Often times when I am trying to settle a case for a client, the client will say, “my friend had a case just like mine and his case settled for more money than my case.” And my answer is always, “no he didn’t.” This is simply because no two cases are exactly the same.
Some factors that go into determining the value of a case are the amount of property damage, medical treatment, and probably the most important factor, the third party insurance carrier. Good insurance companies pay more than sub-standard insurance companies on every case. So even if the property damage and medical treatment are similar in two cases, the settlement amounts can be vastly different depending on the company that I am settling with.
Due to the fact that it is never an apples to apples scenario, it is often difficult to explain to a client why he is getting less money than his friend. Many times it is a better “business decision” to settle a case for less money with a sub-standard insurance company rather than to file a lawsuit. Lawsuits can drag on for many years and the present day value of the money that the client can get is often the same and sometimes even more than they will get by going to court.
Settling a case out of court has zero risk. When you decide to file a case in court, you are essentially rolling the dice and hoping for the best. All it takes is one jury member to not like the client or the attorney and you can end up with nothing. That said, there are situations where going to court is the best option. This is usually when the offer is so low, that there is really nothing to lose by taking a chance with a jury in court. I always do my best to fully explain to my clients the pros and cons of accepting an offer versus filing a lawsuit so that they can make an informed decision about their claim.