As a longtime personal injury lawyer, I hear many phrases flow from the lips of my clients, that don't remotely mean what the client thinks it means. So when a new client mentioned that the at-fault insurer had accepted liability and that he thought that would mean a prompt full settlement, i had to express my skepticism.
I explained that the phrase meant that they would likely pay for repairs to his vehicle and provide him a rental car. I said it made it more likely that they would make an offer of settlement but that the words prompt and full were not often part of the equation.
I also explained that in modern America it is routine for insurers to make grossly inadequate settlement offers that if accepted would actually not allow for payment of medical bills and lawyers. https://www.maryland-law.com/blog/want-a-fair-offer-on-your-maryland-crash-claim-file-suit-.cfm
As an example, I told him about a recent offer of $19,000.00 in a case where the client incurred over $14,000.00 in medical bills. I explained that if that offer was accepted the client would owe us 1/3 of $19,000,00 or $6333.33 leaving $12,666.66 to pay $14,000.00 in medical bills. The math isn't complicated.
The client would not only receive nothing for pain and suffering but wouldn't have enough to pay all the medical bills. So I filed a lawsuit and will likely at least double the present offer. So while that case was one of accepted liability the " accepted" part still yielded an absurdly low offer.
A second misleading aspect of " accepting liability" is that once the case morphs into a lawsuit, the adjuster's " accepted liability" has no binding effect on the defendant of their defense attorney. None,
If they can craft a defense they will. So the next time your in an accident and the at-fault driver's insurer accepts liabillity understand the limited benefits that really accrues.
