Minor car accident - now with ambulance chasing law firm

D

Disp_sl

shitlord
1,544
1
Hatorade_sl said:
Still so tired of insurance and I have been out of it for almost a year, you can ask ANY question about insurance and the answer is always a fucking paragraph.
Click to expand...
I didn't know you got out of the industry. Got tired of the BS eh? I can't even imagine how much crap you have to deal with on the claims side. We got a note a month ago telling us that customer service will no longer answer coverage questions. So now we're left trying to interpret vague policy language for a lot of stuff, which is awesome. Healthcare is the fun one. Fortunately we don't touch billing or claims whatsoever, so we don't have to deal with a lot of it. I imagine being an adjuster/claims person is one of the most stressful jobs in the U.S.. You've got to battle both your supervisor, and the agent/client and somehow make everyone happy.

Last couple years everything is getting much tougher because no one wants to answer any specific questions for just about anything because they put themselves on the hook when it invariably doesn't work out that way.
 
Hoss

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
25,580
12,049
Cad_sl said:
Insurance company isn't going to lie about it. Any attorney is going to ask the insurance company, not you. Insurance coverage is discoverable in the ensuing lawsuit so if they were to lie it would come back on them. Its just not productive.
Click to expand...
Can't be assed to re-read the thread, but I thought the lawyer was calling him personally asking what his coverage limits were, as well as asking the insurance company, and both of them were refusing to answer. If it's discoverable during the lawsuit, I see no reason not to just tell them as soon as they ask.

Sooooo, are you saying it wasn't a real lawyer calling and harassing OP?
 
Cad

Cad

<Bronze Donator>
24,487
45,378
Hoss_sl said:
Can't be assed to re-read the thread, but I thought the lawyer was calling him personally asking what his coverage limits were, as well as asking the insurance company, and both of them were refusing to answer. If it's discoverable during the lawsuit, I see no reason not to just tell them as soon as they ask.

Sooooo, are you saying it wasn't a real lawyer calling and harassing OP?
Click to expand...
I'm not saying anything of the sort.

However, it seems incredibly unlikely that a lawyer would call the actual client knowing they are represented by the insurance company - there's literally nothing to gain and a lot to lose by talking to them. If they're represented by counsel already (from the ins. co) its a fairly serious ethical breach.
 
Void

Void

Experiencer
<Gold Donor>
9,421
11,088
Not to mention, just because something is discoverable in a lawsuit doesn't mean it should be volunteered. It gives the lawyer additional information that they shouldn't necessarily have when making their demands. I realize this is common sense (which apparently has no place in the legal system anymore), but a demand should be for a reasonable amount based on the accident/injuries/treatments etc. not what your policy limits are. Which is why they shouldn't be given them if possible. If they want to go ahead with the lawsuit (most ambulance chasers prefer to avoid that since it eats into their actual profits, because they have to work for them now), sure they can discover all they want. But why give it away for free?
 
Cad

Cad

<Bronze Donator>
24,487
45,378
Vvoid_sl said:
Not to mention, just because something is discoverable in a lawsuit doesn't mean it should be volunteered. It gives the lawyer additional information that they shouldn't necessarily have when making their demands. I realize this is common sense (which apparently has no place in the legal system anymore), but a demand should be for a reasonable amount based on the accident/injuries/treatments etc. not what your policy limits are. Which is why they shouldn't be given them if possible. If they want to go ahead with the lawsuit (most ambulance chasers prefer to avoid that since it eats into their actual profits, because they have to work for them now), sure they can discover all they want. But why give it away for free?
Click to expand...
Because the demand amounts are generally irrelevant to what the insurance company is going to pay, and the insurance company wants to avoid the expense of a suit as well.
 
Jovec

Jovec

?
737
284
For clarity, the claimant's lawyer demand policy limits from my insurance, whose policy is to ask whether or not I want to release them. When asking my claims adjuster for advice, she stated that it is there position to pay for actual damages, which I inferred to mean do not release the limits. After having been refused once, the claimant's lawyers have again demanded the policy limits to be made known. The only contact the claimant's lawyer had with me was an initial call asking for my policy number.

Based on the language of the form I signed indicating my choice, I believe my insurance can release my policy limit info without my consent should they so desire.

The claimant's lawyers have now sent in conditional HIPAA compliant authorizations, but my insurance wants "complete medial specials and billing or unrestricted HIPAA compliant authorizations." His lawyers are also asking for the accident photos either I took, the repair shop took, or both (the claimant took his own at the scene as well), but my insurance states those to be "our work product and privileged information."

Not related to this, but previously his lawyer sent in some demand and gave a "deadline" to respond, but the postmark on the letter showed it was mailed after that deadline had already passed.

Vvoid_sl said:
I realize this is common sense (which apparently has no place in the legal system anymore), but a demand should be for a reasonable amount based on the accident/injuries/treatments etc. not what your policy limits are.
Click to expand...
I agree. I would like to think that any reasonable jury would see the immediate demand for the maximum policy limits, as opposed to actual damages and medical expenses, for what it is. I imagine asking for limits and the like is just standard practice.
 
Hatorade

Hatorade

A nice asshole.
8,180
6,600
HIPPA shit is standard they want to see if you have any prior related injuries, it will also give them access to any ongoing records related to accident like ongoing therapy of any kind etc. If you are legit you don't have anything to worry about.

The demand for a response within any given time is pointless because the strict laws are in place and the insurance companies know they have a certain amount of time to respond, it works both ways on various things so if lawyer is slow to respond they can forfeit certain things like rebuttals/disputes.
 
Hoss

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
25,580
12,049
Thats strange, why not? As a juror, a plantiff's lawyer demanding policy limits multiple times sure seems like evidence of intent to commit fraud to me. How could something like that not be admissible? If you had video of the plantiff standing up from his wheelchair and waltzing in the hallway immediately before the trial, would that not be admissible either?
 
Cad

Cad

<Bronze Donator>
24,487
45,378
Hoss_sl said:
Thats strange, why not? As a juror, a plantiff's lawyer demanding policy limits multiple times sure seems like evidence of intent to commit fraud to me. How could something like that not be admissible? If you had video of the plantiff standing up from his wheelchair and waltzing in the hallway immediately before the trial, would that not be admissible either?
Click to expand...
The wheelchair example would be relevant to the extent of the injury and damages at issue in the case.

However, settlement negotiations could never be conducted in good faith if they could be used in front of the jury later, it would be 100% posturing to avoid submarining your case. Since it is in everyone's interest to settle cases early and often, settlement negotiations (which a demand of policy limits is nothing but a settlement offer) are excluded from evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.