Bad Faith comes into play when the insurance company puts its own interests ahead of the interests of the insured. Here there was a 1M policy. The carrier was faced with a clear liability situation and potential damages beyond the 1M policy. The correct course of action would be to offer the 1M policy to protect the insureds interests. If they had done so there would be no bad faith exposure. The plaintiff would have likley settled for the policy limit and there would be no excess exposure. It if was offered, and the verdict was higher than the policy limit and the plaintiff didn’t accept and got a big verdict there would be no bad faith exposure to the carrier because they discharged their obligations. Instead they put in what I call the “hope” defense. They “Hope ” that a jury ,despite the facts, would be stingy and screw the plaintiff by awarding less than 1 M. Here, the jury was astute and awarded the full value of the case (75M) leaving its insured exposed for the excess– it was a good expensive education not to be too arroagant and so cavailer with the insureds interests
in response to woodchuck—the bartender and the “patron” were one and the same. Michael Pitaccio, the manager of the bar owned by a “family” corporation, SERVED HIMSELF alcohol to the extent that his blood alcohol content was calculated to be .25% at 10:30 in the morning, when the incident happened. He struck the plaintiff, did not stop, went home, struck his house with his car, then drove to New Jersey, where his sister called the police.
Read all the storys about bad faith. Ask yourself what we could do to help people- you see the people in
This county have been harm and look at all the waste, this may be a game to all for your lowballing– it has harm people we pay for a policy – my policy and the game have been in my life for 3 years because of lowballing I have loss 3 family members because of all the games. We need to all wake up PLEASE!!
I think what he is saying is that he blames the misfortunes of three family members upon insurance company misconduct. In addition I think that he is stating that cases of bad faith involving insurers have been largely ignored by the MSM (mainstream media) and they we should open our eyes to them.
I’m just making a guess.
“Read all the storys about bad faith. Ask yourself what we could do to help people- you see the people in
This county have been harm and look at all the waste, this may be a game to all for your lowballing– it has harm people we pay for a policy – my policy and the game have been in my life for 3 years because of lowballing I have loss 3 family members because of all the games. We need to all wake up PLEASE!!”
i did not see that he was the actual owner of the bar/company. even still, the owner of the bar shud be held completely responsible. now, his insur had a $1 million liability.
?? did the insurance company initially offer the bar owner more coverage prior to purchasing the policy? if so, why is it considered bad faith? the insurance company was going to pay the $1 mil. that wud have meant the bar owner had to come up w/the rest — so that is not in bad faith. afterall, he knew (especially in most states), the bar can be responsible for serving a drunk whom is willing to drive. makes matter worse, it was him, the owner who was drinking from his own bar.
Wow!! Though I am sorry for the injured party, this award is excessive. Remember this injury was caused by a drunken driver who choose to drink and drive. This is considered a criminal offense. I believe the responsible party is the driver “not the tavern”. Although the travern did have liablity insurance in place, I don’t believe the insurance company should take responsibility in excess of the policy limits. Crafty attorneys who will receive a large percentage of the award settlement will ultimately benefit from this judgement. In addition, now the business owner such as myself will be faced with higher insurance premiums. “The Insurance Doctor”
i have been saying this for sometime….we are always quick to blame others for the reason for our actions…but in the long run, we are actually responsible for our actions…it was not the bar that was drinking, but the driver…now, what is interesting fm the earlier comments, was that the driver was actually the bar owner…but u are right! why shud we always place the blame – except when u notice that there is a plausibility of making more money (especially lawyers)!…
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Woodchuk,
Bad Faith comes into play when the insurance company puts its own interests ahead of the interests of the insured. Here there was a 1M policy. The carrier was faced with a clear liability situation and potential damages beyond the 1M policy. The correct course of action would be to offer the 1M policy to protect the insureds interests. If they had done so there would be no bad faith exposure. The plaintiff would have likley settled for the policy limit and there would be no excess exposure. It if was offered, and the verdict was higher than the policy limit and the plaintiff didn’t accept and got a big verdict there would be no bad faith exposure to the carrier because they discharged their obligations. Instead they put in what I call the “hope” defense. They “Hope ” that a jury ,despite the facts, would be stingy and screw the plaintiff by awarding less than 1 M. Here, the jury was astute and awarded the full value of the case (75M) leaving its insured exposed for the excess– it was a good expensive education not to be too arroagant and so cavailer with the insureds interests
in response to woodchuck—the bartender and the “patron” were one and the same. Michael Pitaccio, the manager of the bar owned by a “family” corporation, SERVED HIMSELF alcohol to the extent that his blood alcohol content was calculated to be .25% at 10:30 in the morning, when the incident happened. He struck the plaintiff, did not stop, went home, struck his house with his car, then drove to New Jersey, where his sister called the police.
ok
Read all the storys about bad faith. Ask yourself what we could do to help people- you see the people in
This county have been harm and look at all the waste, this may be a game to all for your lowballing– it has harm people we pay for a policy – my policy and the game have been in my life for 3 years because of lowballing I have loss 3 family members because of all the games. We need to all wake up PLEASE!!
You might garner some empathy and support if your comments made some sense.
I think what he is saying is that he blames the misfortunes of three family members upon insurance company misconduct. In addition I think that he is stating that cases of bad faith involving insurers have been largely ignored by the MSM (mainstream media) and they we should open our eyes to them.
I’m just making a guess.
“Read all the storys about bad faith. Ask yourself what we could do to help people- you see the people in
This county have been harm and look at all the waste, this may be a game to all for your lowballing– it has harm people we pay for a policy – my policy and the game have been in my life for 3 years because of lowballing I have loss 3 family members because of all the games. We need to all wake up PLEASE!!”
Seems to me that Princeton got what they deserved for not dealing fairly in this case..
i did not see that he was the actual owner of the bar/company. even still, the owner of the bar shud be held completely responsible. now, his insur had a $1 million liability.
?? did the insurance company initially offer the bar owner more coverage prior to purchasing the policy? if so, why is it considered bad faith? the insurance company was going to pay the $1 mil. that wud have meant the bar owner had to come up w/the rest — so that is not in bad faith. afterall, he knew (especially in most states), the bar can be responsible for serving a drunk whom is willing to drive. makes matter worse, it was him, the owner who was drinking from his own bar.
Wow!! Though I am sorry for the injured party, this award is excessive. Remember this injury was caused by a drunken driver who choose to drink and drive. This is considered a criminal offense. I believe the responsible party is the driver “not the tavern”. Although the travern did have liablity insurance in place, I don’t believe the insurance company should take responsibility in excess of the policy limits. Crafty attorneys who will receive a large percentage of the award settlement will ultimately benefit from this judgement. In addition, now the business owner such as myself will be faced with higher insurance premiums. “The Insurance Doctor”
i have been saying this for sometime….we are always quick to blame others for the reason for our actions…but in the long run, we are actually responsible for our actions…it was not the bar that was drinking, but the driver…now, what is interesting fm the earlier comments, was that the driver was actually the bar owner…but u are right! why shud we always place the blame – except when u notice that there is a plausibility of making more money (especially lawyers)!…