Last year, a client was passing by a neighbor’s house when she saw her neighbor cutting down a tree branch. The client offered to help the neighbor by holding the ladder steady as the neighbor cut the branch. The neighbor declined the help, believing that it was unnecessary. However, the client, concerned for her neighbor’s safety, chose to hold the ladder regardless. When the neighbor had finished cutting the tree branch, it fell down onto our client. She suffered significant injuries from the falling branch.

The client went to court with The Haymond Law Firm as her representation. Initially, the insurance company and their lawyers denied any form of liability. At first, the insurance companies refused to offer our client any money, believing that there was no liability for the injuries. Haymond Law fought back and the insurance company agreed to make an offer. They put an insulting $2,500 on the table. It was a nuisance offer, meaning that they thought our client didn’t have a case. But we knew that our client deserved to be compensated for her injuries, so we turned down their initial offer and began to fight back.

The Haymond Law Firm demanded more for the injuries received by our client. We brought the facts of the case to court and proved that our client deserved insurance money for the injuries and pain that she had sustained. In the end, we got the insurance company’s lawyers up to a higher offer. In addition to this, we were able to negotiate a much smaller health insurance lien for the client. This meant money in our clients pocket, and meant that she left satisfied with Haymond Law’s ability to get injured clients the money they deserve.

Even the arbitrator questioned her chances of winning such a difficult case at the start of the Arbitration.

They teach you in law school a practical lesson. When the cases and statutes are against you and you have to rely on a public policy argument to make your case, then you will likely lose. This is how the insurer and other Attorney felt about Attorney Sudnick’s auto accident case in 2010. They had not anticipated that Attorney Sudnick would so creatively prepare her case for arbitration. She enlisted MIT grads as experts to helpher win liability. That was only the first battle. Attorney Sudnick enlisted a nationally recognized insurance coverage expert to drill her with tough questions that the arbitrator at the binding arbitration would ask. “I felt like an athlete training for the big game. It was exciting. It was fun.” Said Attorney Sudnick. The arbitration started initially with the Arbitrator questioning how Attorney Sudnick’s client could possibly win on the legal question presented.

The arbitrator said “The law is against you on this one Attorney Sudnick, I hope you have more arguments than the legal brief that you submitted in advance. ” Insurance executives for the defendant Insurance company flew in to watch their top insurance attorney fight to protect their multimillion dollar policy. In the building where the arbitration was heard the insurance executives laughed in the elevator ride as if they had already won the case. They had not counted on the day going quite so bad for them.

Attorney Sudnick used creative public policy arguments that were compelling. Within 9 months of the auto accident, Attorney Sudnick won the large arbitration award. The entire award was paid. Attorney Sudnick made sure that each and every excess policy was completely exhausted.