty in obtaining awards in such cases significantly decreases the likelihood of being able to obtain settlement loans in MIST cases.

Are you in need of information regarding the best deal on settlement loans? If so, we encourage you to visit us to obtain information regarding the benefits of lawsuit loans today.