Why Some Injury Cases Go to Trial
January 29, 2026 | Posted in Uncategorized
Most personal injury claims settle before reaching a courtroom. Insurance companies don’t like the unpredictability of juries. Injured people usually want compensation without the stress of litigation, but some cases inevitably end up before a judge or jury. Understanding why settlement talks break down helps you prepare for what might lie ahead in your own case.
When Insurance Companies Refuse Fair Offers
Sometimes insurance adjusters take positions that just don’t make sense. They’ll deny a claim entirely, even when their policyholder was clearly at fault. Or they acknowledge responsibility but offer compensation that doesn’t come close to covering medical bills, lost wages, and other losses you’ve actually incurred. It’s frustrating. You know what happened. The evidence is clear. But they won’t move from a lowball offer. When insurers dig in their heels like this, trial becomes the only path to fair compensation. Wandres Law Injury and Accident Attorneys handles cases where insurance companies refuse to negotiate in good faith, and we’ve seen just about every stalling tactic and unreasonable position you can imagine.
Disputed Liability Makes Settlement Difficult
Some accidents involve genuine questions about who was at fault. Multiple parties might share responsibility. The insurance company might argue you caused your own harm. When liability remains contested, settlement becomes complicated. Neither side wants to accept a deal that assumes fault when they believe they can prove otherwise in court. Think about it from both perspectives. If you’re confident the other driver ran a red light, why would you accept 50% of your damages? A Norman personal injury lawyer can evaluate whether disputed fault issues make a trial more likely in your situation.
Disagreements Over Injury Severity
Insurance companies often downplay how serious your injuries really are. They’ll claim you’ve recovered when chronic pain persists. They argue pre-existing conditions caused the problems rather than the accident. Medical evidence doesn’t always provide clear answers, and insurers exploit that ambiguity. Soft tissue injuries, traumatic brain injuries, and psychological trauma can be difficult to document objectively. Your doctor says one thing. Their doctor says another. When insurers refuse to accept medical opinions about the extent of harm, juries become the final decision makers.
Policy Limits Complicate Negotiations
Here’s a hard reality. Sometimes the at-fault party’s insurance coverage simply isn’t enough to compensate for serious injuries. A driver might only carry minimum liability limits while causing catastrophic harm. In these situations, settlement negotiations hit a ceiling. The insurance company can’t offer more than policy limits, and your damages far exceed what’s available. Trial allows victims to pursue additional compensation from the defendant’s personal assets, though collecting judgments beyond insurance coverage presents its own challenges.
High-Stakes Cases Justify Litigation Costs
Trial is expensive. It’s time-consuming. Both sides invest significant resources in:
- Expert witness fees and testimony
- Depositions and discovery processes
- Court filing fees and administrative costs
- Attorney time for trial preparation
Cases involving permanent disabilities, wrongful death, or other catastrophic outcomes often justify these expenses. The difference between a settlement offer and a potential jury verdict might amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. When you’re looking at life-changing injuries, the investment in litigation makes sense.
The Role Of Principle And Precedent
Not every decision to go to trial comes down to money. Some plaintiffs refuse inadequate offers because accepting them would feel like validating the defendant’s careless behavior. Others want their day in court to hold negligent parties publicly accountable. That matters to people, and it should. Insurance companies sometimes take cases to trial to avoid setting precedents. If they settle one claim for a certain amount, other victims might expect similar compensation in comparable situations. They’re playing a longer game than just your individual case.
Making The Decision Together
Your attorney should explain the risks and benefits of going to trial versus accepting a settlement offer. Trials introduce uncertainty. That’s just the nature of the process. Juries might award more than the settlement offer, less, or nothing at all. A Norman personal injury lawyer evaluates factors like the strength of evidence, quality of witnesses, and venue considerations when advising whether a trial makes sense for your particular case. We’ve been through this process many times, and we can give you an honest assessment.
The choice ultimately belongs to you. Some people value the certainty of settlement even if it means accepting less compensation. They want to move on with their lives. Others prefer taking their chances with a jury when offers don’t reflect the full extent of their losses. If you’re facing an inadequate settlement offer or an insurance company that won’t negotiate reasonably, experienced legal representation can help you understand your options and make informed decisions about how to proceed with your claim.