This “article” is a primer on how to jump the litigation bandwagon. It’s completely premature and irresponsible. I can’t believe that this publication would dignify it with publication. “Hey! Just because you weren’t affected… no reason not to start suing someone right now! Clock is ticking!” Complete rubbish.
This article should have been labeled for what it is ” an advertisement for business” and an opportunity for a factual response should have been provided.
Anyone in the insurance industry who can say, with a straight face, that they hadn’t been made aware of PSAs should be fired for not paying attention.
They always had a taint to them and, in my opinion, should not have been used, however, they were widely known and written about over the last decade.
The bid rigging is a wholly seperate issue, but the PSA uproar is noting but grandstanding.
I wonder when the New York Ag or any other AG will stand up and fight for the public related to the way Lawyers charge? 200 hours of work in one week? Hopefully thats coming next.
The assertion that corporate clients should not take a look at potential wrongdoing by their brokers is rather incredulous, particularly in light of the recent AG action. It should not be forgotten that at least two AIG execs (and there will likely be more) have entered GUILTY pleas for involvement in a rather blatant criminal scheme. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an attorney seeking clients who have legitimate cases. I doubt any broker will be calling their clients to say “we’ve reviewed your file and found numerous breaches of our fiduciary duty which have resulted in considerable overcharges…here’s a refund”. Anyone who clamors the article is tantamount to ambulance chasing is probably guilty of similar misconduct, or is simply naive to the reality that misconduct is standard practice for some and has a significant financial impact on the industry as a whole (Marsh’s alleged $800 million profit?). The industry needs transparency towards its clients- a client has an absolute right to question the actions of its broker and demand proof that they have acted with the highest level of integrity.
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.
Matt – I agree. This guy is trying to get litigation business for his firm.
This is taken verbatim from Mr. Wood’s company website. Why not just posy his picture and business card?
This isn’t a news article; its a blatant attempt to incite litigation.
This “article” is a primer on how to jump the litigation bandwagon. It’s completely premature and irresponsible. I can’t believe that this publication would dignify it with publication. “Hey! Just because you weren’t affected… no reason not to start suing someone right now! Clock is ticking!” Complete rubbish.
First you published this in Claims Guides, now in Insurance Journal.
This isn’t news. This is advertising.
This article should have been labeled for what it is ” an advertisement for business” and an opportunity for a factual response should have been provided.
Anyone in the insurance industry who can say, with a straight face, that they hadn’t been made aware of PSAs should be fired for not paying attention.
They always had a taint to them and, in my opinion, should not have been used, however, they were widely known and written about over the last decade.
The bid rigging is a wholly seperate issue, but the PSA uproar is noting but grandstanding.
I wonder when the New York Ag or any other AG will stand up and fight for the public related to the way Lawyers charge? 200 hours of work in one week? Hopefully thats coming next.
I hope the IJ had the sense to charge for the ad space on a per letter fee basis.
remember, if there were no ambulance chasers we wouldn’t need a liability policy. They keep the underwriters and agents employed!!!
The assertion that corporate clients should not take a look at potential wrongdoing by their brokers is rather incredulous, particularly in light of the recent AG action. It should not be forgotten that at least two AIG execs (and there will likely be more) have entered GUILTY pleas for involvement in a rather blatant criminal scheme. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an attorney seeking clients who have legitimate cases. I doubt any broker will be calling their clients to say “we’ve reviewed your file and found numerous breaches of our fiduciary duty which have resulted in considerable overcharges…here’s a refund”. Anyone who clamors the article is tantamount to ambulance chasing is probably guilty of similar misconduct, or is simply naive to the reality that misconduct is standard practice for some and has a significant financial impact on the industry as a whole (Marsh’s alleged $800 million profit?). The industry needs transparency towards its clients- a client has an absolute right to question the actions of its broker and demand proof that they have acted with the highest level of integrity.