Posted On: November 12, 2008

"Deny, Delay, Confuse and Refuse": An AAJ Report on the Subversion of Justice in America

I read an interesting expose put out by the American Association of Justice regarding insurance company tactics employed to prevent ordinary citizens from getting appropriate compensation for their injuries. Tricks of the Trade: How Insurance Companies Deny, Delay, Confuse and Refuse is written in the form of a law review article and tells the sad tale of the lengths that insurance companies will go to in their effort to subvert justice.

I do not intend, in this forum to regurgitate the entire article; it is very well written and informative, and the consumer (and the attorney) would be wise to read the entire article. To highlight, however, the article breaks down insurance tactics into six distinct categories:

1. Deny: This refers to the tactic of systematically denying claims to increase the bottom line, rewarding employees who do it well and punishing or replacing those who don't.

2. Delay: This is the practice of payment avoidance until people give up (Lawsuit Financial can provide assistance, here; more on that later) or, in despicable fashion, with elderly and chronically ill policy holders, refuse payment until the policy holder dies!

3. Incomprehensibilty: Refers to policy language that is virtually impossible for a lay person to understand, resulting in their not pursuing valuable, paid for, rights

4. Credit Scoring: The companies use credit scores to artificially increase rates to the poor and certain ethnic groups.

5. Retroactive Rescission or Cancellation: This is a policy used against seriously ill people to avoid paying a claim that will require multiple and substantial benefits over time because of the severity of the illness or injury.

6. Canceling for an Inquiry: This is the practice of canceling someone before they file a claim for the "sin" of merely inquiring about the possibility.

The article suggests several measures that the consumer can take to help avoid these tactics. The article recommends that the consumer:

Read his/her policy carefully, know his/her coverages and how to appeal a denial of coverage.

Be very careful in completing insurance claims forms as the insurance company may use an honest mistake as a reason to cancel or deny coverage.

Do not cash a premium refund check because this will likely rescind the consumer's insurance policy.

Put everything in writing; you will likely need it for proof. Keep a record of all correspondence and bills.

Contact your state insurance department or, if all else fails, consult with a lawyer. Most of all, says the author, DO NOT GIVE UP. Insurance companies count on you giving up. The author encourages you to fight for your rights.

While I strongly urge all consumers to read the important article that inspired this post, it does not mention lawsuit funding as an option to avoid some of these tactics and that is, in my humble opinion, a fundamental failing.

After you've hired that lawyer and decided not to give up, this serious question arises if you are injured and/or disabled: "How am I going to pay my bills? How can I fight this huge, well-financed and powerful insurance company when I can't work and have no income or savings?"

The answer, of course, is a non-recourse, legal cash advance from Lawsuit Financial. Legal finance is the great equalizer; the money that you need to get you from an earlier stage in the lawsuit to its conclusion. You will not have to cave in to insurance company stall tactics; legal funding will level the playing field and give you the staying power to slay Goliath. Lawsuit Financial provides litigation funding for most personal injury cases, disability cases and other insurance cases. Call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com. We will evaluate your lawsuit funding situation promptly and fairly, often in less than 24 hours. You have nothing to lose. The call is free; the advice could save your valuable assets and, above all, save your valuable case.

Posted On: November 11, 2008

"Tort Reform"-A Chance for President Elect Obama to Fight Injustice

Since our historic election of Barak Obama, a week ago, I have seen several articles that suggest that the subject of "tort reform" (which is really means "anti-justice" and "pro-insurance company") will be a hot political issue in his administration.

First, CQ reports: "One early policy battle in the Obama years will probably be the question of 'tort reform...plaintiffs' attorneys are keen to reverse Bush-era restrictions on tort litigation, while business groups fear that a Democrat-dominated federal government will do the bidding of the Democrats' influential trial-lawyer base of donors and expand plaintiffs' rights in tort cases... Barack Obama may well disappoint both advocacy factions."

Obama cast a 2005 Senate vote for a law shifting class action lawsuits to federal courts, considered a major business community priority. Linda Lipsen, senior vice president for public affairs of the American Association for Justice, said that while Obama's 2005 vote is 'a concern,' "...we are comfortable with our new president's priorities." According to CQ, the AAJ plans to press for an expansion on the right to sue for injuries related to faulty medical devices and for legislation barring companies from requiring customers to arbitrate rather than sue. Despite the outcome of the election, a spokesperson for the US Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform warned that "victory at the polls does not mean voters 'want Congress to give the plaintiffs' bar more ways to sue.'"

To further indicate that war is about to be waged on the liability front, the National Law Journal reports that "business and trial lawyers are expected to go head-to-head again over tort-related issues, but congressional experts now give the trial lawyers significantly more heft in the new Congress." David Arkush, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch, said that another "big agenda item" are "reversals of the Bush administration's expansion of federal pre-emption of state tort lawsuits in a number of regulated areas [and, in the workplace,] removing the current $300,000 cap on compensatory damages and punitive damages for violations of Title VII and the Americans With Disabilities Act."

It is also important to note that President Obama will appoint several federal district court and appellate court judges during his administration, including probable appointments to the United States Supreme Court. Thus, the battle lines are drawn and we should have a very interesting 4-8 years (at both state and federal levels) monitoring the simple right to civil justice in this country.

Lawsuit Financial provides litigation funding for Auto Accident cases, Premises Liability cases, Medical Malpractice cases and all other personal injury victims with pending lawsuits. Call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848), and talk to an experienced legal finance representative for free. Or, visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com. We want to be your law suit funding company and we will do everything in our power to earn your business.

Posted On: November 10, 2008

Falling Down: Slip & Falls Can Cause Serious Injuries

One topic of controversy in Michigan law is the so-called "open and obvious" doctrine. The doctrine has established that if a defect is "open & obvious", and a person falls over or on it, that person cannot collect damages unless the defect is "effectively unavoidable" or creates "an unreasonably high risk of severe harm". Most recent Michigan decisions have declared conditions that would cause someone to fall are unlikely to cause severe harm; therefore, the "high risk" requirement is not met. Plaintiffs attorneys have strongly disagreed; as stated before in this forum, the death of diet Doctor Atkins and the severe injury suffered by Ed McMahon caused by falls would suggest that falls can and often do result in serious and fatal injuries and that simple falls can create an "unreasonably high risk of severe harm".

Recently, the New York Times studied the issue of the serious injuries suffered by and the complex care needed for elderly citizens who have fallen. The article focuses upon the elderly and indicates that, according to the Center for Disease control, 1.8 million Americans over age 65 are injured in falls. If the fall is "minor", a victim may rebound as if an injury never happened. For some, however, the fall sets off a downward spiral of physical and emotional problems — including serious illnesses and infections that become too much for their bodies to withstand. In 2005, the last year for which statistics are available, out of 433,000 people over 65 who were admitted to hospitals after suffering a fall, an astounding 15,800 died as a direct result of the fall. This statistic does not include a large number of seniors who survive the fall but cannot survive the indirect consequences of the fall.

The next time someone suggests to you that a fall is no big deal, remind them of Dr. Atkins, Ed McMahon, or the unfortunate people referred to in the New York Times article.

I have said it before and I will say it again: Michigan residents should be outraged at the injustice of the "open & obvious" standard and the suggestion that a fall cannot create an "unreasonably high risk of severe harm". Contact your state representatives and ask them to sponsor a bill to make premises liability law fair for Michigan citizens. Every other area of the law is subject to the application of the comparative negligence standard except Premises Liability. Ask your State Representative to apply straight comparative negligence to Premises Liability litigation.

Lawsuit Financial Corporation is one of the country's leading law suit funding companies. We provide non-recourse cash advances in Premises Liability/Slip & Fall cases and all other Personal Injury cases. Call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com.