Great! My case qualifies for a settlement loan. What does that mean? More importantly, of the cases that “qualify,” how many actually obtain settlement loans? What makes the difference?
The industry out of which lawsuit funding is spawned is quite intriguing. Since I’ve been involved with this industry, viewing it through the eyes of both an attorney and healthcare provider, one thing is unmistakably clear – the vast majority of cases that are submitted for pre-settlement loans get denied right out of the starting-gait! To what can this be attributed?
Unequivocally, the vast majority of individuals who seek settlement loans are unable to demonstrate that they’ve sustained any specific losses/injuries. For those individuals who are unable to demonstrate such losses/injuries, it is extremely unlikely that they will prevail in the underlying lawsuit. It would be virtually impossible for them to succeed in obtaining settlement loans.
The process of filing a lawsuit today is quite easy. Nonetheless, there is a vast distance between filing a lawsuit and prevailing in the lawsuit filed. Defendants are likely to disagree with your theory of the case. (If this weren’t so, it is unlikely that the current litigation would be a consideration. Furthermore, the insurances carrier’s coffers are found locked in the absence of persuasive evidence that their insureds are indeed liable for injuries/losses alleged.
To get funded, remember, it is your responsibility to accurately document the actual harm imposed and the defendant’s liability. Hence, the need, in almost all cases, to retain competent legal counsel.
Frequently, plaintiffs come to us requesting lawsuit loans in pro se cases. Such cases are those brought by plaintiffs without legal counsel. A key fact to bear in mind when pursuing settlement loans, “No attorney, no funding!” Most lawsuit funding entities are not sufficiently foolish to place hopes of prevailing in the litigation for which funding is sought on the acumen of a pro se litigant.
In Law, the following adage is frequently echoed: “The attorney who represents himself/herself has a fool for a client.” This is generally true for attorneys and almost certainly true for lay-plaintiffs vying against defendants, insurance company defense attorneys et al.
Those pursuing lawsuit funding must also be prepared to proffer expert opinions/testimony that clearly establishes a mechanism that would likely produce the injuries claimed. Illustrative of this point is a recent case filed with Legal Settlement Loans regarding “toxic mold.” The case is dead-in-the-water unless and until reputable expert testimony/opinion is proffered.
Success in obtaining settlement loan essentially relies on three key components: (1) the plaintiff must retain competent legal counsel; (2) it is wise to only submit claims for lawsuit loans for which injuries are clearly demonstrable; and (3) the plaintiff must be prepared to produce an expert who is both reputable and able to satisfactorily communicate the link between the alleged incident and the injuries arising from that incident. (Such testimony may be obtained either by depositions or written opinions, to name but a few methods.)
The vast majority of funding-entities offer virtually no guidance to those who seek settlement loans. However, litigation funding experts work very closely with their clients to assist them in finding the pre-settlement loans that are most applicable to the cases submitted. Additionally, these litigation funding experts will work closely with clients to assist them in finding the funding-entities that have the financing arrangements that are most desirable for the client’s needs. (Additionally, they will assist their clients in obtaining the funding as quickly as possible.)
Remember, it isn’t sufficient to have a case that “qualifies” for a lawsuit loan. As a plaintiff in need of financial assistance immediately, you want one that gets funded.
Research lawsuit loans