Question for the lawyers in the house.

[CU Tiger]

I had a minor traffic accident recently where a school bus hit our vehicle.
Police came, bus driver at fault. No one hurt. All in all fairly minor.

State claim agency has us get multiple estimates and forward to them they approve and are going to pay but first we have to sign a release.

Most of it is pretty standard language. By accepting this you release all future claims from this particular incident yadda, yadda, yadda.

This is the part that I have apprehension around attaching my signature to:

It is understood and agreed that this settlement is the compromise of a doubtful and disputed claim, and that the payment made is not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of the party or parties hereby released, and that said releasees deny liability therefor and intend to avoid litigation and buy their peace.

I dont like the doubtful and disputed language. There is no doubt or dispute. Am I over thinking this ad its just standard lawyer babble or would you object to signing this as well?

I asked the "adjuster" about this and he said "yeah its just a standard form it s not accurate but sign it and you get a check, no sign no check. You know how lawyers are."

I mean on one hand I just sign and life moves on. This is what I probably will do.
On the other I really dont like signing a form that admits that I am essentially extorting the state for money - especially when they said I could file a claim for a rental car during repairs and I was declined as we have spare vehicles.

Am I over thinking this?

Is there not something unsettling about a government agency telling me I have to sign a lie in order for them to pay me for damages they caused?

[britrock88]

It's a standard case of weasel words--the important thing is how the rest of the process has unfolded. States can and do set the processes up in their favor, so it sounds like a positive that you're at a point where they're on board reimbursing the damages. (They're not disputing practically--the "dispute" exists in the sense that you've negotiated about liability and amounts owed. "Doubt," similarly, should only suggest inexactitude, not suspicion.)

One suggestion would be to make sure that you've discovered every bit of damage that you reasonably can, because the release will apply to all existing conditions when you sign it.

(edit: IANAL in SC.)

[albionmoonlight]

I'm not a SC lawyer; this is not SC legal advice, etc.

But I think this is fine. A claim is "disputed" if the parties dispute it. So I think that they are just indicating that the settlement in no way indicates that they are wrong (which is a standard thing with settlements).