Alice Turing
Slip and fall claims are often disputed because insurance companies may question whether the property owner was responsible for the dangerous condition, whether the injured person contributed to the accident, or whether the claimed injuries and losses were caused by the fall. Insurance carriers may closely examine what happened before the accident, how long the hazard existed, and whether there is enough evidence to establish negligence.
New Haven is a coastal city in southern Connecticut and home to more than 135,000 residents. It is known for Yale University, a busy downtown, the New Haven Green, and high-traffic areas filled with restaurants, offices, schools, and public spaces. Year-round rain, snow, and ice can also create slippery walking conditions across sidewalks, parking lots, and commercial properties.
For someone dealing with an injury after a fall, speaking with a slip-and-fall accident lawyer in New Haven can help clarify what evidence may be needed to support a claim.
Here are 4 key reasons slip-and-fall claims are often disputed by Insurance Companies:
1. Insurance Companies May Dispute Whether the Property Owner Knew About the Hazard
One common dispute involves whether the property owner or manager knew about the dangerous condition.
A wet floor, broken stair, uneven pavement, loose handrail, or other hazard may not automatically establish negligence. The circumstances surrounding the condition matter. An insurer may argue that the property owner did not know about the problem and did not have enough time to discover and correct it.
Evidence showing how long the condition existed can therefore be important. For example, photographs, surveillance footage, maintenance records, inspection logs, employee statements, or reports from other customers may help establish that the hazard was present long enough that reasonable action should have been taken.
2. The Insurance Company May Claim the Victim Was Partly Responsible
Insurance companies may also argue that the injured person contributed to the accident.
They might claim that the person was distracted, moving too quickly, using a phone, ignoring a warning sign, or wearing inappropriate footwear. In other cases, the insurer may argue that the hazard should have been obvious and that the person should have avoided it.
Connecticut follows a comparative negligence system. Under Connecticut General Statutes § 52-572h, a person’s own negligence can affect the amount of damages recovered in a negligence action.
This means that disputes about the injured person’s actions can become important. A claimant should therefore provide an accurate account of what happened rather than making assumptions about what the insurance company may argue.
3. The Cause of the Fall May Be Disputed
Another common issue is whether the alleged hazard actually caused the fall.
For instance, a person may fall in a store where a liquid was present on the floor. The insurer could question whether the person slipped because of the liquid or whether another factor caused the accident.
The same issue can arise with uneven sidewalks, damaged flooring, stairs, or poor lighting. If there is little evidence showing what caused the fall, an insurance company may use that uncertainty when evaluating the claim.
Photographs of the accident scene can be valuable because hazardous conditions may be repaired or removed soon afterward. Witness statements can also help establish what the area looked like before and immediately after the accident.
4. The Extent of the Injuries May Be Challenged
Insurance companies may accept that a fall occurred but dispute whether the accident caused the full extent of the claimed injuries.
An insurer may point to a previous medical condition, an earlier injury, or a delay in seeking medical treatment. It may argue that some symptoms existed before the accident or that the claimed treatment was unrelated to the fall.
Medical records can help establish the timeline. Records showing the person’s condition before the accident, treatment received afterward, diagnostic testing, and medical restrictions can provide important evidence about causation.
Prompt medical attention can also create a clearer record of what the person reported and what healthcare providers observed.
Key Takeaways
- Insurance companies may dispute whether a property owner knew about a dangerous condition.
- They may argue that the injured person contributed to the accident.
- The cause of the fall and the existence of the hazard may be challenged.
- Medical records can help establish that the fall caused the claimed injuries.
- Connecticut’s comparative negligence law can affect the amount of damages recovered.
- Preserving evidence soon after a fall can help address disputes raised by an insurance company.
Follow me down the rabbit hole!
I'm Alice and I live with a dizzying assortment of invisible disabilities, including ADHD and fibromyalgia. I write to raise awareness and end the stigma surrounding mental and chronic illnesses of all kinds.
