Why the first number is rarely the real number
Insurance adjusters routinely open negotiations with a conservative figure, expecting a counteroffer. Accepting that first offer typically closes the claim permanently — there's generally no going back to ask for more later, even if additional injuries or costs surface afterward.
Pure comparative negligence removes a common insurer tactic
In many states, an insurer's single most powerful negotiating lever is pushing your fault percentage past a specific threshold — 50% or 51%, depending on the state — to eliminate your recovery entirely. Kentucky's pure comparative negligence rule under KRS 411.182 removes that lever completely: there is no fault percentage, however high, that bars recovery outright. A claimant found 90% at fault still recovers the remaining 10% of their damages.
That doesn't mean fault stops mattering
Fault percentage still reduces your recovery dollar for dollar in Kentucky, so an insurer still has every incentive to push your assigned fault as high as the facts allow — the difference is that doing so can only shrink your recovery, never erase it entirely. Understanding this distinction is useful context when evaluating how hard an adjuster is pressing on liability during negotiation.
A second tort-reform effort also failed in Kentucky
It's worth knowing that Kentucky's legislature has tried more than one approach to limiting malpractice recoveries. Beyond the repeatedly failed attempts to amend the constitutional damages-cap ban, a 2017 law created a mandatory Medical Review Panel that malpractice claims had to pass through before reaching court. The Kentucky Supreme Court struck the entire law down in Commonwealth v. Claycomb (2018), finding the mandatory delay unconstitutional. Neither path to limiting malpractice recoveries currently stands in Kentucky.
What this means practically
Because there's no fault threshold working against you, a documented, complete estimate of your damages — built without worrying about a cliff-edge bar — is the most useful tool for evaluating whether an insurer's first offer, discounted appropriately for whatever fault percentage applies, actually reflects fair value.