Nearly put this in Life Advice, but it's more about me composing my thoughts about a situation than actually asking questions. Which is not to say that there won't be advice I (or others) should take on board. Anyway...
It would not be judicious to talk too much about the details, but I recently had a little altercation that necessitates the involvement of insurance companies and, if blame is to be laid, its going to be a mess. (Not that it isn't already.)
I will not lay out all the pros and cons of either side's arguments, as even in this largely anonymising forum it may have some aspect of sub-judicy and no-one would thank me for stating them so boldly, but I've taken account of anything and everything I could think of (as impartially as I can possibly be, which I think is good enough as I can often be far too self-critical, and also tried to avoid biasing my opinion towards my opposite number) and it comes out in my mind as close enough to 50:50 to not be worth trying to fight my case as long as there is no case being put against me. There's the distinct possibility that a 'winner' in the adversarial system would be able to benefit from a better settlement than in a no-fault situation, but at the cost of increased administrative costs and no net benefit to all directly concerned.
I would love to be financially more secure in the aftermath, especially as I am far from that in the first place, but I will not do so at the expense of having to be offensive, in any sense of the word, in any legal battle. Perhaps I am naive about this. And as it would be unchivalrous to consider myself over-chivalrous, I'd really like to skirt around any such paradoxes. But I am not currently inclined to claim against anyone for such minor things as the aches and pains and stiff neck that could have been due to the accident but are as likely to be from restlessly sleeping at a funny angle on subsequent nights.
(What's that you say? Whiplash? If that pain in my neck is whiplash, I've had worse (albeit that this other was nigh-on unbearable) from violent sneezing in hay-fever season. I surely shouldn't reach for the pepper and then get myself an MRI scan while the injury remains exacerbated...)
Additionally, the pressure of blame from both parties might even spill out onto the local site of the accident, for example costing the site owners in making legally mandated changes, while a quiet word about the perceived failings might allow improvements without all the fall-out from accusations and counter-accusations forcing anyone else's hands.
I am, however, slave to the fates. The advice being slung at the other party is doubtless to fight. Whether that's "The best defence is a good offence" or due to an actual genuine belief of being wholly in the right. Which puts me in a variation of the classic Prisoner's Dilemma. Being almost convinced that the other side will end up attempting to press home and advantage, should I similarly attempt to punish them? Of course, the difference is that it's not a communicationless situation, whose outcome is sealed once both initial decisions have been made, and there are subtleties to the result far beyond the two-by-two outcome box of TPD. For a start, alongside the insurance companies' own communications, I know that I at least have also been independently contacted by a solicitor seeking to assist me with any as yet non-specific costs arising from the incident. (Leading to such thoughts as spawned the mention above about injury claims.)
Actually, that gives me cause to thought. Does every side in such a case automatically get that kind of call? Probably. But, if not, could it mean that someone has examined the evidence (such has already been provided, and for my part that's still only been verbal statements) and decided that I am the wronged party and the best to assist? No, probably not. We've probably both been called, and the art of such representation is to dynamically assess the likelihood of accruing legal profits as the situation moves on, and that betting will continue on both horses until shortly before one or other crosses the line first (or they both dismount their jockeys). And I might be inclined to state that I believe that this pessimist viewpoint isn't anywhere near as pessimistic. If it weren't that yet another paradox arises from such statements.
Anyway, we'll see how things go. Perhaps this is more a vent, than anything else.
Author
Topic: The Insurance Dilemma (Read 1804 times)