When you talk about causation, isn't that usually what you're talking about? How do you see the defense, some creative ways that they use to defend against that? Well, the...

the biggest one is probably property damage is, is so if there isn't a lot of damage to the vehicle, then the, the, the very common avenue for the defense to go is that, Hey, there's no property damage or it doesn't look significant.

Therefore you can't have a significant injury.

Um, they really double down on that one.

And, um, but they, they get creative in a lot of different ways and, um, but, but you can't win either way.

So, um, what I mean is let's say that, you know, there was a collision or somebody fell or whatever the injury was, um, um if they don't go to the to the doctor um immediately well then the defense will take that gap in time and they'll argue hey look you couldn't have been injured because you didn't even go to the doctor you know right away or there's a gap in treatment or something like that but If it was on the other side of the coin, if someone goes to the doctor very fast and then they continue to go, then the defense will flip it and say, look, you know, they're going to the doctor so much.

They're obviously trying to inflate their claim to have these bigger bills.

And should I do that? Or what would be my alternative? And if I get an attorney, how does that work in the conversations between the two insurance companies?