The following is a summary of the main findings of Prescott et al. Study on high-level agreements. The authors first articulate a theoretical model of very low chords. Based on a national insurance company`s claims data, they then describe the characteristics of those agreements and empirically examine the factors that may influence the question of whether the litigants are discussing or opposing them. Their empirical results correspond to the predictions of their theoretical model. The study asks us whether agreements favour more jury processes, what the consequences of the agreements might be, who uses them and why they are used. For our purposes, the most important findings are that since the parties can hastily enter into a low-cost agreement, not all issues can be properly considered. One problem, for example, is the possibility of a wrong procedure. An agreement on low wages requires a judgment to determine the amount of compensation. However, it may not be clear what the term “judgment” means. Is a blocked jury, for example, a “verdict”? Is a deadlock jury considered “no cause” of judgment for the purposes of the agreement? This would be a way (and other options) to anticipate and reach an agreement (written) on how to deal with a Deadlock. Is it, in the same way, a “judgment” when the applicant`s lawyer seeks a wrong procedure by deliberately violating the court order or not, a “verdict” or is it “no cause”? These issues are part of many related details that the parties could address in the development of their high-level agreement.
Although the likelihood of being courted strongly favours physicians 2, the cost of the loss can be so high that they push the accused to very low agreements. Certain situations are the prerequisites for their use. The costs of the legal process therefore do not contribute significantly to the question of whether or not the parties stand out instead of going to court with a high-level agreement). Rather, the determining factor for the use of high-low agreements as compensation is the volatility of the eventual shutdown. (2) With respect to the second category of questions: this article provides an overview of the main findings of a recent study (and the corresponding article illustrating the results of the study) by J.J. Prescott, Kathryn E. Spier and Albert Yoon (“Trial and Settlement: A Study of High-Low Agreements”) . In this study, the authors first articulate a theoretical model of very low chords. Based on a national insurance company`s claims data, they then describe the characteristics of these agreements and empirically examine “factors that may influence the question of whether the litigants are discussing or opposing them.”  Their empirical results correspond to the predictions of their theoretical model. The study asks us whether agreements favour more jury processes, what the consequences of the agreements might be, who uses them and why they are used. Among its various findings is the finding that deep-depth agreements significantly promote the resolution of judicial proceedings and not by a full settlement; Parties are more likely to be brought to court than if there were no high-level agreements.
These and other results will be developed below. Very low agreements also lead to some predictability of the process. They define the most pessimistic scenario, generally limit the physician`s exposure to his or her insurance limit, and at least cover the patient`s current and future medical expenses and the lawyer`s investment in litigation. By prohibiting appeals and motions after the verdict, high-speed settlements give an end. Both parties leave the courtroom, knowing that the case is finally closed. The most important agreements, low-down, introduce an element of restraint in terms of distinctions and fairness in relation to the “all or nothing” system. The agreement on the low count is similar to a typical comparative agreement with some characterization