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.
Joint and several liability, preserved
Many states have moved away from joint and several liability toward a several-only system, where each defendant pays only their own percentage share. Rhode Island has preserved pure joint and several liability — any one defendant in a multi-defendant case can potentially be held responsible for the full judgment, regardless of their individual share of fault.
Why this matters when multiple parties share fault
In a claim involving more than one at-fault party, this structure means a claimant isn't necessarily limited to collecting only each defendant's proportional share. A well-insured defendant, even one bearing a smaller percentage of fault, can potentially be pursued for the full amount — which can meaningfully simplify actually collecting on a judgment when the parties have unequal insurance coverage or assets.
Pure comparative fault changes the leverage of a fault argument
Because Rhode Island's pure comparative fault rule never bars recovery short of 100% fault, an adjuster's fault argument can only ever reduce a claim proportionally — never eliminate it. That's a meaningfully different negotiating dynamic than in a state where crossing a fault threshold wipes out the claim entirely.
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.