I need to find an attorney to help resolve or sue my insuran

by Guest » Mon Oct 18, 2010 03:43 am
Guest

I filed a claim in March, initially they declined my claim. 2 weeks later they came back & said they were reconsidering my claim they though they had liability, then didn't hear from them for 5 months although I repeatedly called. Now they decided there were going to assist me, would not allow me to work with the attorney I selected prior to their involvement and they assigned me an attorney they had a relationship with. The attorney had a limited conversations with me but he kept copying the insurance company of our communications after telling me that our conversations with privileged- he mislead me. He also twisted what I said so it could work in the favor of the insurance company. I reported to the insurance company that I don't want to work with their attorney and want them to pay for an attorney that I hire. I really need help as I have substantial damages. Can you recommend any lawyers that deal with this type of issue with the insurance company and can mitigation my damages from the initially problems.

Total Comments: 6

Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 04:48 am Post Subject:

Wow... a hole lot of information left out of your post!

Okay.... I'm guessing this is your carrier and that you appear to be liable in an auto accident. Your carrier is now going to extend you coverage under your policy and it appears that the other party has filed a legal Complaint (filed suit).

Your policy provides you a defense. It does not state that you get to choose the defense (attorney). If you want to pay for your own attorney to represent you, you can do this.

He also twisted what I said so it could work in the favor of the insurance company.

How would twisting something you said work in their favor? The insurance company is responsible for all of the legal fees and also any judgement/settlement made up to your policy limits. I don't see how something you stated could work in their favor and against you.

I really need help as I have substantial damages

_You- have damages? How is this relevant to the attorney appointed to defend you? Do you really mean that you have an extensive exposure?

Is there any indication that this loss may exceed your policy limits? If so, you may want to write a letter to your insurance company and ask for a different attorney. Explain your reasoning and also that their failure to act upon your request may allow for an excess judgement and if this occurs, that you intend to file a Bad Faith claim against them.

With that said, they won't assign the claim to another attorney. Nothing will change at this time. What this does is helps you later on if there is an excess judgment. It allows you to file a Bad Faith claim against them and that letter is ammunition in the Bad Faith claim.

Keep in mind that the _only_ exposure you have in this case is an excess verdict or punitive damages (punitive damages almost never happen in situations like theses).

Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:02 am Post Subject:

Now they decided there were going to assist me, would not allow me to work with the attorney I selected prior to their involvement and they assigned me an attorney they had a relationship with. The attorney had a limited conversations with me but he kept copying the insurance company of our communications after telling me that our conversations with privileged- he mislead me. He also twisted what I said so it could work in the favor of the insurance company. I reported to the insurance company that I don't want to work with their attorney and want them to pay for an attorney that I hire.



Well, this sort of makes no sense at all. If you were injured by someone else, your insurance company would not be providing an attorney for you at all. So this makes it sound as if you were the at-fault party and your insurance company is providing you with a defense.

You don't have to use their attorney if you don't want to. But you are not in a position to dictate to the insurance company what they will pay for. Your contract states that they will provide you with a defense, and that the cost of the defense is in addition to your other policy limits. If you choose to provide your own defense, you may be exposing yourself to not having the claim against you paid by them, unless they first give you permission to be represented by outside counsel.

Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 03:30 pm Post Subject:

If you choose to provide your own defense, you may be exposing yourself to not having the claim against you paid by them, unless they first give you permission to be represented by outside counsel.

Not exactly... but I can see why you say this. An insurance company can never deny an insured their own attorney (and in some cases people do obtain their own attorneys) but they can invoke their right not to provide coverage for lack of cooperation. That is, the insured needs to cooperate with the assigned attorney in providing a defense. Also, the attorney that the insured hires would understand how the system works and would work with the assigned attorney to address the loss.

The difference is that the insurance company would not just deny coverage if the insured (also) obtained their own attorney.

Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 08:56 pm Post Subject:

the insured needs to cooperate with the assigned attorney in providing a defense.



Absolutely correct. But if the OP is the injured party, not the at fault party, then there is nothing for the OP's insurance company to defend. That's what doesn't make sense if I'm reading the OP's post correctly. Why do they need the insurance company's lawyer?

Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 09:48 pm Post Subject:

I'm under the impression that the OP is the one who is liable. The OP is not clear on this but I'm 99% sure this is the case.

Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 03:11 am Post Subject:

The OP is not clear on this but I'm 99% sure this is the case.



Indeed, you could be, and probably are, correct. For all the others who wander upon such vague posts as this, I feel we owe them a duty to present the possibilities of both sides, just in case. Sort of like playing "devil's advocate."

But that role usually falls to the attorneys themselves.

Add your comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.