Insurance Companies

April 14, 2011

GEICO Just Kills Me

I settled a case with GEICO. They send me – personally – a Hold Harmless and Indemnification Agreement holding them harmless from any claims for medical liens, medical bills, and pretty much any claim that could be brought of any kind before they will send out a settlement check. My client and I are on the release. But there is just one signature line.

I told the adjuster, “Look, we already settled the case. Now you are putting conditions on a new party, namely me. That seems reasonable enough. But are you willing personally to throw $100 into the settlement yourself? That is my new condition.”

I thought this was funny and illustrative. The GEICO claims adjuster? Less so. Instead, he rolls off a list of lawyers who have signed this hold harmless agreement. Literally, it was like a who’s who list of “prolific” Maryland tort attorneys, most advertisers, who have been around forever and I believe have never tried a serious personal injury case in their lives. Just funny he would be name dropping those lawyers.

April 11, 2011

Property Damage Claims Releases

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Before a client executes a release or signs a check for a property damage claim, I want to review the release if they have a potential personal injury claim from the accident. Particularly in uninsured motorist cases, but this paranoia extends to every type of accident case.

Why? I don’t want the insurance company to pull a fast one and slip in a full release under the guise of a property damage release for the client’s car.

In years past, after looking at approximately one zillion property damage releases, the Oliver Stone conspiracy has never come to pass. Insurance companies have always been straight with me. Until this week… Continue reading

March 31, 2011

GEICO Claim Adjuster: My Fun Call Today

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

I have a serious injury case with GEICO. Unfortunately, GEICO only has a $100,000/$300,000 policy and no underinsured coverage (and no evidence the defendant has meaningful assets). GEICO did the right thing and offered the policy. It is a shame, but that is the way it is in many traffic collision cases. Your claim is only as good as the defendant’s ability to pay and the insurance limits in the case. The best lawyer in the world can’t change that.

The plaintiff is a mom who had her young son in the car with her. The boy received treatment for minor injuries, but he suffered an impressive deal of trauma from witnessing what his mother endured. The son is fine now, and his mom is grateful. The client demanded $4,000 to settle her son’s claim.

This was first relayed to the GEICO rep by one paralegal to her calling to accept the policy limit’s offer for the child’s mother. The GEICO adjuster berated the paralegal, explaining Maryland law and how judges and juries operate. I called him today. Fighting hard for you, my readers, I repeatedly sought permission to record the call. They state they are recording our calls for “quality assurance”, yet the adjuster specifically denied this. Alas, I could not get any such permission. Continue reading

February 4, 2011

Claims Against Baltimore City

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

baltimore accident claims I was planning on writing a rant about dealing with adjusters in claims against Baltimore City. Instead, I’m just going to cut and paste some notes we have taken in our efforts to resolve this car accident claim. No liability dispute, everyone agrees a huge truck owned by the City rear-ended my client. The problem is getting the City to make an offer.

It is easy to stick your chest out when you are dealing with a recalcitrant defendant and say we are just going to sue. But that comes with costs and, with my office, an increase in attorneys’ fees. So it makes more sense for the clients in some situations to just wait out the insanity. But, really, get a load of this:

12/22/2010 – JES – called the main line for Baltimore City Government – [410-396-3100] and asked for a supervisor’s name for __________. The lady informed me she did not have a supervisor’s name, but she may be able to put me through to someone who can help. I was then transferred to a general voicemail for the law department. Instead of leaving a message, I called the CR herself. When I told her who I was and where I was calling from, she knew exactly which client I was going to reference and said, “it’s scheduled for Tuesday.” Before I even got a chance to ask any further questions, she hung up the phone.

January 5, 2011

Insurance Bad Faith Average Verdicts

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

A punitive damage award for an insurance company’s bad faith? It is a foreign concept for Maryland lawyers. But not for much of the rest of the country. A recent Jury Verdict Research study found that over the last twelve years, 32% of bad faith verdicts throughout the country led to a punitive damage award. The average bad faith punitive damage award was $6,951,219; the median award was $1,000,000.

That Maryland does not allow for punitive damages in bad faith claims is like my poor vertical jumping ability. I’m not that mad about it because it is all that I have ever known. I could never jump high (I could never even dunk a tennis ball) and I’ve never practiced where there was a potential for any real punitive damages in the cases we handle. But I definitely get “punitive damage envy” reading a study like this. Because it is a magnificent tool in keeping insurance companies honest.

November 3, 2010

Maryland Jury Trial Threshold Increased

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

As expected, Maryland voters overwhelmingly rubber-stamp approved by a two-to-one margin a constitutional amendment to increase the damages threshold for civil jury lawsuits from $10,000 to $15,000. What does this mean? Any case pled in District Court in Maryland for more than $10,000 can be “bumped up” to a jury trial. This recent law increases the amount to $15,000.

There was no real debate on this issue. Pretty much everyone supported it, including small businesses, except for car insurance companies (you can find my overview of this issue here).

My theory on this, that I expressed back in April, is that most voters are like me: if there is a constitutional change on the ballot and you have not heard a debate about it, you figure there is an excellent reason for it. Why? Because given the absence of public debate that would make me more knowledgeable on the topic, I defer to the Maryland legislature and figure they put it on the ballot for a reason. Some people will vote against everything they don’t fully understand because they have a different world view. I suspect that most people who voted for or against the bill last night did so more because of how they view the big picture on these types of questions as opposed to the merits of the bill (which is why I made the rubber-stamping joke).

October 19, 2010

Allstate Colossus Settlement

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Allstate has agreed to pay New York $1.2 million as part of a $10 million regulatory settlement involving Colossus, its infamous computer software that values personal injury auto accident claims.

Under attack was Allstate’s use of Colossus, a software program Allstate and many other insurance companies use to determine the value of injuries in motor vehicle crash claims. The claim against Colossus would shock no one who handles these cases: there are inconsistencies in Allstate’s management and oversight of the Colossus software program. Specifically, Allstate failed to modify or “tune” the software in a uniform and consistent manner in personal injury accident claims.

Under the settlement agreement, Allstate will change how Colossus is used:

Providing notice to claimants that the Colossus software program may be used in the adjustment of their bodily injury claims
Enhancing its management oversight of Colossus to ensure that it adheres to established criteria and a uniform methodology in selecting claims to be used to “tune” or modify the software to reflect recently settled claims
Strengthening its internal auditing of Colossus and bodily injury claims handling to ensure adherence to written guidelines and procedures
Merging its bodily injury claims handling practices into a single claims handling manual
Not establishing a policy or rule requiring claims adjusters to settle bodily injury claims solely on the value recommended by Colossus and not providing incentives for claims adjusters to settle claims at or near the value recommended by Colossus.

September 22, 2010

Pitcher Gets Verdict for Bad Pitcher’s Mound

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

There is a verdict in Metro Verdicts Monthly in Prince George’s County that I’m amazed has received no media coverage. The Plaintiff, a 17-year-old baseball pitcher, received a $52,703 verdict for the right arm fracture he suffered while throwing a pitch in a baseball game.

Two questions come to mind: who would you sue and what would cause action? Apparently, the Plaintiff’s lawyer found answers to both questions. The jury found that the tournament organizer, Baseball Players Association, built the pitcher’s mound too big and too deep.

Defendants argued what you would expect them to argue: the mound was fine, the plaintiff just threw the ball hard and these things happen. Defendant’s lawyer apparently also argued that there was no proof that the Plaintiff had, as he claimed, a scholarship offer at Delaware Tech and that he failed to follow his doctor’s orders for rehabilitation. Continue reading

April 13, 2010

My Mediation Article with Judge Gordy

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Yesterday, the Maryland Daily Record published the first of a three-part series I wrote with retired Judge Clifton J. Gordy (now a mediator and arbitrator) on mediation in serious personal injury and wrongful death claims. The article is for both plaintiff and defense lawyers looking to make mediations as productive as possible. Look at yesterday’s article, and look in coming editions for the final two parts.

March 24, 2010

MAIF

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Daily Record has an interesting article today on the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund (MAIF).

For out-of-state readers, MAIF is a unique animal: a state-run insurance company for drivers that cannot get car insurance from private insurers. Most states deal with this problem by forcing private insurance companies to insure high-risk drivers. In Maryland, we have created a huge state-run insurance company to insure the risk.

To me, MAIF is like stare decisis. I don’t think we would decide all over again to create a state agency. One good piece of evidence: no other state has followed suit and created their own version of MAIF. But now that we have it, there is no inertia to tear it down.

The Daily Record article talks about efforts in the Maryland legislature to essentially stop MAIF from acting as an insurance company. What’s the problem? Insurance companies are threatened by MAIF because they are stealing market share. One of the lobbyists quoted in the article complaining about MAIF works for Agency Insurance, which also insurers a lot of high-risk drivers. This isn’t the first time an insurance company that markets to high-risk drivers has complained about MAIF. (See this September 2, 2008 post.)

These same insurance companies also grab on to the up-with-people populist sentiment against bonuses for anyone connected to public funding, pointing to the $1.2 million in bonuses MAIF paid last year. They jump on the fact that MAIF Executive Director M. Kent Krabbe is the one who recommended the bonuses to the board and that Krabbe got $36,000 for himself.

I’m as big of a MAIF critic as anyone is. I think they are just plain obstructionists for paying valid claims and I think their approach often costs them money. They won’t try a high-risk case, but they also won’t offer their policy limits until after they spend a fortune in legal fees defending the case.

I have said in the past I don’t disagree with insurance companies’ tactics of playing hardball with personal injury lawyers to maximize their profits. Too many attorneys settle at the first sight of money or a potential trial. But hanging around in a wrongful death case – which they have done multiple times with us – when I know they are just going to offer the policy before trial – is just a poor business strategy. Good companies have over one gear. MAIF just has the one. At some point, turning the boat north and speeding up when there is an iceberg in your path is a terrible idea. Particularly when your plan is to jump off when the iceberg gets real close. Continue reading