Report comment

I currently have several injury claims where obviously flawed Defences are being run by insurers. In the past I have had cases where insurers have run spurious limitation defences and regularly see contributory negligence raised in cases where it cannot possibly apply. Indeed it has long been common practice for insurers to file Defences which they know will fail just to buy them time to negotiate. I have had conversations with lawyers representing insured Defendants where they have told me that they want to settle but will be filing a Defence in the meantime. It is all part of the cut and thrust of litigation. The Defendants are clearly overstating their position or exaggerating the strength of some part of their case.
Why is this acceptable but exaggeration by a Claimant is not?