If an insured is 25% at fault and the insurer settles accordingly, this is an example of?

The situation described indicates that the insured's fault is being taken into account when determining the settlement amount. This reflects the principle of comparative negligence, which allows for the allocation of fault between parties involved in an incident. Under comparative negligence, if a party is found to be partially responsible for their own losses, their compensation can be reduced in proportion to their degree of fault. In this case, since the insured is 25% at fault, their settlement would be adjusted to reflect that percentage.

This concept stands in contrast to scenarios like contributory negligence, where any degree of fault on the part of the claimant may bar recovery entirely. Assumption of risk involves situations where a person knowingly exposes themselves to danger, thus waiving their right to claim damages. Vicarious liability refers to the legal principle where one party can be held liable for the actions of another, typically in employer-employee relationships. Therefore, the correct application of comparative negligence highlights how damages can be fairly allocated based on the level of responsibility of each party involved.