100 Common Insurance Tricks

Put The Romanow Difference to work for you

If you’ve been hurt in a Pittsburgh car accident, the insurance companies will stop at nothing to pay you as little as possible and drag out your claim, if possible. They have lawyers fighting for their best interests. That’s why you need the experienced car accident attorneys at Romanow Law Group to fight for you.

It is unbelievable how many tricks insurance companies will use to try to limit your compensation or pay you nothing at all. Our car accident lawyers know how to put a stop to this madness to help you recover the financial compensation you deserve. Call 1-844-GET-MORE or contact us online to schedule a free consultation with one of our experienced car accident attorneys.

100 Common Insurance Tricks

1. A false allegation that the car accident victim admitted fault at the scene of the accident.
2. The car accident victim was mostly at fault for the car wreck.
3. The car accident victim was not hurt in the collision.
4. There were no witnesses to the accident, so it is a “he said, she said” claim that can’t be proved.
5. The victim is overly litigious and has a documented propensity to sue.
6. No ambulance was called to the scene of the accident, so the car accident victim must be faking his or her injuries.
7. The car accident victim failed to mention to the investigating officer that he or she was injured, which means he or she was not hurt.
8. The car accident victim’s brake lights were not working and that caused the car wreck.
9. Meritless claims that the car accident victim was on his or her cell phone at the time of the accident.
10. The injured driver was not wearing his seatbelt at the time of the collision, so it is his fault that he sustained injuries.
11. The car wreck victim’s car had mechanical defects that either caused or contributed to the car accident.
12. The insurance company’s independent medical examiner (“hired gun”) has determined that the car accident victim’s injuries are either nonexistent, were pre-existing or unrelated to the car accident.
13. The car accident victim can’t remember all the details of the accident, so he is lying.
14. The car accident victim is greedy.
15. The car accident victim is a liar.
16. The car accident victim was over-treated for his injuries and the medical bills are his or her responsibility.
17. The car accident victim is a drug addict who is addicted to prescription pain pills.
18. The accident victim was already taking prescription pain medication before the accident so he or she must not have any new injuries or symptoms.
19. The car accident victim told the insurance company that he or she was not injured in the wreck.
20. The injured party can’t document his lost earnings properly, so we owe nothing.
21. The car accident victim’s loss of earning capacity is limited to his documented wages before the accident. (See courtroom footage of Mr. Romanow contesting this bogus argument).
22. The car accident victim’s claim is time-barred.
23. The injured party failed to properly notify the insurance company.
24. Selectively filmed surveillance footage proves that the victim was not injured in the car accident.
25. The accident victim failed to meet several procedural requirements and his or her claim must be dismissed.
26. The defendant was not hurt, so the victim must not be hurt.
27. Nobody is at fault for the accident.
28. The car accident was caused “by an act of God”, not driver negligence.
29. An unsupported claim that the accident victim was speeding at the time of the car accident.
30. There is insufficient medical documentation to support the accident victim’s injury claims.
31. We don’t have to pay for the medical treatment that didn’t work.
32. The accident victim waited too long after the accident before seeking medical treatment.
33. The car accident victim didn’t heal properly because he or she failed to regularly attend chiropractic treatment and/or physical therapy sessions.
34. If the car accident victim had put more effort into the rehabilitation process, his or her injuries would have been less severe.
35. There was minimal property damage to the vehicles involved in the car wreck, so the injuries must be insignificant.
36. The car accident victim did not go to the emergency room immediately after the accident, so he or she was not hurt.
37. The accident victim was injured in a separate incident after the car accident.
38. The accident victim has full range of motion, so he or she is not hurt.
39. The car accident victim’s pain complaints are not fully documented in the medical records.
40. The car accident victim failed to mitigate his or her injuries by not following physician recommendations.
41. The car wreck victim was already in poor health at the time of the accident, so we will pay very little.
42. The car accident victim is a smoker and that prevented him or her from fully recovering.
43. The car accident victim’s recovery was hindered by his or her obesity.
44. The accident victim had a history of similar pain complaints prior to the accident.
45. The car accident victim’s medical treatment was not medically indicated.
46. The car accident victim’s pain complaints are subjective and cannot be verified by objective tests.
47. An unknown driver was responsible for the car accident.
48. The car accident victim told the adverse driver that he was not hurt.
49. The injuries to the spine are degenerative in nature and not the result of trauma from the car accident.
50. The police report does not indicate that the victim was complaining of pain at the scene of the accident.
51. No ambulance was called to the scene of the accident, which means no injuries.
52. The car accident victim returned to work, so he or she must not be seriously injured.
53. There is no medical opinion that links the car accident victim’s injuries to the accident.
54. The car accident victim is feigning his or her injuries.
55. The car accident victim is magnifying his or her symptoms for financial gain.
56. The adverse driver denies that he or she was at fault and we stand by our insured.
57. The MRI results show degenerative changes in the spine, which are never the result of trauma.
58. There are no lost wages without a doctor’s note recommending time off from work.
59. The pain you are experiencing is the result of old age, not a car accident.
60. The accident victim is solely responsible for the car accident.
61. There is a discrepancy in the medical records about the severity of the pain reported by the car accident victim.
62. There is a discrepancy in the medical charting about the locations of the injuries.
63. The defendant was obeying the rules of the road at the time of the accident.
64. The investigating officer’s traffic accident report is inconclusive.
65. The investigating officer has no independent recollection of the car accident, so you can’t prove liability.
66. The investigating officer’s report is inaccurate.
67. The investigating officer failed to interview the defendant at the scene of the accident.
68. The city or municipality is responsible for the accident because of unsafe road design, signage and/or conditions.
69. The car accident victim has reached maximum medical improvement, so there is no need to award future medical expenses.
70. The car accident victim was impaired at the time of the accident.
71. The car accident victim was driving with a suspended license at the time of the wreck.
72. Despite clear physical impairments, there is no future economic loss because he or she can earn the same wage in a less physically demanding profession.
73. The car accident victim’s vehicle was damaged prior to the accident.
74. The car accident victim failed to use his or her turn signal, which caused the accident.
75. For no reason, the car accident victim slammed on his or her brakes.
76. The police were not called to the scene of the accident, so there must not have been any injuries.
77. There are no independent witnesses to substantiate the car accident victim’s version of the facts.
78. The car accident victim still engages in the same recreational activities that he or she did prior to the accident, so there must be no injuries.
79. The car accident victim should have been able to avoid the collision.
80. The car accident victim made a sudden, unexpected and unnecessary change in speed and/or direction.
81. The car accident victim did not see the other car prior to impact because he or she was distracted.
82. The car accident victim was unfamiliar with the stretch of road where the accident occurred, so he or she must be at fault.
83. The car accident victim made an unsafe lane change without warning.
84. Denial of any damages because the car accident victim has a long history of chronic pain in a similar part of his or her body.
85. The car accident victim can’t recall a complete history of his or her medical providers, so he or she must be trying to hide something.
86. The airbag did not deploy, so the accident must not have been serious.
87. The car accident victim’s family life was not altered as a result of the car accident because he or she was having marital problems before the accident.
88. The car accident victim must be at fault because he or she was not wearing his or her prescription glasses at the time of the wreck.
89. There are no future lost wages because the car accident victim would have been terminated in the future, regardless of an accident.
90. Discounting the settlement offer because of the mistaken belief that the car accident victim would be a bad witness at trial or is perceived as unlikeable.
91. Discounting the settlement value because the car accident victim is unattractive.
92. The car accident victim must have been inattentive at the wheel because he or she failed to see the defendant’s car prior to impact.
93. The accident victim exaggerates the defendant’s speed, so he or she must be lying about his or her injuries.
94. The car accident victim is an unreliable historian, so you should discredit his or her testimony.
95. The car accident victim’s family members are always biased, so you should automatically discredit them.
96. You should not pay the entire medical bill because there were cheaper places in town where the car accident victim could have been treated.
97. The car wreck victim doesn’t have an economist to opine about economic damages.
98. The car accident victim failed to provide the insurance company with sufficient documentation to support his or her injury claim.
99. The car accident victim was listening to the radio at the time of the wreck, so he or she must be at fault.
100. The car accident victim should reject the advice of his or her treating physicians.