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.
The seat belt argument cuts a narrower way than it sounds
An adjuster might raise a failure to wear a seat belt as though it settles the fault question. In Nevada, it doesn't work that way: seat belt non-use evidence is admissible only for damage reduction, not fault — meaning it can be used to argue that some of your specific injuries would have been less severe with a seat belt on, but it can't be used to push your assigned percentage of fault for causing the accident itself.
Why that distinction genuinely matters
The stakes are different depending on which argument is actually being made. A fault argument that successfully pushes a claimant to 51% bars the entire claim under Nevada's strict rule. A damages-reduction argument tied to seat belt non-use only shrinks the specific portion of damages attributable to not wearing one — a meaningfully smaller impact. Knowing which argument an adjuster is actually making, rather than assuming the broader one, is worth sorting out early.
Nevada's fault threshold is applied strictly
Worth keeping in mind generally: the Nevada Supreme Court has confirmed that a plaintiff who crosses the 50% fault threshold recovers nothing, however narrowly that line is crossed. There's no partial exception for a close call.
The baseline still applies
None of this changes the ordinary approach to a first offer: compare it against a complete, well-documented account of your actual damages before deciding whether to accept or counter, since the decision is generally final once made.