Show that you appreciate the need to be reasonable. Show that you are ready to compromise.
Actions that demonstrate logical and reasonable thinking
Not accepting the first offer from the adjuster. That could be a low-ball offer. Adjusters use such offers as a way to learn how well the claimant understands his or her claim’s value. If an adjuster does make a reasonable offer, you respond with a counteroffer. Your counteroffer should be a bit lower than the figure that was quoted in your demand letter.
If presented with a low offer, seek a justification for that exceedingly small offer. Put your request in writing, and send it to the adjuster’s office. During the next phone call between you and the adjuster, seek an answer to the question that was raised in the recent letter.
The ability to emphasize any emotional points; take advantage of every opportunity to carry out that particular action.
–Consider attaching a picture of the damaged vehicle to the demand letter.
–Mention the difficulties you face with arranging your schedule, now that you must attend doctor’s appointments.
–Do not hesitate to bring up the fact that your injury prevents your pursuit of a favorite hobby, or a recreational activity.
An action that demonstrates a readiness to compromise
Refusing to reduce the size of a demand, until the other side has come forward with a new and higher offer. That is the action that would be taken by anyone that had become familiar with the practice of bargaining.
Why should you want to offer evidence that you know how to bargain? 0Because any evidence that you know how to bargain can serve as an indication that you stand ready to compromise. In order for negotiations to proceed smoothly, both sides must be ready to compromise.
Injury Lawyer in Mississauga knows that a negotiation is really the process of making a series of small compromises. Someone that had chosen to stick with a given demand or a certain response to the demand would encourage creation of a stalemate.
Do you realize what happens when the 2 sides must deal with such a stalemate? At that point, the case usually gets decided in a courtroom. The jury issues a verdict, and determines who has won the presented case. Naturally, no one can predict what a given jury might decide.
Do you really want a jury to rule on whether or not you deserve compensation for your injury? If you are not comfortable with that possible turn-of-events, then you must do your best to prevent a stalemate.
How should you approach the task of preventing stalemates? It is best to show logical thinking, and to demonstrate a readiness to engage in compromising acts.
Reading your article helped me a lot and I agree with you. But I still have some doubts, can you clarify for me? I’ll keep an eye out for your answers.