Things Car Insurance Companies Do Not Tell Crash Victims

key fob sitting on insurance policy Car insurance companies tell crash victims a lot of things about their claims and the legal process. The thing to remember is the insurance company has its own interests and they do not align with yours. The things they are telling you are meant to serve their interests.

When an insurance company representative tells you something about your claim, make sure to consider what they are not telling you. If you only consider the things the insurance company is telling you, you could be misled.

Below, our experienced attorneys discuss some of the things insurance companies often do not tell crash victims and why. If you have questions about your claim for compensation, we are here to help at no upfront cost to you.

Insurers Are Not Trying to Protect Your Interests

Car insurance company advertisements have certainly become much more memorable in recent years. Insurance company marketing tries to relay the message that the insurance company is on your side and will take care of you.

However, the truth is much more complicated than that. Insurance companies are legally required to handle claims in good faith, but they are looking for any reason to deny claims or underpay them.

They want to get into a detailed conversation with you about your claim and your injuries so they can find something to use against you. They want to mislead or trick you into saying something that damages your credibility or downplays the severity of your injuries and your claim.

Despite this, it is often possible to secure favorable compensation from the insurance company. It is important to understand where the insurance company is coming from and act appropriately. There are steps you can take to protect your claim from an insurance company that is working against you.

Injury Attorneys Do Not Charge Crash Victims Up Front

Car insurers want to convince injured victims that hiring an attorney is too expensive. The insurance company is not saying this to protect the value of your claim. They do not want you to hire an attorney because injury victims who hire attorneys often recover more compensation than those who do not.

Insurance companies also do not tell you injury attorneys work on contingency. At Schmidt Kramer for example, there are no upfront fees for our services. The initial consultation is free of charge and there are no fees while we are working on your case.

The insurance company may tell you a lawyer will take a huge chunk of your settlement to cover their costs. However, our Harrisburg-based vehicle collision lawyers discuss fees in the initial consultation. That way there are no surprises at the end of the legal process.

While the insurance company is focused on saving itself money, our attorneys are focused on securing full compensation for your damages.

You Do Not Need to Agree to a Settlement Right Away

There is no requirement that you agree to the first settlement offer made by the insurance company, or that you agree to a settlement offer early in the process. You have the option of making a counteroffer, and this is something your attorney can do for you.

The insurance company may tell you that you need to accept the initial offer because they will not offer more compensation later. If you attempt to negotiate on your own, that may be true. However, if you hire an attorney to negotiate on your behalf, particularly an attorney who regularly takes cases to court, the insurance company may be much more likely to offer more compensation.

By waiting to accept a settlement offer, you leave time to recover from your injuries and for your lawyer to investigate the crash. This helps your lawyer build a stronger case and determine the full cost of your damages.

Doctors Are the Only Ones Who Can Determine the Severity of Your Injuries

You do not need to explain the severity of your injuries. This is something that should be done by your doctors and something that should be assessed after reviewing your medical records.

Insurance companies would like you to rate the seriousness of your injuries because victims often downplay their injuries. Statements about your injuries could be used by the insurance company to devalue your claim or even to deny your claim.

Crash victims should simply state that they are injured and are receiving treatment. The insurance company can review your medical records to assess the seriousness of your injuries.

You Are Not Required to Sign a General Medical Release

The insurance company wants you to sign a general medical release to gain access to all your medical records. That way they can look for evidence of a medical issue that you were suffering from before the crash. They want evidence to use against you to claim you were not injured in the crash.

While you may need to provide medical records related to your injury to validate your claim, providing unlimited access to your medical records could be devastating to your claim. This is an issue that should be discussed with a licensed attorney who will know how to protect your medical privacy while providing strong evidence for your claim.

Insurers May Intentionally Delay the Legal Process

Car insurance companies are notorious for delaying injury claims. They may delay the investigation, wait to respond to your phone calls, wait to process documents or find other ways to drag their feet. They are hoping the victim will get desperate and accept a lowball settlement offer.

Insurance companies also want to give the victim and his or her attorney less time to file a lawsuit. There is a statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit and once the deadline passes, victims lose the right to file a lawsuit.

If you think the process is being delayed, contact a licensed attorney to discuss your situation. Our attorneys have significant experience dealing with insurance companies that try to delay the process and wrongly deny or undervalue claims.

Call to Discuss Legal Help for Your Claim

Schmidt Kramer’s attorneys have vast experience helping crash victims secure full compensation for their damages. If you were injured in a crash and have questions about seeking compensation for medical bills and other damages, we are here to help.

Free consultation. No upfront fees or obligations. Call (717) 727-1837.

Free Case Review

No Upfront Fees

Testimonials

The legal team was very professional and met my needs I would highly recommend them
Monte cargile
Very great experience working with you guys continue the great service timely response communication well understand
jackie duffus
Schmidt Kramer is simply definition of hardworking, they are trustworthy and get best claim you could never think of.
After being in an automobile accident , Scott Cooper came highly recommended to me. I found Scott and his team very kind and considerate. Scott took time to explain the whole process to me and got me a settlement in a timely manner. I couldn't ask for best representation.
Ruthie Lupfer
Great Experience and Great results.. I recommend!!
Aaron Marquis

Recent Results

$10,043,952.13 Personal Injury
Schmidt Kramer, P.C.partner Gerard C. Kramer won a personal injury action for $10,043,952.13 in Northumberland County on behalf of a volunteer firefighter who was the victim of Intentional Tort. The 50-year-old volunteer firefighter was seriously injured when a barn collapsed, causing a spinal injury which left him a paraplegic. The claim was brought against the arsonist who intentionally started the fire. It is believed that the verdict is the highest ever in Northumberland County.
View Results
$4,034,000.00 Personal Injury
Yesterday a Judge in Union County (Lewisburg, PA) awarded a couple from New Berlin, Pennsylvania, over $4,000,000 because the husband was shot while turkey hunting.You might ask yourself, how does a turkey hunting accident end up with that type of verdict? In order to understand the verdict you would have to know our clients. They are good people who had their life wrecked. Plus, you would have to know the defendant, who should not have been hunting with a gun because he was prohibited after a previous criminal conviction.It is a good verdict, because the Judge was able to do two things with his decision. First, he communicated to two very good people that their losses were something that those of us on the outside could appreciate and value. Mike Hobbins (our client) is a 51 year old guy who lost his sight because a convicted felon --who should not have even possessed a gun-- went hunting illegally, and broke with impunity the most fundamental rule in hunting: identify your target before you pull the trigger. The Judge accepted the financial loss Mr. Hobbins' suffered, but listened closely to the evidence of less tangible losses. When Mike broke down on the stand, because his daughter would end up walking him down the aisle at her wedding, as opposed to how it was supposed to go, the Judge was listening. When Mike could not keep it together, because of how emasculating it was for him not to be able to provide financially for his family, the Judge was listening. It was facts like these that the Judge cited to support the $2,000,000 award for non-economic damages. Second, the Judge wanted to send a message. Union County is a hunting county. Many of the residents hunt there, and people from outside the area come to Union County to hunt. It was my impression, from the Judge's statements as he rendered his decision, that he wanted to send a message to the people in Union County to protect them in their sport. The rules in place to restrict people convicted of crimes not to have a gun are not to be broken. Hunting is serious and you have to identify your target before you shoot. When you turn your back on the rules that are set to provide safety in a sport, you risk being an example. Here, the $1,000,000 punitive damage award sends that message loud and clear.When it really comes down to brass tacks, the right action was taken against a Defendant who may never truly appreciate what kind of impact his reckless choices caused.At Schmidt Kramer, we are injury lawyers. That means we work with people who were hurt in car accidents, who were hurt by the neglect of nursing homes, or those that were seriously injured because of the reckless, thoughtless acts of others. If you or a loved one have been injured in Pennsylvania, we may be able to help. While the verdict yesterday is not one that is representative of every case we do, it does show that serious and dedicated representation can bring good results.Joe ChapmanJanuary 18, 2013
View Results
$2,200,000.00 Auto Accidents
On Monday, January 6, 2014, Schmidt Kramer accident lawyer Scott Cooper obtained a verdict on behalf of his client who is the widow of a man who died in a fiery crash on Interstate 78 in Lebanon County. The awarded verdict of $2.2 million was in a nonjury proceeding before a federal judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. That verdict includes $100,000 in punitive damages assessed against the owner of the trucking company.Kamilah Claxton won summary judgment in November after the defendants, Sukhwinder Singh and the trucking company for which he worked, failed to file a brief in opposition to Claxton's motion, which was made in September. The verdict in Claxton v. Singh was issued after the court held a non-jury assessment of damages earlier this month."Mr. Sukhchan Singh, the employer, is liable on the basis of respondent superior, but was also grossly negligent in failing to maintain his vehicle in compliance with state and federal law, particularly with regard to having required safety inspections and correcting defects in its braking equipment," said U.S. District Judge William W. Caldwell of the Middle District of Pennsylvania in his opinion accompanying the verdict."He was also grossly negligent in entrusting his vehicle to Sukhwinder Singh, an inexperienced truck driver who had failed the written test and driving test multiple times before finally earning his commercial driving license," Caldwell said.
View Results
$1,200,000.00 Personal Injury
A Dauphin County jury has awarded a $1.2 million verdict to the parents of a 5-year-old who had an anoxic brain injury and stopped breathing after he had a tonsillectomy.2012-06-26 10:00:00 AMDate of Verdict: June 19. 2012Court and Case No.: C.P. Dauphin County No. 2009-CV-14003-MMJudge: Scott EvansType of Action: Medical malpracticeInjuries: Anoxic brain injuryPlaintiffs Counsel: Terry S. Hyman, Schmidt Kramer, HarrisburgPlaintiffs Experts: Dr. Anna H. Messner, liability; Lucille Packer, Pediatric Otolaryngology, Palo Alto, Calif.; Terry P. Leslie, vocations and earning capacity, Lancaster; Dr. Hilary B. Berlin, pediatric psychiatry, Great Neck, N.Y.Defense Counsel: Andrew H. Foulkrod, Darlene K. King, Foulkrod Ellis, Camp Hill, PADefense Experts: James C. Reilly, Pediatric Otolaryngology, Wilmington, DEComment: A Dauphin County jury has awarded a $1.2 million verdict to the parents of a 5-year-old who had an anoxic brain injury and stopped breathing after he had a tonsillectomy.The entire verdict came against Dr. Andrew M. Shapiro, the doctor who plaintiffs Reginald Graham and Tykeisha Metz alleged chose to have the boy monitored at a pediatric ward. The plaintiffs argued Shapiro failed to tell nurses caring for the baby about, and how to care for, the boy's enhanced risk for respiratory failure.The jury came back on June 19 and awarded Reginald Graham and Tykeisha Mets $500,000 in non-economic damages and $686,170 in loss of future earning capacity, according to the plaintiffs counsel.According to the statement, the baby's mother brought him to Shapiro because she was "'afraid that he might stop breathing during his sleep,'" the plaintiffs' pretrial statement said. Shapiro performed a sleep study and observed the baby's Apnea Hypopnea Index to be 43 — four times higher than what's considered severe. A tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy were performed.According to the plaintiffs, the baby's sleep study results put him at an increased risk for post-operative respiratory complications. Despite this, they argued in the statement, Shapiro ordered the pediatric nurses at the Harrisburg Hospital general pediatric ward to observe the boy as they would any other patients — about once every four hours.The pretrial statement said that one in four children who have an AHI in the 40s and oxygen desaturation below 80 have some type of respiratory problem. The younger the child, the greater the risk of a respiratory problem, the statement said.According to the statement, Shapiro took off the child's pulse oximeter, the finger-mounted device used to measure blood oxygen, and ordered a heart and respiratory rate monitor. The child was 11 months old at the time.The plaintiffs pled that the baby was last seen at 4 a.m. There was no record of his oxygen saturation for the next hour and 45 minutes. He stopped breathing a 6:40 a.m., and his brain was without oxygen long enough to cause demonstrable injury on an MRI."Immediately prior to his surgery, [the child] was a normal child, who could say mama, eat finger foods, and was just on the verge of walking," the statement said. "After his code, [he] was like a newborn. He could not lift his head or sit up. He could not talk. He could not move."In his pretrial statement, Shapiro argued that he recognized the child's pre-operative sleep study showed he was driven to breath by decreased blood oxygen saturation, which he said was typical in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.He argued the American Academy of Otolaryngology dictates that admission to the intensive care unit is not the standard of care. In the statement, he said nurses did not observe signs of respiratory distress. No alarms sounded until the child arrested, the statement said.He said the baby likely arrested as a result of hypoglycemia and/or an acute aspiration, which he argued would not have been identified by blood oxygen saturation.— Ben Present, of the Law Weekly
View Results
$1,024,040.80 Auto Accidents
Scott Cooper settled a wrongful death case on behalf of the widow of a police office who was killed in a car accident in the line of duty for $1,024,040.80. The claim against the other driver was amicably resolved before suit was filed for the entire available policy limits for the other driver. The case took place in Adams County, PA.
View Results

What Car Insurance Companies Will Not Tell You After a Car Crash