Shefa Shaikh
In the aftermath of a car accident, victims often face not only immediate medical costs and property damage but also the looming uncertainty of how their injuries might affect them long-term. As a result, negotiations between insurance companies and car accident attorneys must carefully account for potential long-term consequences, such as chronic pain, disability, or emotional trauma. These outcomes may not be immediately evident but can significantly diminish a person's quality of life, ability to work, and emotional well-being. Given the unpredictable nature of these effects, it is critical that they be carefully evaluated during the settlement process. Furthermore, when unforeseen long-term effects surface after a case has been closed, courts and lawmakers should consider reopening settlements under certain criteria to ensure victims receive just compensation. Settlements are typically designed to provide finality and closure to both parties. However, in personal injury law, particularly in car accident cases, the long-term effects of injuries are often unknown at the time of settlement. These can include progressive disorders such as post-traumatic osteoarthritis, neurological issues, or chronic pain syndromes, which may take months or even years to manifest fully. In Montgomery Ward & Co.
v. Anderson, 976 S.W.2d 382 (Tex. App. 1998), the court emphasized the importance of anticipating long-term medical costs when awarding damages for personal injuries, recognizing that the true extent of harm might not be fully known immediately following an incident. In the negotiation process, attorneys must therefore work closely with medical professionals to estimate the probability and cost of future medical issues. This often involves the use of life care plans, which estimate the cost of future treatment and rehabilitation, as well as expert testimony to support claims of projected disability or lost earning capacity. Failing to account for these future consequences risks undercompensating the victim and placing the financial burden of ongoing medical care on the individual rather than the responsible party. A notable example is the 2018 case of Domingue v. Allied Discount Tire & Brake, where the plaintiff received a significantly larger settlement after new medical evaluations revealed the injuries were more severe than originally believed. Although not all cases have such outcomes, this demonstrates the critical role of thorough medical assessments during initial negotiations. Despite its importance, accounting for future harm in settlements is inherently complex. Insurance companies may be reluctant to pay for potential outcomes that are uncertain or speculative. As noted by a 2021 Forbes article on personal injury settlements, insurers often push for lower settlements to minimize their financial exposure, while attorneys must fight to ensure their clients are not shortchanged based on overly optimistic projections of recovery. Moreover, courts differ in how much weight they give to anticipated long-term effects. Some require strong evidence, such as diagnostic tests or testimony from multiple physicians, while others are more lenient, especially when the injuries are obviously debilitating. The inconsistency across jurisdictions can make it difficult for attorneys to negotiate fair settlements, particularly in cases where the medical trajectory is unclear. However, the principle of “full and fair compensation” under tort law
supports the inclusion of future harm in settlement calculations. As articulated in Anderson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 292 Or. 233 (1981), the plaintiff is entitled to be made whole, which includes damages for future medical expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering if they can be reasonably predicted. In other words, settlements must reflect not only present damages but also any foreseeable long-term harm that the victim is likely to endure. The question of whether closed settlements should be reopened if unforeseen long-term effects emerge later is more contentious. On the one hand, settlements are contractual agreements, often marked as “final,” with release forms that waive the right to future claims. Reopening them could undermine the legal principle of finality, burden courts, and deter insurance companies from agreeing to settlements in the first place. On the other hand, denying a victim any recourse when they suffer new or worsening conditions as a direct result of the original injury may result in gross injustice. For example, if a spinal injury originally thought to be minor later develops into a debilitating condition requiring surgery or lifelong care, should the victim be bound by a settlement that failed to foresee this deterioration?
In some jurisdictions, courts have allowed previously closed settlements to be reopened under limited circumstances. In Chisholm v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 49 So. 3d 1186 (La. Ct. App. 2010), the plaintiff successfully challenged a release agreement after it was proven that her cognitive injuries, resulting from a car accident, were not properly diagnosed at the time of settlement. The court ruled that a settlement may be invalidated if it can be shown that it was agreed upon under a mutual mistake or if the injured party was unaware of the full extent of their injuries. Additionally, California Civil Code 1542 provides an exception for release agreements if future damages are not known or anticipated at the time of signing. This statute has often been cited to support the argument that victims should not be penalized for conditions that could not
have been reasonably discovered during the original settlement process. However, the bar for reopening such cases remains high, and rightly so. Courts must balance the need to uphold contractual agreements with the imperative to provide fair compensation. A reasonable approach might involve allowing cases to be reopened only when there is clear, documented evidence of new medical diagnoses directly related to the original accident—and only when the original settlement explicitly excluded provisions for unknown future harm.
To ensure justice in car accident settlements, certain safeguards should be put in place:
- Mandatory Medical Forecasting: Settlements should include detailed projections of future medical needs, reviewed by multiple medical professionals.
- Structured Settlements with Contingency Clauses: Parties can design settlements with provisions that allow additional compensation if specific future medical events occur.
- Stronger Legal Protections for Victims: Legislation similar to California’s §1542 should be adopted in more states to protect victims from inadvertently waiving their right to fair compensation for unknown injuries.
- Independent Medical Reviews: Require neutral third-party medical assessments in cases involving serious injury to ensure neither party can manipulate medical evidence.
By integrating these protections into the settlement process, victims would be better shielded from the long-term consequences of injuries and less reliant on the difficult and uncertain process of reopening closed cases.
The potential long-term effects of injuries should play a significant role in determining car accident settlements. Victims deserve to be compensated not just for immediate harm but also for likely future consequences, even if those outcomes are difficult to predict. While reopening
closed settlements should remain an exception rather than the rule, there must be a legal avenue for victims who experience severe, previously unknown effects that directly stem from the accident. Ultimately, the goal of the legal system should be to prioritize fairness and ensure that injury victims are not left carrying the financial and emotional burdens of someone else’s negligence.
Sources:
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Anderson, 976 S.W.2d 382 (Tex. App. 1998)
- Anderson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 292 Or. 233 (1981)
- Chisholm v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 49 So. 3d 1186 (La. Ct. App. 2010)
- California Civil Code §1542
- Forbes (2021). “How Car Accident Settlements Work.” Retrieved from www.forbes.com