Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyBeers
A couple things. Your life would not be in limbo. Almost immediately the insurance company would subrogate the claim. From then on the insurance company would be responsible for the legal costs, it would not affect you personally, you would not be paying any legal bills.
Also in your fact scenario, you would never have to pay half of the 1.5 million. There would never be a court that would decide that. The judge is not going to sit there and say "I can't figure this out, let's split the baby".
As for the "quality of expert" you could employ, in a case like this it would be insurance company against insurance company. Both sides would have high quality "experts". If the court feels that it has not heard fair testimony or good enough testimony it has the right to get a third expert in as well.
It is not like one side has Dr. Nick Riviera and the other side has the leading expert in North America. If for some absolutely bizarre reason this happened, the judge would almost certainly ask for a third independent expert to be heard by the court.
|
I think your making this way to simple. It isn't. Like I said there are many variables. The insurance company doesn't always have your best interests at stake. What if both parties have the same insurer? Sometimes these cases need to be taken on ones own inititive.