Personal Injury Lawyer Firms Having Aggressive Advertisements

If you simply watch television, open a phone book, read the paper or drive down the street, ads will accost you. "Have you been injured in an automobile accident? We can help!" Look in the phone book, and you'll see many pages splashed with the firms' red headlines, photos of injured victims heading to the ambulance, and free help until the claim is won.

You'll even see ads that offer claimants a short-term loan against the future claim.

According to an insurance bureau, this kind of hostile marketing on the part of personal injury lawyers makes claims more expensive. It has gotten so bad that some insurance companies have stopped selling auto insurance.

The bureau's regional services manager has cited several instances where, even though the vehicles were barely damaged, people asked for and were awarded huge settlements for their injuries. While the insurance industry as a whole believes in paying for injuries received in an accident, this bureau agent says that the expectations of consumers have gone to extremes.

Depending on the insurance company in question, insurance premiums are rising to new heights. If you are a good driving risk, you will see an increase from fifteen to thirty-five percent.

If you have a ticket or accident on your record, you'll be charged a much higher increase.

Lawyers dispute the fact that their ads and claim cost increases are related. A prolific lawyers says he can't understand why the insurance company claims there is a connection between the amount of lawsuits and the amount of advertising.

Anyone who has been harmed by another motorist ought to be able to assert their right to damages. However, there is the possibility of reform stemming form the offering of small term loans to people in lieu of settlement waiting periods.

By advertising personal injury services, law firms will get business from those already considering a claim. This is one personal injury lawyer's opinion. He is also pondering why this is an issue.

The unfortunate thing here is that the insurance bureau is making the assumption that lawyers advising people about their rights is not a good thing.

He also admits that auto insurance costs are on the rise and agrees that the entire system could use an overhaul. However, he adds that the insurance industry has rejected efforts to work with his organization in order to accomplish this.

A Bar Association president claims the insurance industry could better save costs by focusing on reducing the number of accidents that occur. The industry lobbying government to raise fines for photo radar or bans on cell phone use while driving, is not being heard of by him.

He also wonders why insurance companies don't call for improved road safety for the decrease of accidents. He also mentioned the fact that as a whole, the insurance industry has suffered huge losses in investments, and that this has lead to smaller profit margins.

On the other hand, those in the insurance industry would like to see new legislation aimed to prevent those in auto accidents from double dipping. Cases have been seen when claimants want to be compensated for lost work time, but their own companies have already compensated for this.

What's more, usually these awards include the gross wages, and do not take income taxes and other deductions into consideration. This provides claimants a reason to delay returning to work or to refuse to return at all. You'd make more money being off work.

There is no certain number on how many lawyers are in practice right now, but there isn't any doubt that there are more here than anywhere else. Motorists can usually sue for pain and suffering, but in some locales, the injuries have to be of a very serious nature and permanent.

"Advertising is driving the demand," that's what the insurance bureau wants you to think, when in reality it is the opposite. Nobody should have a problem with attorneys who are willing to shoulder the expense of litigation through to the point of settlement, or who agree to pay for necessary expenditures should the plaintiff not prevail.