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.
Why fault arguments hit so much harder here
North Carolina's pure contributory negligence rule changes the entire calculus of a negotiation. In most states, an adjuster's fault argument shaves a percentage off a settlement offer. In North Carolina, a successful argument that the claimant bears even 1% of the fault can reduce the entire claim to zero. That gives adjusters a much stronger incentive to probe for any available fault theory — and makes understanding the exceptions to the rule genuinely important before accepting or rejecting an offer.
The last clear chance doctrine as a counter
The last clear chance doctrine is the most commonly invoked exception: if the defendant had a clear and reasonable opportunity to avoid the harm but failed to take it, the claimant's own earlier negligence doesn't bar recovery. If an adjuster leans heavily on a contributory negligence argument, it's worth examining directly whether the defendant had a later, clear opportunity to avoid the accident that they failed to act on.
Fault still has to be a real, proximate cause
Not every instance of carelessness bars a claim. North Carolina courts require that the claimant's conduct actually be a proximate cause of the injury — present somewhere in the background of events isn't enough on its own. An adjuster's fault argument should be tested against this requirement, not simply accepted at face value.
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.