The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

I’ve litigated auto accident cases in Nevada since 1988 and during that time I’ve seen patterns emerge in the way that insurance companies defend these cases. Here are some thoughts in that regard.

Body Damage

Insurance companies are fixated with the issue of body damage to your car after an auto accident. Or, more specifically, insurance companies often argue that severe damage to your car does not necessarily mean that you were severely damaged and insurance companies and their attorneys always argue that minimal damage to your car means that you were minimally damaged. While this approach is somewhat absurd, I counsel clients to be ready for a fight that will require medical testimony when physical injuries are significant and body damage is minimal.

Mitigation of Damages

There’s an old doctrine of law known as mitigation of damages. Simply put, this means that you have to do what’s in your power to minimize your damages. For example, if you can go back to work, you should. If you can’t go back to the same job due to physical limitations, you should look for another job. Similarly, it’s your obligation to seek out and get appropriate medical treatment so that you recover from your injuries as soon as possible. Absences from work due to an injury should be supported by medical evidence. In contested cases, expect a defense attorney to ask your doctor whether extended absence from work was excused and justified. While lost wages are frequently perfectly understandable, clients should be prepared to offer medical evidence that damages in this regard are justified.

I’ll touch upon more issues related to how insurance companies defend cases in an article later this week.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest