Posted by noa on March 4, 2003, at 21:30:16
In reply to Re: I'm losing it... » mair, posted by judy1 on March 4, 2003, at 15:43:08
I am glad you have a lawyer. Do you feel confident in your lawyer? The insurance company's lawyer is important too, but I think it is important to have one's own in case at some point your and their interests diverge, so you will have your interests looked after, especially if they are claiming damages beyond your insurance coverage.
The suit sounds like overkill. They are just gearing up for the negotiation. I suspect they don't even want to go to a judge but want to settle before it goes that route.
I would hope that one would have to prove some majorly extremely drastic injuries to actually get that kind of money.
As for the medical records, I think what your lawyer says makes sense. The plaintiff's psych records might be material since he is putting his medical condition on the table. I agree with Mair--but I am not a legal expert, so take my opinion as just that--unless the police report indicates that you were grossly out of line as a driver, ie, where whether you take meds or not or have a psych condition or not would be at issue, it surely must remain immaterial. If you were not cited for major moving violations and nobody questioned your fitness to be behind the wheel at the time, it would, at least in my mind, be hard to get a judge to say, that after one year, all of a sudden, this is the supposed reason for the accident, and that their line of questioning with regard to your fitness and any effect on your driving from medical/psychiatric problems should be admitted. They might still try to intimidate you with the fear of it, and even in a trial, could possibly try to slip mention of it in "accidentally" but I cannot imagine that any decent judge would allow such game playing to go on.
From what I know, insurance lawyers are often not trial lawyers, ie, they do most of their work in negotiation, and that there are even formulas for how much certain kinds of injuries or damages are worth. This plaintiff, being an insurance man, must know that it is all about the negotiation table and part of the strategy in negotiating settlements is to try to intimidate you into settling in their favor.
Don't be intimidated. If you have a good lawyer, let him do his thing. Ask questions, keep yourself updated and informed, make him explain the process and his reasoning for recommending certain strategies, etc. But let him shoulder the game playing part of it--don't let the intimidation tactics even come close to you. Let him "digest" all that crap for you. That is why I am convince that lawyers must have iron stomachs to be successful!!
I was once involved in a trial--I was actually the plaintiff, not the defendant, and it was a very different kind of case. But the defendant hired the meanest bulldog in the business in our area and he got extremely nasty--I mean really rotten nasty, with major intimidation tactics. I survived it. And my lawyers were great. I never thought the other side would ever let it go to trial, but they were arrogant so they did, where the nastiness took on a whole new look, but it was their loss, becasue I won the case and I won really big, way bigger than anything I would have gotten had they done what would have been best for them--just be done with me by settling early for the modest amount we proposed in the first place (or even more modest with a little bargaining, which they refused to do because they thought they could intimidate me out of the whole thing).
In your case the plaintiff is asking for what sounds like an unreasonable amount given the situation. And I'll bet they think they'll be able to intimidate you into setting large so you won't have to go to trial, but I also think it wouldn't be good for them to drag it out into a trial, especially once your lawyer does his little magic and fights off the motions to admit stuff that is not relevant. Going to a jury is a big risk. I did not mind the risk (though I certainly wasn't eager for it to go to trial), because the defendant in my case was unwilling to hold good faith negotiations. I didn't care at that point if I lost or came out with only a meager award. My situation was such that there was an ethical/moral issue involved that I felt had to be played out since they refused to take ownership of something very wrong that they did.
But in your case, I think (you should ask you lawyer this) it is *them* that risk more going to trial. It smells of wanting to settle for as much cash as they can get, and like I said, unless they have good, solid, ADMISSABLE evidence that could get a jury to agree with their implausible story that you have negligent responsibility for huge damages, I think they are going to want to settle and not go to trial. I emphasized the word admissable because one of the things I learned in the process is how much work the attorneys do that is never seen by a jury. Good lawyers are good at presenting reasoning and case law precendents to the judge as to why something should or should not be admitted as relevant. There will no doubt be a lot of motions and counter motions flying back and forth whether or not it goes to trial, because it affects the power of what each party brings to the table in terms of trying to intimidate the other side. If anything, since he is bringing medical claims, it is his records that will be introduced, not yours.
If it does get to the point of taking depositions, I think it is a good idea to let your lawyer know that you want a LOT of prep time so that you can feel as comfortable as possible about going into the deposition, having role-played and practiced how to respond or not respond to difficult questions. Also, I realised after the fact that I answered way too quickly, and it would have been better to take a slow, deep breath, think a little, before answering, espcially the questions that are meant to push buttons. It is a simple thing that I did for a few questions, but should have done more of--settle back, breathe, and think before answering. I don't want you to be nervous at this point about a deposition because it may not even get to that point, who knows. But look, even if it does--I certainly could have done a lot better in my deposition, but I ended up winning the case anyway!!
BTW, the defendant in my case tried to get my medical and psychiatric info in discovery, but did not succeed--the judge agreed that it was irrelevant. That did mean that I had to claim less "profitable" damages, and my lawyers did push me a bit to consider allowing it, so we could claim emotional and medical damages, but I didn't and stuck with the lower profile damages because there was no way in hell I was going to introduce my medical/psychiatric care into the case. Glad I didn't and in the end didn't need them.
I'll be thinking of you. I coped much better than I ever expected to, and you will, too, I am sure. Let the lawyer screen the crap for you--that was an important part of it for me.
poster:noa
thread:205849
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20030203/msgs/205955.html