As a society, we can be quick to jump to conclusions. On the surface, these conclusions may seem to make sense, but are they always proper? Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than when it comes to comparative negligence and its application when resolving insurance claims.
Consider the typical rear-end accident and the presumption that the person in the rear is always at fault. However, what if the person who got hit from behind had intentionally slammed on their brakes, had a defective brake lamp or was in the process of backing up? Compounding matters, consider claims scenarios involving intersections, parking lots, slip and falls, or liquor liability.
When considering that Americans have been conditioned by a never ending barrage of attorney ads promising to find fault with someone other than the victim, even if they were at fault, it's no wonder this has become such a contentious negotiation issue. The reality is that fault is a complex component of any claim. Rarely are issues black and white. Rather, they are comprised of a myriad of minor details that all play a pivotal role in the proper outcome.
Recommended For You
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
