by Guest » Thu Dec 02, 2010 07:02 pm
:?
Facts
10/09 Head-on collision - other driver at fault
Both vehicles totaled
Recd payment for my vehicle - $24k
$23k in medical bills
My Injuries - broken right wrist, arm, bruised sternum, soft tissues injuries to neck and shoulder. Right handed
Personal Injury claim filed and I obtained an attorney
My info
46yr married diabetic no pre-existing conditions or fractures
5/10 my attorney submitted medical records and demand package
7/10 at fault insurance adjuster requested all medical records for last 5 years.
8/10 my attorney submitted signed release forms to at fault ins adjuster.
9/10 my attorney checked on status, at fault ins adjuster stating they were still missing some records 1 - from my OB/GYN and 1 - from my optometrist.
When I called the drs listed above I was told they never sent payment for the medical records so they just waiting for payment from the at fault ins adjuster.
Is this normal I can't help but get frustrated and feel they are trying to just drag this out. I have been patient and ran around getting medicals records from doctors that have nothing to do with the injuries I suffered from the car accident ie., eye doctor come on . What else should I expect from the at fault ins adjuster
Facts
10/09 Head-on collision - other driver at fault
Both vehicles totaled
Recd payment for my vehicle - $24k
$23k in medical bills
My Injuries - broken right wrist, arm, bruised sternum, soft tissues injuries to neck and shoulder. Right handed
Personal Injury claim filed and I obtained an attorney
My info
46yr married diabetic no pre-existing conditions or fractures
5/10 my attorney submitted medical records and demand package
7/10 at fault insurance adjuster requested all medical records for last 5 years.
8/10 my attorney submitted signed release forms to at fault ins adjuster.
9/10 my attorney checked on status, at fault ins adjuster stating they were still missing some records 1 - from my OB/GYN and 1 - from my optometrist.
When I called the drs listed above I was told they never sent payment for the medical records so they just waiting for payment from the at fault ins adjuster.
Is this normal I can't help but get frustrated and feel they are trying to just drag this out. I have been patient and ran around getting medicals records from doctors that have nothing to do with the injuries I suffered from the car accident ie., eye doctor come on . What else should I expect from the at fault ins adjuster
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 08:18 pm Post Subject:
Personal Injury claim filed and I obtained an attorney
What does your attorney say? If she thinks everything is moving along as "usual", then I would leave it at that. If she doesn't already know, I would pass the information along that you found out from the doctor. She may have to send a letter to get things moving again.
If it helps, my wife was hit head-on by another driver before your accident and your case is much further along than hers. It just depends on the specifics of the case. You just want to get yourself better and move forward from there. Expect that this will take another two years and then if it takes less time, you'll be pleasantly surprised. Manage your expectations and don't get too involved in the day-to-day of the case. That's what the lawyer is for! :)
Good luck to you!
Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 02:33 am Post Subject:
So true. When my lawyers office called me stating that when they did a monthly check on the status of the demand letter that is when they found out the at fault insurance adjuster stated she had not recd all of my medical records and was waiting on my eye doctor and my OB/GYN doctor.
My attorney explained they are looking for pre-existing condition before offering a settlement but I just felt that an eye doctor and a OB doctor would not be treating me for a broken arm or wrist.
I am now wishing a told my doctor of the after affects of my broken arm and wrist that I am experiencing but I think it is too late. I finished treatment and did not know that I would be having this aching pain and crackling sound forever. Oh well nothing I can do but be frustrated and let the system work
Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 05:34 am Post Subject:
I'm always amazed at how quickly people think they need to involve an attorney in a PI claim situation. They sign an agreement to GIVE UP as much as 40% of the recovery, then wait months for the scheisster to get off the pot and get them some money.
In the meantime, they come to places such as this forum to ask, "How long should this take? Why haven't the doctors or the hospitals been paid?" instead of asking the goofball they are paying good money to for the answer.
Folks . . . if you've been seriously injured in a traffic collision or suffered some other kind of personal injury, spend a couple of months trying to negotiate things on your own with the insurance company. If the other party is at fault, you are entitled to having your medical expenses paid, your property damages paid, and possibly some of those "general damages" for pain & suffering.
The only time you need an attorney is if the other party's insurance company will not accept liability or is offering you a settlement that is unreasonably low. But . . . even before you go looking for an attorney, if you feel you are not being dealt with fairly by an insurance company, turn FIRST to your state's Dept of Insurance and file a complaint. If the insurance company is acting badly, it will be discovered, and they will very likely change their attitude toward you.
But once a lawyer is involved, you no longer have the FREE RESOURCES of the Dept of Insurance to work with on your behalf.
PLEASE! Stop paying attention to all the lawyer commercials on radio and TV. Insurance companies, by and large, handle claims efficiently, promptly, and fairly. They may need some time to properly investigate a claim, especially if it seems suspicious in any way. It should not take an exceptionally long time in most cases -- a few months at most.
Once an attorney is involved, however, you might expect things to drag on for 1-3 years or longer. And you may not get more than you could have obtained on your own in 1/3 the time. Don't waste your time or money needlessly!! But don't let things drag on beyond your state's statute of limitations for filing an injury civil suit -- usually 2-3 years from the date of the injury (longer in a few states).
Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 07:47 am Post Subject:
Max I guess my post was misleading I was trying to take short cuts in my wording. I did try to settle with them and was successful with my car I fought tooth and nail and did my research. My injury claim was not as successful. I was received monthly calls for about a month because I was in physical therapy then the adjuster seem in a rush "and basically told me he had to "wrap up" this claim before the end of the year, that was in 2009. I felt rushed and insulted since I had a fractured wrist and arm and did not want to rush into settling on anything until I knew my total outcome.
Well we argued and I spoke my mind. The phone calls from him stopped . I made three more phone calls leaving messages and gave up since none of my calls were returned. I spoke with another claim rep and said he was on vacation. I was shocked to hear they had no one else covering his claims while he was out. I did not feel I had to chase him or beg for some assistance in this matter so I spoke with a friend who is an attorney and let him take over. This is my first claim and have been very happy with my attorney. He has stayed on the ball called me with updates (on his own).
It is assumed that insurance adjusters do not like attorneys and your response clearly confirms this. Despite you opinion not all attorneys are scheissters just like not all insurance adjusters arent crooks trying to short change injured claimants all for their sake of their employer.
Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 03:19 pm Post Subject:
My attorney explained they are looking for pre-existing condition before offering a settlement but I just felt that an eye doctor and a OB doctor would not be treating me for a broken arm or wrist.
If you don't have perfect eyesight, then you are more likely to misjudge objects when you go to lean on them with your wrists, thus making you more prone to wrist injuries. If you were already prone to wrist injury, then the accident was not completely to blame for the extent of your injuries. That, of course, will lower your settlement. LOL! Sorry, I couldn't help myself. :)
But seriously, just keep pushing the paperwork. Everyone has to do their job, so that's what they're going to do.
I am now wishing a told my doctor of the after affects of my broken arm and wrist that I am experiencing but I think it is too late.
I'm not a doctor, but in my opinion, it's not too late. Go back to the doctor. Why would you hide the negative affects of the accident, especially before you settle with the party responsible to pay for it? And let your lawyer know too so he can yell at you for trying to make his job harder by helping the auto insurance company.
I finished treatment and did not know that I would be having this aching pain and crackling sound forever.
Well, you need to bring that up with your doctor to find out, is this something you will indeed have forever? Or do you need more treatment to get it fixed? Your doctor should be able to guide you. Do you have a primary care physician that you trust? Consult him and get a referral to someone he trusts.
Oh well nothing I can do but be frustrated and let the system work
It is frustrating. But do let the system work. Let the doctors you trust decide whether you can be fixed or not. Let the lawyers you trust decide what it's "worth" for you to be having to deal with all of this.
Good luck to you, and keep us updated on how your treatment and case goes. I think it's really helpful for others out there to hear from those actually involved in the process. It's great that there are some nice insurance adjusters on this board, but unfortunately, not everyone gets to deal with a nice insurance adjuster when they get hurt.
-Dave
Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 04:15 pm Post Subject:
I'm always amazed at how quickly people think they need to involve an attorney in a PI claim situation.
I've seen you give some really good advice, but that is such a loaded statement. Who in this thread "quickly" got an attorney? Who in this thread "think they need" an attorney but, in your opinion, don't really?
Maybe because you are an insurance agent you are given professional courtesy that the rest of us don't generally receive. With all due respect, it sounds like you are a little removed from some of the realities that people have to deal with.
Most of us have no idea what "pain and suffering" is even worth. If you're perfectly healthy and someone offers to hurt you bad enough to make you suffer with neck problems, for instance, for the rest of your life, what's that worth to you? Would you really willingly let someone do that to you for, say, $100,000? I wouldn't. Yet a price is still put on this even though we all know that it's by no means a fair exchange. Do you really expect the average person to trust what the insurance company -- whose interest is to minimize the payout -- tells them their pain and suffering is worth? To me, that's just a really, really bad idea.
I still have no idea what "pain and suffering" is worth, but I do know what my car was worth. That was fairly straight forward to figure out. And when the insurance company offered to give me no more than 60% of what it was worth, then I knew it was time to get a lawyer. If they were going to shave 40% off of a tangible that anyone could easily research, imagine what would they shave off of an intangible that's more difficult to research.
Some of these insurance companies should do themselves a favor and quit being so greedy upfront because it is really costing them.
Like I said, I've seen you give good some really advice elsewhere, but I think your advice here, if taken, could really cost a lot of people a lot of money. So that's why I'm throwing in my $0.02. :)
-Dave
Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 09:56 pm Post Subject:
Thanks Dave I never thought of it that way (the part about leaning on my wrists more due to poor eye sight) thankfully I have 20/20 vision.
My attorney called me today and said the adjuster said she will have a settlement offer within two weeks.
Thanks again
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 05:04 am Post Subject:
Who in this thread "quickly" got an attorney?
Read the "Facts" posted by the OP at the top of the page. Accident 10-09, vehicle damages, medical bills, and INSTANTLY "Personal injury claim filed and I obtained an attorney."
The truth is, she got an attorney before the PI claim (aka: intent to sue, or an actual civil suit) was filed. The attorney filed the claim sometime before 5-10, so how much effort did the OP put into obtaining a settlement on her own from the insurance company?
THAT'S what I mean when I say people turn to the lawyers too soon. Or people think every little accident (even if the medical bills are $20,000+ -- it doesn't take much medical care to get to that point at all) is worth $1,000,000 courtesy of all the lawyer ads on radio and TV, and they never give the insurance company a chance to settle a claim.
So look at the end result here. The insurance company has been sued, so now they're really going to go to great lengths to protect their interests. They're going to drag this out as long as they can. Why not? The OP's attorney is going to collect 30%-40% for what little effort he may be putting into letter writing at this point, so make him work for his money.
Maybe because you are an insurance agent you are given professional courtesy that the rest of us don't generally receive. With all due respect, it sounds like you are a little removed from some of the realities that people have to deal with.
I may be an insurance agent, but I'm no big fan of EITHER insurance companies or lawyers. I get NO "professional courtesy" from any insurance company when it comes to the coverage I pay for OR the claims I might need to file.
But I am definitely NOT removed from the realities of this world. I DO KNOW what "pain and suffering" is -- and I know that there is NO WAY to pin any specific amount of money on any particular injury. It is ENTIRELY subjective, and it may require looking to see if a person has had previous injuries or not. Current injuries might not be entirely the result of the current incident, so why should an insurance company be responsible in such an instance? Got to give them a little time to investigate a claim.
My father was nearly killed in a traffic collision in 1973 on city streets in Los Angeles at 6am one morning -- no witnesses on the police report. (Remember this detail for later.) T-boned on the passenger's side by a 10,000 lb. GVW delivery truck, that wrapped his station wagon around a signal pole at the driver's door. Had to use the "jaws of life" tool to open it up to get him out. A 65" wide vehicle was collapsed to barely more than 32" wide at that point.
Had both legs broken, one in traction for more than 5 months, followed by two corrective surgeries (one on each leg), a broken pelvis, broken arm, and assorted cuts from broken glass, and the assorted bumps and bruises. He spent 4 months in the hospital, and was then discharged home in a hospital bed because his leg was still in traction. He was off work 11 months (couldn't convince him to stay off work another month to collect Social Security Disability).
His auto insurance company and that of the at fault party were the same. But long before he ever had an opportunity to attempt a settlement with the insurance company, a "friend" who was a lawyer connected him with a "name brand" lawyer's office. They filed a $1,000,000 lawsuit . . . "We're going to win this one for you, Mr. Herr," he was told.
And here's what they "won": a $51,000 settlement on the day the trial was about to begin -- more than three years after the accident. Seems there was a "surprise" witness to the accident who just happened to be the best friend of the business owner whose vehicle was driven by an illegal alien who fled the country after the accident and was never located. He claimed he saw the accident, but never stopped and didn't let the police know he was a witness.
The lawyers who were so sure of themselves, cowards that they really were, tucked their tails and said, "OK, so what are you willing to offer?" $51,000 was tossed on the table and they took it. Never even attempted to challenge the witness. Never claimed their right to "discovery". I was about 25 at the time -- several years before I found my way into the industry. But I began to learn some lessons about the industry. And about lawyers.
Problem was, no one thought about "subrogation." My dad's medical bills had been paid by his health insurance -- but this was a third-party claim, and not a responsibility of the health insurance company. Medical bills (1973 dollars) -- $33,000.
Because he was considered "on duty" while driving to work, this was actually a worker's comp claim. But his employer conveniently did not pay the hospital/doctor bills, and they paid his income the entire time he was off work. So now they owed the $33,000 to the hospital, and they wanted that back, along with the $18,000 in wages they had paid.
Do the math . . . $33,000 + $18,000 = $51,000. But the attorneys got their 33% off the top, $17,000. The employer agreed to take $20,000 as liquidated damages, leaving my dad with $14,000 after all was said and done. Barely covered the cost of the replacement car he had to buy and allowed him to put $5000 in the bank.
Had he not be "turned on" to the attorney right away, the most likely outcome without an attorney would have been payment of all his medical bills by his employer's WC company (subrogated to the auto insurance company), and probably a $50,000 (or more, the commercial auto policy had a $1,000,000 liability limit) cash settlement for the "pain and suffering" without the blink of an eye.
But faced with a "policy limit" lawsuit, their attitude was entirely different, and what should have been an amicable situation was instantly turned into an adversarial situation. That's exactly what has happened in this OP's case.
Get a lawyer BEFORE amicable has any chance of becoming adversarial, and the whole thing is INSTANTLY adversarial. That's what YOU don't seem to realize, Dave.
No one. least of all me, is arguing that there has been no pain and suffering in this OP's situation. But lawyers always inflate the value of it, often unreasonably.
someone offers to hurt you bad enough to make you suffer with neck problems, for instance, for the rest of your life, what's that worth to you?
You raise a legitimate question. But just 4-5 months following an injury, who can even begin to know if this is a lifetime thing or something that will be over with in another 2-3 months? That's why we have, in most states, at least 2 YEARS to decide to file a legal claim instead of accepting a cash settlement today. And apparently it is over, because the OP confidently reports that a settlement offer will be coming in two weeks. She did not say, "But my soft tissue still hurts, so what do you think I should do."
And when the insurance company offered to give me no more than 60% of what it was worth, then I knew it was time to get a lawyer
Fine. If you think you can't negotiate for more at that point, go ahead and get an attorney. But look at the economics: (as an example) If you are saying your vehicle was worth $10,000, then they are willing to give you $6000, right? So you go get an attorney, who tells you, "I get 33% of your settlement," and you agree to that. What's the most your attorney will get for your $10,000 car? $10,000. So the insurer finally agrees to pay $10,000. Your lawyer takes $3333.33, leaving you with $6666.67.
Could you NOT have negotiated the additional $666.67 on your own? That's only an 11% increase. Peanuts. With just a little bit of effort, you might have even gotten $7000 or $7500. What did the lawyer do for you that you could not have done for yourself? If they gave the lawyer $10,000 . . . guess what? You could have gotten the same thing. THEY WROTE THE CHECK FOR THAT AMOUNT.
But no, you were intimidated by them (not a lawful practice), and turned to the attorney instead. That's your choice to make, and you make it or not.
What I'm trying to point out to folks here is that IT'S JUST AN INSURANCE COMPANY you're dealing with. They aren't anything special. We give them far more credit than they deserve sometimes. If you believe you are right, why give up?
I have a check for $0.36 from American Express for the overpayment on my account when I closed it. For nearly three months, they refused to send me the credit balance on the closed account -- "We don't write checks that small." Well, it wasn't their money to keep. If they don't write checks for that amount, I said, "Send me postage stamps, send me a quarter, a dime, and a penny." And they said, "We don't do that."
We went around and around, 6 or 7 days a week for 11 weeks, with me calling their 1-800 phone number -- long distance calls at their expense -- until some manager realized that I was costing them $10-$20 per week in phone charges. They sent me a check for $0.36 even though, "We don't write checks for that amount."
I still have the check -- laminated! I didn't NEED the money, but it was MY money, and I was willing to FIGHT for it on my own. And I won.
Guess what? People can do that with any insurance company, every day of the week. But they don't. They think only a lawyer can do that. They give up. They give in. They surrender long before the "battle" has even begun.
Because they THINK it's going to be a battle, when, in most cases, it's a pleasant negotiation. And it's settled quickly and efficiently and to everyone's satisfaction.
What do we get here in these forums? The relatively few instances when things haven't gone as smoothly. When you look at the "facts" -- sometimes it's because an OP fails to understand their coverage, and they don't get what they think they are owed, because it's not covered the way they think. And sometimes they have a legitimate gripe against the insurer. How many times have I and others told folks to complain to their state Dept of Insurance.
I'm not the only one here who doesn't see lawyers as part of the problem, not a solution. tcope, BNTRS, Lori, InsTeacher, and more -- they've all commented about getting a lawyer involved needlessly.
Look at all the posts where people write something like, "I've had the same insurance company for ten years, and I've paid them a lot of money, and now when I have this claim, they don't want to pay." As if they are entitled to having a claim paid just because they've been paying premiums.
Well, insurance doesn't work that way either. You get what the contract entitles you to get.
And that's what insurance companies should be paying all the time. But I understand they don't always pay the full claim, which is wrong, in my book.
But you and I don't always pay full price for things we buy either. We "haggle" or "bargain" with the vendor for a discount, and they either agree or they don't, right? If they aren't willing to lower the price, what do you do? Buy it or look somewhere else? Sometimes we give in and buy at their price, sometimes we don't give up and we find it somewhere else for less.
But we don't go out and hire an attorney to do our bidding for us, do we?
That's my point.
You only need the attorney when you can no longer do it on your own. People just don't think they can do it on their own, and that's just not true.
Some of these insurance companies should do themselves a favor and quit being so greedy upfront because it is really costing them.
Know what? I agree with you 100%. I tell my insurance students, "Insurance companies are in business to make money," and then I ask them, "What keeps insurance companies in business?" And sometimes someone will answer, "Not paying claims."
And I have to correct them. Because PAYING CLAIMS is exactly what "keeps them in business." An insurance company that only collected premiums and never paid a claim would be (1) put out of business by the regulators, or (2) would never do new or renewal business with anyone once it was known that they don't pay claims.
But like any business, they try to reduce their cost of doing business, of which claims are a huge part. So they sometimes treat people with indifference, and sometimes they get away with it. Then all of us who are agents hear about it. It doesn't make people happy, and it shouldn't. Which is to say, it should not be happening.
When the regulators hear about it, and they discover that it's true, they act. And it has cost some insurance companies BIG BUCKS to have been caught like that. But when you look at complaint statistics, few complaints are actually upheld because the complainant is wrong. They failed to understand their coverage, and they thought the insurance company was jerking them around.
Do you really expect the average person to trust what the insurance company -- whose interest is to minimize the payout
Here, you're a bit misguided in your thinking. Insurance companies are not out to "minimize" the payout.
Insurance companies pay claims, every day. Hundreds of billions of dollars per year are paid for all sorts of claims. They simply try to avoid paying more than they are obligated to pay. You may call it "minimize" the payout, I call it "honoring the contract."
Sometimes they try too hard to honor the contract and don't pay what they should. That's where the problem is. So if you don't believe the offer is fair, you keep after them to make them justify the amount, or to increase it to your satisfaction. Or you complain to the regulators.
but I think your advice here, if taken, could really cost a lot of people a lot of money
That's your opinion, and I'm not here to tell you its wrong or tell you that you are not entitled to an opinion. Far from it.
All I'm saying is that people probably give up MORE money by involving an attorney than they think they gain.
I'm NOT telling people NOT to obtain an attorney when it's necessary, I'm just trying to get people, like you, to realized that there is a right time and wrong time to do that.
The wrong time is to get an attorney is too soon, and the right time to get one is before it's too late.
It's sort of like the decision to buy insurance. We don't really want it before we need it, but if we wait until we need it, we have probably waited too long. So we get it sooner rather than later. And . . . it costs us money. If we wait too long, it costs us a lot more. But we don't improve our situation by getting it too soon.
You don't improve your chances of collecting money from an insurance company by getting an attorney. Unless the insurance company has come to the point where they are no longer negotiating. That's when you may need an attorney. And a judge and jury. And at that point, even though you ought to win, those other people might not see it your way. Then what did the attorney do for you?
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 05:57 pm Post Subject:
Max, no matter which points that we ultimately agree or disagree upon, I have to tell you that I do appreciate your argument and the manner in which you present it. Very nicely done.
The attorney filed the claim sometime before 5-10, so how much effort did the OP put into obtaining a settlement on her own from the insurance company?
Well, a lot can happen in seven months. Even though it may take a couple of years to make sure that certain injuries are not permanent, for instance, if a person is being treated badly by an insurance company, then they lose any and all confidence that the insurance company will ultimately negotiate in good fatih. I think this drives people to lawyers as much, if not more, than the thought of a big payout.
I may be an insurance agent, but I'm no big fan of EITHER insurance companies or lawyers.
Well, that's one area where we are in agreement. Just like there are good and bad insurance companies, there are certainly good and bad lawyers.
I know that there is NO WAY to pin any specific amount of money on any particular injury. It is ENTIRELY subjective
I agree with you on that as well. A permanent scar across the face may be devastating to one person while it may barely bother another.
My father was nearly killed in a traffic collision . . . leaving my dad with $14,000 after all was said and done.
It sounds like what happened to your father was terrible. It also sounds, in all fairness, like he got a really bad lawyer. So maybe the problem wasn't necessarily that he got a lawyer; maybe the problem was that he got a bad lawyer.
Get a lawyer BEFORE amicable has any chance of becoming adversarial, and the whole thing is INSTANTLY adversarial. That's what YOU don't seem to realize, Dave.
I realize what you are saying, but I disagree with you. Because one side is paying the money and the other side is receiving the money, the situation is adversarial to begin with. I agree that the two sides can, in theory, reach an agreement without a lawyer. But the insurance company comes to the table backed by experts with decades of collective experience in dealing with these types of cases and the individual comes to the table with... nothing. If the case is complicated in any meaningful way, the individual can be at a severe disadvantage.
But no, you were intimidated by them (not a lawful practice), and turned to the attorney instead. That's your choice to make, and you make it or not.
LOL! No, the people I dealt with were not intimidating in any way. What they were was stubborn and unreasonable. And when a stubborn and unreasonable person won't budge, then he won't budge. Thankfully, we have legal remedy to deal with those kind of people.
That's only an 11% increase. Peanuts. With just a little bit of effort,
Man, how I wish I could have dealt with someone like you!
OK, let's use the actual numbers involved in my case just to make it a little more fun. Their initial offer was $2,500. The car was worth $4,000. What "little bit of effort" do you suppose would have got them to come up? I provided them with over two dozen comparable vehicles. There were tons of them in the online classifieds. But they didn't want to look at any of those. All they wanted to do was look at the report from their 3rd party company which stated that it couldn't find any comparables. (It's no surprise that the same company had just settled a multimillion dollar class-action lawsuit for ripping people off.)
They finally decided they were done "negotiating", sent a check with paperwork stating on the cover page stating that I could accept what they offered even though the remaining amount was in dispute. The included paperwork, however, contained all kinds of language that, if I signed, would prevent me from trying to get anything more from them. It was a nice trick, but it didn't work.
So, because they were trying to rip me off for 40% on something that I could readily research, I could only imagine what they'd try to rip me off on something that I couldn't so easily research. So I hired a lawyer. For the personal injury stuff only.
Regarding the property damage, that was still mine to deal with. Although the lawyer did offer to help. He sent a letter. And made a couple phone calls. But they wouldn't budge. My lawyer said he hadn't seen anything like this and he didn't understand why they were holding out over such a small amount of money.
So then I went to the California Department of Insurance. After filing a claim, they ultimately told me they could not force the insurance company to do anything and that my recourse was small claims court or a lawyer. They do not disclose any regulatory actions resulting from claims, so who knows what eventually happened to the insurance company.
So, after all that, I filed a small claims suit against their insured and the driver of the car (the driver was driving a relative's car). That case might not have come to much since they both gave false addresses at the accident scene, but my lawyer was able to produce valid addresses for me. I had a friend serve the papers on one defendant, but the other had left the state. So the trial date would have to be delayed.
Meanwhile, the insurance company started calling me wanting to negotiate. I was no longer interested in playing around. I had already done all the leg work and had over 100 comparable automobiles to show the judge. I had the advertisements for each of the vehicles and I had subpoenaed DMV records showing sales prices for cars sold by dealers. I decided not to take any of their calls.
I petitioned to have the trial delayed (there was still the matter of the out-of-state character) but then noticed something. Even though I had served the court documents to one defendant, the court still had the false address. So the defendant, and subsequently the insurance company, wouldn't know about the delay.
A couple of days before the original trial date (my petition had been granted and the court date moved out a month), I got an overnight letter offering me $3,500 for my car. Gee, where was that months earlier? I waited until the day before the original trial date and made a phone call. I countered with $4,000 and they accepted.
I know that's a long story, but I think it shows several things. First, even though the insurance company was ultimately willing to pay $4,000 when everything was adversarial, they wouldn't even pay $3,000 when everything was all nice. Second, just about anyone can figure out the value of an automobile. If these guys would try to pull such a maneuver over a fairly objective valuation, what would they try to pull with a subjective valuation? Third, the time required to get the money I was owed was ridiculous. A lawyer can reduce or eliminate that. Fourth, people at insurance companies are not necessarily all that bright. Reason and documentation sometimes mean nothing to them. Next time, instead of wasting weeks dealing with them, a $50 small claims filing fee and a $35 DMV records subpoena will do the trick much quicker and much easier. Fifth, it was never about the money, it was about the principle of the matter. It feels really good having beat the insurance company despite all the dirty tricks and stonewalling.
I still have the check -- laminated! I didn't NEED the money, but it was MY money, and I was willing to FIGHT for it on my own. And I won.
LOL! I love it! I know exactly how you feel! Way to stand up for yourself.
Guess what? People can do that with any insurance company, every day of the week.
Yes they can, but when the insurance company has "reasons" for their valuation, no matter how contrived those "reasons" are, sometimes the legal system is the only remedy. That means small claims court for the little stuff and lawyers for the bigger stuff.
But we don't go out and hire an attorney to do our bidding for us, do we?
No we don't, but we generally have an idea of what tangible items are worth, and if we don't, we can look it up. I can't tell you the last time I've seen an ad for neck and shoulder pain, headaches twice a week, or a knee that hurts for years, possibly forever. What's the dollar value on that because no one out there seems to be willingly paying for it.
They simply try to avoid paying more than they are obligated to pay. You may call it "minimize" the payout, I call it "honoring the contract."
Well, how in the world is paying $2,500 for a $4,000 item that someone destroyed (without asking if they could destroy it, by the way) "honoring" anything?
I'm NOT telling people NOT to obtain an attorney when it's necessary, I'm just trying to get people, like you, to realized that there is a right time and wrong time to do that.
Well, it would be nice if you were to help people realize the pitfalls that the insurance companies will try to snag you in while waiting to decide whether to hire that lawyer or not. For instance, trying to get you to sign away your rights while accepting "partial" or "undisputed" payment. Or signing a medical release that gives them access to all of your medical records, related to the accident or not.
You talk about a settlement going from amicable to adversarial. Within two weeks of the accident, the insurance company was trying to get us to sign sweeping medical releases. Not signing those, isn't the process adversarial? They tried to get us to accept money for the "undisputed" portion of the claim. Not signing the accompanying papers which actually released them from all liability in exchange for the money, isn't the process adversarial? Threatening to make us pay for storage fees if we don't settle the case when the car is in fact at a no fee facility... isn't that adversarial?
I would love to know your opinion on this: if the insurance company uses any of these dirty tricks, should you immediately assume the process is adversarial? Because many of these tricks happen within just a couple of weeks. So I can't see how waiting for months and months of opportunities to be tricked helps anything.
-Dave
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 08:09 am Post Subject:
like he got a really bad lawyer.
Didn't want to bring it up, but does the name "Melvin Belli" ring a bell? (He assigned one of his newbies to the case and it fell apart at the last minute.)
Their initial offer was $2,500. The car was worth $4,000.
You're absolutely right, what you may not have done that you may still be able to do is file another complaint with the CDI over unfair claims practices, because paying you what they should have AFTER forcing you to take the matter to court is a violation of CIC 790.03.
Within two weeks of the accident, the insurance company was trying to get us to sign sweeping medical releases. Not signing those, isn't the process adversarial? They tried to get us to accept money for the "undisputed" portion of the claim. Not signing the accompanying papers which actually released them from all liability in exchange for the money, isn't the process adversarial? Threatening to make us pay for storage fees if we don't settle the case when the car is in fact at a no fee facility... isn't that adversarial?
I'm not entirely sure this is what I mean by adversarial, but I certainly would not play the game as you describe it. The sad part is, SOME insurance companies take advantage of people and people don't complain. It's when people don't complain that things get out of control. The Dept of Insurance is not going to find every little violation without some assistance.
Got to leave for church. Will return to this later today or tomorrow. But very much liking the discussion! Lots of opportunity to educate others.
Add your comment