Question For Lawyers (Or Anyone)

[HarleyDog]

(10-22-2019, 09:31 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: No.  They didn't offer much of anything in terms of a settlement so we figured we'd get more in trial.  Then, I think they offered a high-low settlement because they knew that the jury could find them at major fault, but without the driver's insurance it was hard.

You say "NO." But then follow up with "They didn't offer much." So I'm going to assume an offer was made.  Ok, I just went through a major trial which involved 4 million and possible punitive damages. So you were offered something which you thought was minimal and decided to fight. Insurance companies try to settle without going to court because a jury verdict can be devastating with punitive damages when the policy holder tenders the policy, which it sounds like this might have, or could have been the case. If I'm wrong, please correct me. If you chose to take your case to court, then that's a decision you pretty much have to live with. A judge will normally go with the jury because, well, if he doesn't, we have a failed judicial system. However, I'm pretty sure your lawyer should have made this clear, knowing all the facts, and suggested to take the offer if he thought there was a chance he/she couldn't win. 

Brad, you got in that car knowing everything you know, and you knew that beforehand. As much as I'm sorry for what you are going through, there were so many bad decisions that night, which touched a lot of lives in more ways then one. It's so devastating and I'm so sorry for what you and everyone else has been through. However, when a case goes to trial and a jury comes up with a decision, it's close to impossible to get a different verdict without new facts that the other wasn't aware of in the first trial.

Your very passionate and if there is more out there that was not presented, then I hope it get's presented. Good luck friend.