Bringing You The World

One of the most common types of cases encountered for those handling settlement loans is the car wreck case. Although in most instances such cases are easily funded, those seeking lawsuit loans must be aware that there are numerous “red flags” encountered in such cases.

It is the unrealistic expectation that serves as the greatest impediment to those seeking lawsuit funding. For whatever reason, many individuals seem to think that they will be able to retire following a relatively simple rear-end collision. While it is true that many of these collisions result in serious injury to the occupants, the vast majority of these cases do not. It is fortunate that in the vast majority of these instances, the plaintiffs do not sustain life-threatening injuries. (It is important to realize that individuals need not sustain life-threatening injury to obtain settlement loans. However, it will be absolutely essential that one present a credible case to both the opposing party and the jury, if the case does go 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.

The exaggerated claims that are often presented in such cases have created a sense of suspicion in many of the jurors’ minds. It will be very difficult to obtain lawsuit loans when claims appear exaggerated and the injuries identified appear inconsistent with the facts of the case.

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.

Another red flag is the plaintiff’s refusal to follow the healthcare provider’s plan of treatment. If an individual is injured, those responsible for paying for such injuries have a right to expect that injured individual to follow a reasonable plan of care. It is not reasonable for the plaintiff to receive care only at the plaintiff’s convenience. It is important to keep in mind that the responsible party is not required to pay for medically convenient services. The responsible party will be required to pay for those services deemed medically necessary.

The absence of diagnostic imaging (e.g., MRI, CT, etc.), significant laboratory findings, and/or evidence of substantial injury all serve as red flags. The opposing party will certainly be reluctant to pay anything on claims that are classified as “minor impact soft tissue” (MIST) cases. This fact is well-known and it is very difficult to obtain settlement loans in such cases.

Are you confused about obtaining settlement loans? Please stop by our site to find out all about the benefits of obtaining lawsuit loans and what they can do for you.