I’m not a huge NBA fan, but over the last few days, I have been listening to a variety of talk show hosts discuss the trade of former NBA MVP Derrick Rose from the Chicago Bulls to the New York Knicks in exchange for a few of the Knicks’ players.
Normally, that wouldn’t be all that news-worthy, especially in the lawsuit context. But one of the commentators made a point that was familiar to me.
When this commentator was asked who got the better part of the trade, the Bulls or the Knicks, the commentator laughed and said, “You know, both of the fan bases are pretty unhappy with the trade, which tells me that it was probably a pretty fair trade.”
I laughed to myself when I heard that because that’s advice I find myself giving a lot of clients. In most settlements, the plaintiff settled for less than they really wanted, and the defendant paid more than they really wanted. And I usually tell clients that when that happens, it’s a pretty good indication that the settlement is a fair settlement.
Now, that’s not to say that we never have a negotiation or settlement where we feel like we’ve been overly-compensated, but it’s rare — insurance companies aren’t in the business of just handing out money. And in NBA or NFL or MLB trades, there are some trades where you can look at the deal and know that one side was really coming out much better than the other.
But more often than not, in most trades and in most settlement negotiations, both sides usually end up walking away a little disappointed, and that’s usually a signal that it was probably a pretty fair result.