84 Arguments Insurance Companies Make

There is always more than one side to every story. Our attorneys will help you tell your side. As an accident victim, you should be aware that the insurance company for the responsible party will use every argument it can to undermine your claim. The following is a partial list of some of the arguments you might hear:

• Accident victim does not have a serious injury.
• Accident victim could have avoided the accident.
• Accident victim is lying.
• Accident victim is confused.
• Accident victim is greedy.
• Accident victim exaggerates the seriousness of his/her injury.
• The insurance company doctor – “Independent Medical Exam” – concludes that the accident victim is not seriously injured.
• Accident victim has difficulty expressing himself/herself and will not be able to convey information about the accident.
• Accident victim makes a poor appearance as a witness.
• Accident victim can’t remember the time of accident, therefore he/she is an unreliable or unbelievable witness.
• Accident victim can’t remember his/her speed, therefore he/she is an unreliable or unbelievable witness.
• Accident victim can’t remember distances related to the accident, therefore he/she is an unreliable or unbelievable witness.
• Accident victim’s vehicle is not equipped with headrest, seat belts, rearview mirror, or other safety devices.
• Seat belts or other safety devices were in the vehicle but not used by the accident victim.
  15 Equipment defects in the victim’s vehicle include bald tires, defective brakes, broken taillights and/or broken turn signal.
• Accident victim’s driving ability and perception were impaired by the use of alcohol, medication or drugs.
• Accident victim has a hearing or vision defect, or an illness like epilepsy, which impairs his/her driving ability or perception.
• Accident victim was under doctor’s orders not to drive.
• Accident victim was not licensed to drive or was driving with a suspended license.
• Accident victim did not notice defendant until impact or immediately before impact and was therefore inattentive.
• Accident victim exaggerates defendant’s speed and other facts surrounding the accident so as to diminish his/her credibility, which makes him/her an unreliable or unbelievable witness.
• Accident victim had warning of danger within sufficient time to avoid the accident if he/she was paying attention.
• Accident victim could have avoided the accident if he/she was not exceeding safe speed for conditions.
• Accident victim made an unnecessary and unexpected stop.
• Accident victim made an unsafe lane change without warning.
• Accident victim did not stop or use a turn signal.
• Accident victim was backing up under circumstances and/or at a location where a reasonable person would not have anticipated another vehicle.
• Accident victim was not in the intersection first.
• If accident victim and defendant were in the intersection at the same time, then accident victim was to the defendant’s left, exceeding the speed limit, not driving safely, or was inattentive.
• Defendant was acting as a reasonable person in the operation of his/her vehicle at a safe speed for conditions.
• An act of nature or unknown person was responsible for the accident.
• No independent witness can substantiate the accident victim’s version of the accident.
• No witness of any kind is available who supports the accident victim’s side of the story.
• Witnesses dispute the accident victim’s version of the facts.
• Investigating police officer made errors in his report or erroneous conclusions disputing the accident victim’s version of the accident.
• Physical evidence (lights, brakes, tires, etc.) was lost.
• The accident victim did not obtain the services of an expert to substantiate the negligence of the other parties.
• Police were not summoned to the scene implying minimal or no injury.
• Medical personnel were not summoned to the scene implying minimal or no injury.
• Accident victim did not complain of pain at the accident scene.
• No indication on police report that accident victim complained of pain at scene.
• The accident victim didn’t go to the hospital immediately.
• No one requested an ambulance at the accident scene.
• No objective manifestation of an injury was made immediately after the accident.
• Accident victim did not get examined at the emergency room immediately after the accident.
• Minimal property damage to either or both vehicles was involved.
• Accident victim’s vehicle was equipped with shock-absorbing bumpers, headrest or seat belts, which were being used and made low impact injuries impossible or improbable.
• No other persons involved had serious injuries.
• Accident victim received no treatment for a substantial period of time following the accident.
• Accident victim made errors in recalling his/her medical and or employment history to the insurance company.
• No medical opinion substantiated medical causation between accident and victim’s medical complaints.
• Accident victim was injured before the accident.
• Accident victim exaggerates his/her condition relative to the medical reports.
• Accident victim’s complaints to health care providers were minimal.
• Accident victim’s complaints to health care providers were bizarre, exaggerated, or lengthy.
• Accident victim’s complaints to one doctor differ from complaints to other doctors.
• Accident victim had full range of motion at physical examination.
• Accident victim had no complaint of pain at physical examination.
• Accident victim was observed moving normally while not being examined by his/her doctor.
• Accident victim’s family doctor had opinion of minimal injuries.
• Accident victim did not go to physical therapy.
• Accident victim’s injuries are totally “subjective” – no indication of injury from objective medical tests.
• Accident victim received treatment for only a “short” time after the accident.
• Accident victim’s doctor is unavailable or not practicing locally.
• Accident victim was not examined by a doctor recommended by the insurance company soon after the accident.
• Accident victim had similar or chronic complaints according to medical records.
• Accident victim has unrelated medical issues such as arthritis or congenital medical problems.
• Cost of treatment and/or period during which the accident victim was treated was excessive.
• Accident victim went to work contrary to his/her doctor’s advice and as a result, aggravated his/her injury or caused a prolonged period of disability.
• Accident victim’s doctor did not recommend time off work or restrictions from work activities.
• No doctor has stated that the accident victim would lose work time in future.
• Accident victim had a poor attendance record at work prior to the accident.
• Accident victim would have been terminated, on strike or laid off regardless of the accident.
• Accident victim had no job at the time of accident and is unable to substantiate that he/she was looking for employment.
• Accident victim’s earnings and tax records indicate a smaller earning history than claimed.
• Accident victim was paid in cash for prior employment and is unable to document past earnings.
• Accident victim does not have previous tax returns.
• Accident victim has let various “Statute of Limitations” run out thereby foreclosing any possible claim.
• Accident victim was partially at fault and should recover less under the law’s comparative fault provisions.
• Accident victim has a history of filing lawsuits.
• Accident victim has a history of mental illness or mental problems making him/her unreliable.
• Accident victim made statements to the insurance company that he/she was not injured in the accident.
• Accident victim failed to give proper and timely notice to government entities, and thus his/her claim is barred.
• Accident victim did not notify the insurance company at the correct time.