Sometime, long ago, someone decided that "a good settlement is one where both sides are equally unhappy."
No one knows who said it. Or why. Or what experience informed such a broad proclamation.
There is an undeniably appealing argument that the author of this sentiment must have been a plaintiff's lawyer. After all, it is no mystery that insurance companies spend tens of millions of dollars leveraging billions of pieces of data to construct intricate claims-management systems. They don't do that to address what settlement offers are "fair." They do so to determine how little they can pay without risking trial.
The end result of these systems is as predictable as it is depressing: the stone-cold guarantee that no injured person ever leaves a negotiation feeling like they received "justice."
Which, when combined with an overburdened court system, leaves plaintiffs' lawyers with an impossible election:
Accept an inadequate settlement, or wait for years for a trial date.
These are the only two choices that injured people, and their advocates, have had for decades.
But what if the entire premise underpinning the system were untrue?
What if settling did not, in fact, settling.
What if these villainous claims-management systems were exactly like every other manmade system: every bit as imperfect as the humans who designed them?
And what if these systems contained a flaw that no insurance company can control for: an invisible back door that can be consistently identified and exploited to settle cases for more than the industry believes is possible?
What would it mean for your clients if you could settle their cases for full value, in months instead of years? What would it mean to their families? And yours?
Would it be worth a mouse click?