According to national statistical averages, there is an approximate 95 percent chance of a personal injury claim resolving by way of settlement prior to trial. This is not to say that all claims will settle but, the vast majority to resolve. Some claims must proceed to trial if the parties are simply too far apart on their estimation of value and the likelihood of prevailing but, both plaintiff’s and defendants are usually represented by attorneys who have a fairly good idea of how to value cases and what is a reasonable settlement figure. This coupled with the costs of taking a case to trial and the potential adverse risk for the defendant in having a judge or jury award a much higher amount than what was offered or for the plaintiff to receive a much lower amount (or nothing) for their claims than what they demanded for resolution. This usually leads both sides towards a good “middle number” that reasonably takes into account the risks involved.
This depends upon the stage at which the case resolves, the age of the plaintiff(s), and several other factors but, the process normally happens as follows:
With rare exceptions, the answer is YES. Once a plaintiff claiming bodily harmed caused by negligence executes a release and accepts payment, the claims cannot be brought up again against the party being released. In fact, every standard release agreement for personal injury claims in California usually always includes an explicit waiver of California Civil Code 1542, which reads as follows:
“A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.”
By incorporating an explicit waiver of this provision into the settlement and release agreement, the party being released is requiring the settling party to waive off not only present claims that they know about but, any future claims that they may not even realize they have. For example, if a medical condition initially diagnosed as a “sprained” back is later revealed to have been a herniated disc requiring surgery, and a release was signed based upon a valuation for a “sprain”, the injured person would probably not be able to renege the agreement and re-assert the claim. Costs of MRIs, surgery, post-surgical physical therapy and the associated pain and suffering for all related conditions such as radiating nerve pain down extremities would be beyond compensation.
For an example of the typical California auto accident insurance claims release form, click here: Sample Release of Injury Claims in CA
One of the oldest tricks in the insurance adjuster handbook is the “quick settlement” offer to the unrepresented and unsuspecting injured party. Insurance companies (unlike your attorney) are not interested in you making a full and complete evaluation of present and future medical expenses and a pain and suffering award commensurate with the full value of the medical condition. They would much rather dangle the carrot of, “Oh, we will pay your hospital bill and give you a couple of thousand dollars (or less) for your troubles.” Far too many persons fall for this trap, sign a release of present and future claims, accept what they don’t realize is a paltry sum and then find out later that their need for treatment is much more extensive than initially realized. Don’t be a victim twice! Retain a quality California personal injury lawyer to guide you through the claims settlement process!