Obtaining just compensation is frequently a struggle for motorcycle riders in an accident. Insurance firms utilize advanced strategies to reduce compensation. One of their most effective weapons is the concept of “partial fault.” Insurers seek to lower the settlement amount required under comparative negligence laws significantly. This is where they claim that the rider bears some responsibility for the accident. Here are three strategies insurers use to reduce settlement amounts.
1. The “Shared Fault” Trap That Exploits Bias and Ambiguity
Insurers understand that juries and adjusters could have hidden biases against motorcyclists. That’s because they are frequently viewed as naturally more reckless or risk-taking operators. Insurers aggressively exploit this bias immediately after an accident. For example, an adjuster could claim you were riding too fast, even without definitive proof.
They capitalize on any vagueness in the police report or witness accounts to construct a story of collective accountability. According to comparative negligence laws, if they manage to persuade an adjuster, arbitrator, or jury that you were at least 20% responsible, your overall compensation may be decreased by that percentage. You may even be prevented from obtaining any recovery if they exceed 50% or 51% (depending on the state). Their aim is to inflate your perceived contribution to the crash far beyond reality.
2. Distortion of Evidence to Manufacture Contributory Negligence
After the seed of partial fault is sown, insurers carefully manipulate the evidence at hand to bolster their claim. They might minimize the seriousness of the other driver’s offense, such as openly running a red light or executing a dangerous left turn, while exaggerating any small mistake you made. They may distort your speed before the accident using dubious estimates, assert you could have prevented the crash with different reactions (overlooking the instantaneous nature of accidents), or contend that modifications made after purchase played a role.
They frequently overlook important factors such as bad road conditions, blocked sightlines, or the other driver’s lack of focus. In the absence of robust, independent evidence to challenge this narrative, like clear dashcam footage, impartial accident reconstruction analysis, or credible witness statements, their skewed account can gain influence, directly diminishing the value of your claim.
3. Leveraging Partial Fault to Pressure Early, Lowball Settlements
Insurers use the possibility of being deemed partially responsible to coerce injured riders into agreeing to swift, low-value settlements early on. Since riders frequently encounter increasing medical expenses, income loss, and costs for bike repairs or replacements, adjusters might propose only a small percentage of the claim’s actual value upfront.
They’ll present this offer as “owning up to their part,” suggesting it’s what you can expect considering your “input” in the incident. They could warn you that seeking more will be time-consuming, costly, and risky because of the supposed fault, believing that fear and financial pressure will lead you to relinquish your rights. Accepting this offer will bar you from pursuing full compensation later, regardless of whether your injuries worsen or new evidence exonerates you.
It is vital to withstand this pressure. Firms like this motorcycle lawyer in Southfield Michigan possess vast experience countering insurance strategies and know how to refute these shared liability claims effectively. They utilize their understanding of traffic regulations, accident dynamics, and evidence preservation to prove the other party’s responsibility and advocate for the highest compensation injured riders deserve.
Endnote
Do not allow an insurance adjuster’s claims of shared responsibility to scare you into settling for an inadequate amount. Their approach is intentional and tailored to cut costs for their company at your expense. Recognizing how they use comparative negligence as a weapon through bias exploitation, evidence manipulation, financial pressure application, and consulting with legal professionals is the first step in fighting back.
