Someone that has been involved in a car accident has suffered certain losses. The legal system refers to those losses as damages. The victim of an accident has the right to use a lawsuit, in order to seek compensation for those same damages.
Accident victims usually have to deal with compensatory damages.
• The costs of medical treatment
• The costs of medication
• Income lost while recovering from an injury
• Any projected loss of future earnings
• Pain and suffering
• Vehicle damage.
What set of circumstances would make it logical for a car accident victim to think about bringing a lawsuit against the responsible driver?
• If it looked like one or more of the injured victims might need to receive further medical treatment in the future.
• If it looked like one or the victim’s injuries had the potential to diminish the same victim’s chances for finding a form of employment in the future.
• If it looked like one or more of the accident-related injuries had caused one of the vehicle’s occupants to become disabled or disfigured.
• If the insurance company had been told about psychological difficulties or emotional issues that were experienced by one victim, after being involved in the accident.
What circumstance might cause the car accident victim to think about bringing a lawsuit against the insurance company?
If the insurance company had called into question the plaintiff’s identification of the person responsible for the damage, as per Accident Lawyer in Cambridge.
Why the location of the accident might play a role in a decision regarding the wisdom behind pursuing a lawsuit?
If the accident took place in a no-fault state, then the victim/claimant might not be able to sue the responsible driver. In most no-fault states, a claimant cannot sue the responsible driver unless the value of the damages has exceeded a given threshold.
Even if a state were to allow a victim to sue the responsible driver that might not be the smartest course of action. The victim would not know what the limits were on the other driver’s insurance policy.
If the case were to go to court, and if the jury awarded the plaintiff an amount that exceeded the limits on the defendant’s insurance policy, then the plaintiff would need to go after the defendant’s assets. At least, that would be the case, if the plaintiff had not purchased underinsured motorist protection.
If the plaintiff had purchased such protection, then the plaintiff’s insurance company might be able to make up for the limited amount of money coming from the defendants’ insurance company. Yet that would only be possible if the plaintiff’s policy had specified delivery of funds that equaled in size the difference between the awarded and the available amount of money.
