We recently conducted research for a bad faith case involving a significant jury award and an alleged failure to settle the claim beforehand. The plaintiff says the defendant insurer should have known a costly verdict was probable and ponied up more money to settle early. More specifically, the plaintiff says the defendant would have known about this risk if they had done a focus group or mock trial.
During our research, an argument testing the validity of focus groups as a method of assessing a case’s potential was the highest scoring among either plaintiff or defendant statements, with a score of 83.5. If you’ve seen our Instant Response dials in action, you know that's a "home run" score.
Knowing the potential for a multi-million-dollar verdict in this county, [the insurer] should have engaged in jury research through a focus group or mock trial to determine what the potential was for a large verdict. Instead, they went into the trial “blind” and unprepared – placing the [client’s] reputation and resources in an even more vulnerable position.
AVERAGE ARGUMENT SCORE: 83.5
Now you don't have to rely only on our (admittedly biased) opinion that focus groups are a good thing. Jurors think so, too.
Posts
