When there is a small difference between the claimant and the insurer on settlement price, how should the difference be resolved?

When there is a small difference between the claimant and the insurer on settlement price, resolving the difference in favor of the claimant is appropriate because it aligns with the fundamental principles of fairness and consumer protection in insurance practices. Insurers are often seen as having more resources and leverage in negotiations, so upholding the claimant's position when a reasonable agreement cannot be reached promotes balance in the negotiation process.

This approach is grounded in the idea that insurance serves to protect the interests of the insured, and when the gaps in settlement prices are small, leaning toward the claimant acknowledges their needs and the potential for an equitable resolution. It encourages a resolution that prevents unnecessary escalation to more formal disputes, such as litigation, which can be costly and time-consuming for both parties.

Other resolution methods, such as arbitration or negotiation, can certainly play a role in resolving disputes, but in this context, favoring the claimant reflects a stronger commitment to ensuring fair treatment in the settlement process. By acknowledging the claimant's perspective, the resolution process can be expedited, leading to a mutually beneficial outcome without further conflict.