WOW, they were lucky no one died!

http://www.sanduskyregister.com/articles/2...42612881323.txt

How unfortunate, Kinzel didn't get their nickels.

How unfortunate, Kinzel didn't get their nickels.

I would hope he wouldn't think that way.

He could do something nice like send Snoopy to visit them in the hospital, that would make anyone smile after a bad day.

From the glass is half-full theory:

At least they were all wearing their seatbelts.

If not, there could have very well been a fatality.

Thank goodness no one was hurt! But the Kinzel nickels thing was mean, they almost died and you're thinking about nickels!

Thank goodness no one was hurt! But the Kinzel nickels thing was mean, they almost died and you're thinking about nickels!

I would bet that personal injury claims have been filed against the vehicle owner's insurance already.

And I doubt those claims are only for nickels and dimes...

And I doubt those claims are only for nickels and dimes...

No, I'm sure they'll be claiming soft tissue injuries with maybe some contusions or lacerations.

If they get hooked up with an ambulance chaser, they'll be going to a chiropractor for about 2 months for about 18 visits. Their claims will probably settle for between 6K and 7.5K.

That's a good amount of nickels.

And I doubt those claims are only for nickels and dimes...

No, I'm sure they'll be claiming soft tissue injuries with maybe some contusions or lacerations.

If they get hooked up with an ambulance chaser, they'll be going to a chiropractor for about 2 months for about 18 visits. Their claims will probably settle for between 6K and 7.5K.

That's a good amount of nickels.

The sad thing is now with so many people out of work, MORE people will be trying to make money that way.

Perhaps they will not just be claiming "soft tissue injuries with maybe some contusions or lacerations." Perhaps they will be claiming compensation for actual injuries and pain. Who here would be willing to be involved in a car accident JUST to collect money? Answer: Precious few.

Lawsuits are not all frivolous, not all claims without merit.

Perhaps they will not just be claiming "soft tissue injuries with maybe some contusions or lacerations." Perhaps they will be claiming compensation for actual injuries and pain. Who here would be willing to be involved in a car accident JUST to collect money? Answer: Precious few.

Lawsuits are not all frivolous, not all claims without merit.

The answer..... Many, Many, Many

Rampant fraud is the prime reason that Insurance Companies have special investigations. Those units are composed primarily of people with backgrounds in criminal justice and former police officers.

So much fraud just goes unrecognized because there simply are not the funds to appropriately address it. For every legitimate personal injury claim I settle, I'd bet that I settle 3 bogus ones.

The article says that speed is believed to be a factor in the crash. C'mon kids... can't you wait the extra 30 minutes to go 120 mph on Dragster, rather than do it in your car on the turnpike??

Yes. If. in fact, the driver of the vehicle was driving carelessly or recklessly and caused a crash, the injured people should be fairly compensated for their injuries.....

Perhaps they will not just be claiming "soft tissue injuries with maybe some contusions or lacerations." Perhaps they will be claiming compensation for actual injuries and pain. Who here would be willing to be involved in a car accident JUST to collect money? Answer: Precious few.

Lawsuits are not all frivolous, not all claims without merit.

The answer..... Many, Many, Many

Rampant fraud is the prime reason that Insurance Companies have special investigations. Those units are composed primarily of people with backgrounds in criminal justice and former police officers.

So much fraud just goes unrecognized because there simply are not the funds to appropriately address it. For every legitimate personal injury claim I settle, I'd bet that I settle 3 bogus ones.

That's just sad! I wish everyone would just get along and do what they are supposed to do. Be honest. And the litigious society we live in is the reason for so many annoying laws. It all starts with someone screwing it up for the rest of us. The same is true of seatbelt and lap bar styles on coasters, being as there were idiots that stood up. There is also the issue of park responsibility. Back in the day, it was the guest's responsibility to behave, now it's the parks responsibility to make them behave. I find that unfair, but that's just the way it goes. How often do you see commercials on TV that have one giant message buried in there "sue somebody." There are lawyer commercials at least every other commercial break these days.

On a funnier note, it's also the source of some pretty silly and entertaining laws. Think about it. For something to become a law, someone had to do it first. In Florida (at least I think it was Florida), there is a special law that says you can't walk an alligator on a leash. I'd like to know who tried that! I also remember one state that has a law against women driving in a housecoat. I'd like to see that one enforced.

And I doubt those claims are only for nickels and dimes...

No, I'm sure they'll be claiming soft tissue injuries with maybe some contusions or lacerations.

If they get hooked up with an ambulance chaser, they'll be going to a chiropractor for about 2 months for about 18 visits. Their claims will probably settle for between 6K and 7.5K.

That's a good amount of nickels.

Nickels rule the world. It's all about the nickels one way or the other. Everybody can say they don't care about nickels, but that's what makes our current world go round. CREAM.

That's just sad! I wish everyone would just get along and do what they are supposed to do. Be honest. And the litigious society we live in is the reason for so many annoying laws. It all starts with someone screwing it up for the rest of us. The same is true of seatbelt and lap bar styles on coasters, being as there were idiots that stood up. There is also the issue of park responsibility. Back in the day, it was the guest's responsibility to behave, now it's the parks responsibility to make them behave. I find that unfair, but that's just the way it goes. How often do you see commercials on TV that have one giant message buried in there "sue somebody." There are lawyer commercials at least every other commercial break these days.

On a funnier note, it's also the source of some pretty silly and entertaining laws. Think about it. For something to become a law, someone had to do it first. In Florida (at least I think it was Florida), there is a special law that says you can't walk an alligator on a leash. I'd like to know who tried that! I also remember one state that has a law against women driving in a housecoat. I'd like to see that one enforced.

A claim will settle within a given range based upon the facts. All parties know and understand that An entertaining fact is (and I know that it's similar with many reps) that if someone is not represented and is not rude, I will extend and settle on the higher part of my range. If the person is a jerk and or represented by council, I will stick to the lower part of the range. So in turn, they get the lower part of the range and the attorney keeps 33%, as well.

The only time someone needs an attorney for an injury claim is when there are complex matters that need to be addressed.

A claim will settle within a given range based upon the facts. All parties know and understand that An entertaining fact is (and I know that it's similar with many reps) that if someone is not represented and is not rude, I will extend and settle on the higher part of my range. If the person is a jerk and or represented by council, I will stick to the lower part of the range. So in turn, they get the lower part of the range and the attorney keeps 33%, as well.

Justice!! Ha ha! I love it. The ones that are actually in need will end up getting more money than those who just want to be a jerk. It makes perfect sense to me.

A claim will settle within a given range based upon the facts. All parties know and understand that An entertaining fact is (and I know that it's similar with many reps) that if someone is not represented and is not rude, I will extend and settle on the higher part of my range. If the person is a jerk and or represented by council, I will stick to the lower part of the range. So in turn, they get the lower part of the range and the attorney keeps 33%, as well.

Justice!! Ha ha! I love it. The ones that are actually in need will end up getting more money than those who just want to be a jerk. It makes perfect sense to me.

<G>

That's what happens when ya have a former social worker move into claims. <G>

The only time someone needs an attorney for an injury claim is when there are complex matters that need to be addressed.

An old, old rule of thumb: "When an insurance company (or claims representative) says you don't need a lawyer...you need a lawyer." -- Unknown, but wise

The only time someone needs an attorney for an injury claim is when there are complex matters that need to be addressed.

An old, old rule of thumb: "When an insurance company (or claims representative) says you don't need a lawyer...you need a lawyer." -- Unknown, but wise

No, that would not necessarily be true.

I've been doing this for many moons. I don't know any claim reps that would tell someone that they don't need an attorney. That, essentially, would be offering legal advice.

In the majority of claims that are received, the paralegal does the majority of the work. The actual attorney knows very little about their clients or who the represent. Most attorney's don't become involved until negotiations start or unless it goes to trial. I handle mostly high exposure claims. I can absolutely guarantee that I know the claimants better than 90% of the attorney's I deal with.