Insurance Tactics in PI Cases

Disputing Causation: The Insurer's Favorite Defense

Across all personal injury types, the most common insurer tactic is disputing whether the incident actually caused your injuries. In car accident claims, the adjuster argues that the impact was too minor to produce the symptoms you report — so-called 'low-impact' defenses that rely on vehicle damage photographs rather than medical evidence. In slip-and-fall cases, the adjuster points to prior complaints about the same body part to argue the injury predates the incident.

Product liability adjusters challenge whether the product was actually defective or whether you used it incorrectly. Dog bite insurers may argue the animal was provoked. The common thread is the same: separate the injury from the incident to eliminate liability. Your medical records are the primary counter. A treating physician who documents the mechanism of injury, connects your symptoms to the event, and confirms that treatment was medically necessary creates a factual record that adjuster speculation cannot easily overcome.

Minimizing Non-Economic Damages Across Claim Types

Economic damages — medical bills and lost wages — are quantifiable. Non-economic damages — pain, emotional distress, loss of daily function — are subjective, and that subjectivity is where adjusters apply the most pressure. The standard approach is to acknowledge the medical expenses while assigning the lowest possible value to everything else.

For car accident claims, the adjuster points to a clean MRI and argues that objective findings do not support a high pain claim. For premises cases, the adjuster argues the claimant could have avoided the hazard with reasonable care. For dog bite cases, the adjuster minimizes the psychological impact by noting the physical wound healed. In each scenario, the goal is to shrink the non-economic component as close to zero as possible. Your attorney counters with specific evidence of daily impact: the journal entries documenting sleepless nights, the therapy records addressing anxiety, the testimony from family members about how your function has changed. Specificity defeats generalization in these disputes.

Leveraging Comparative Fault to Reduce the Payout

In states that follow comparative fault, the insurer's most cost-effective strategy is to assign you a share of the blame. Even a 20% fault finding reduces the payout by 20%. In modified comparative fault states, pushing your fault above 50% or 51% eliminates the insurer's obligation entirely.

The tactics for assigning fault vary by claim type. In car accidents, the adjuster may argue you were speeding or failed to take evasive action. In premises cases, the defense claims you should have seen the hazard and walked around it. In dog bite cases, the insurer may argue you approached the animal in a way that constituted provocation. Your attorney's job is to refute these fault arguments with evidence. Dashcam footage showing you were driving at the speed limit, a maintenance log showing no warning sign was posted before the hazard, or a witness confirming the dog attacked without provocation — each piece of evidence narrows the insurer's ability to shift blame to you.

Delay and Pressure: The Slow Squeeze

Time is the insurer's ally. Medical bills accumulate. Lost wages strain household finances. The longer the process takes, the more pressure you feel to accept a discounted offer. Adjusters stretch timelines through repeated requests for records already provided, transferring files between adjusters, and scheduling claim reviews that take months to complete.

This tactic works best against unrepresented claimants who have no other source of financial support during the claim. With an attorney, the dynamic changes. Your lawyer can file suit when delays become unreasonable, shifting the case into litigation where the insurer incurs defense costs. Medical providers willing to treat on a lien basis can continue your care without out-of-pocket payments. And the presence of counsel signals that the insurer cannot wait you out — someone on your side is tracking deadlines, filing motions, and escalating when the insurer's behavior crosses the line from negotiation into bad faith. The squeeze only works if you face it alone.

This site is an independent information resource, not a law firm. Nothing here constitutes legal advice — consult a licensed attorney in your state for guidance on your specific case.