Both the insurance company and the plaintiff’s lawyer have a strong interest in thoughts about a jury’s possible verdict, in relation to a specific, negotiated claim. That fact helps to underscore the jury’s role in out-of-court settlements.
A jury’s decision might reflect the liability issues in a given claim.
That 12-member body might believe that liability should be shared between the plaintiff and the defendant. In that case, the plaintiff’s award would get reduced to a degree that corresponded with the extent of the plaintiff’s contribution to the accident’s occurrence, or to the creation of an injury.
A personal injury lawyer might know about damage caps in a certain jurisdiction.
Juries do not get talked about such damage caps. Still, a judge has to take those into consideration, when declaring how much money an awarded plaintiff should receive. Of course, not all jurisdictions have capped the level of the damage awards for victims of a personal injury.
Realize, too, that no jurisdiction has established a minimum for the award going to plaintiffs with personal injury claims. That is why claimants take a risk, whenever any of them elects to pursue a lawsuit, with the help of Personal Injury Lawyer in Sarnia instead of accepting a settlement offer.
Some juries must deal with a plaintiff’s request for money to cover a loss of future earning potential, or the chances for future medical costs.
In those situations, the jury needs to reduce the size of the award, so that it matches with the dollar’s existing value, and not its future value. Lawyers often have access to software that can help them to make such calculations. A lawyer’s potential access to such software could make it easier to explain the reduction procedure to a client. Yet, that might not force a client to acknowledge the amount of effort that a jury could put into establishment of a verdict.
The legal system forbids the sharing of collateral source payments with a jury.
Legally, a plaintiff has the right to seek compensation for the cost of medical treatment, even if a health insurance company has already paid that same plaintiff. The company’s payment would function as a collateral source of funds.
Professionals in the legal community realize that a jurist might decide against awarding a plaintiff that had been paid by an insurance company. That is why juries never get told about collateral source payments.
Still, judges do know about such payments. Judges have the authority to reduce an award, so that the subtracted money can get used to pay the source of the collateral funds. Both lawyers and insurance companies take that fact into consideration, during the process that is supposed to lead eventually to an agreement on a settlement.