Search the web for “insurance claim dispute advice” and you will find a seemingly endless number of results, some of which state it is better for those in such a predicament to rely on a public adjuster to handle the dispute as opposed to an attorney. The truth is a denied claim can only be formally disputed in a court of law by an attorney. (Credit: fizkes/Shutterstock.com) Search the web for “insurance claim dispute advice” and you will find a seemingly endless number of results, some of which state it is better for those in such a predicament to rely on a public adjuster to handle the dispute as opposed to an attorney. The truth is a denied claim can only be formally disputed in a court of law by an attorney. (Credit: fizkes/Shutterstock.com)

A number of myths persist regarding insurance claim disputes and the attorneys practicing in the sector ranging from how lawyers are paid to when a policy is canceled.

The following are some of the leading myths regarding insurance litigation as well as a review of the truth behind the issue:

Myth: Attorneys are paid at the outset of the legal process.

Attorneys are not financially compensated at the start of the legal action. Insurance claim dispute lawyers with merit and integrity will not request money when the legal action commences. Rather, these professionals work on a contingency basis, meaning they are only financially compensated if the legal action results in a settlement or favorable court award.

Myth: An insurer cannot deny liability after their client admits fault.

It is not uncommon for an individual involved in an auto accident or another incident to admit fault in the immediate aftermath of this traumatic experience. However, just because the allegedly negligent party admits fault after the incident occurs does not mean the insurer has to accept liability.

Even if the party that admits fault promises to pay for the cost of medical treatment and property repair, this promise is not guaranteed to be legally enforced. The insurance provider has every right to deny liability or even pin some of the liability on the opposing party after the accident occurs, regardless of what their client stated in the aftermath of the unfortunate event in question.

Myth: It is in the interest of claimants to choose a public adjuster rather than a lawyer.

Search the web for “insurance claim dispute advice” and you will find a seemingly endless number of results, some of which state it is better for those in such a predicament to rely on a public adjuster to handle the dispute as opposed to an attorney. The truth is a denied claim can only be formally disputed in a court of law by an attorney.

 Myth: Another party’s insurance company can be sued.

Suing the other party’s insurer is not permitted. Though it is the opposing party’s insurance provider that investigates the automobile accident claim and analyzes the crash to determine how much financial compensation should be provided, this party cannot be named as the defendant in the ensuing lawsuit.

Rather, it is the driver or other negligent party that is sued for failing to provide those in the vicinity with due care. Such legal action can be taken if a reasonable and fair settlement cannot be reached with the insurance liability carrier.

Myth: The insurer cannot deny liability after paying for auto repairs.

If the matter in question centers on an auto accident and the insurer paid for vehicle repairs, it is still possible for the liability insurance provider to deny liability. The insurer is legally empowered to cover the cost of repairs and/or even provide financial compensation after the vehicle has been declared a “total loss” only to deny liability for the ensuing personal injury claim.

Myth: Insurers cannot deny the claimant’s injury after paying for medical treatment.

Even if the insurer covers part or all of the cost of medical treatment after another party’s supposedly negligent act, it is still possible for that insurance provider to deny that an injury occurred. Some insurance providers will argue that the supposed causal relationship between the incident in question and the injury does not exist.

The sad truth is plenty of insurers will insist perfectly legitimate injuries stemming from an auto accident or another incident were not actually caused by that specific action. This means the insurance provider will deny there is a legitimate relationship between the cost of medical treatment and the injuries in question.

Myth: A trial jury can be made aware of previous demands or offers.

If the case transitions to trial, the injured party, and his or her attorney are not permitted to communicate to the jury members that the insurance provider previously made an offer. Courts do not permit communicating this information to the jury. Nor can the plaintiff’s attorney communicate the amount of money requested during settlement negotiations. Furthermore, the jury trial cannot know the specific amount of money offered by the liability insurance provider or even the fact that the insurance provider made an offer in the first place.

Lyle Solomon has considerable litigation experience as well as substantial hands-on knowledge and expertise in legal analysis and writing. Since 2003, he has been a member of the State Bar of California. In 1998, he graduated from the University of the Pacific’s McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, California, and now serves as a principal attorney for the Oak View Law Group in California. 

These views are the author’s own.

Related: