By company policy \”minor impact\”/\”low damager\” claims were not to be settled. Instead they were to be \”fully litigated\” and every effort was to be made to make it financially unfeasible for the insured to obtain any benefits regardless of whether liability was clear or not. The company policy was to \”fully litigate\” such claims by:
i. retaining \”outside\” counsel rather than attempt to resolve the claims;
ii. instructing outside counsel commence formal discovery;
iii. retaining biomechanical experts and accident reconstructionists on \”low damager\” cases;
iv. instructing outside counsel subpeona records instead of using authorizations to obtain
medical and employment records;
v. taking depositions of the claimant/insured, even after the insured had voluntarily given a recorded statement; and
vi. forcing the insured/claimant to undergo so-called IME\’s performed by doctors the company was confident would give reports unfavorable to the claimant/insured.
19. I was told of this policy when I was a bodily injury negotiator by Superintendent Elizabeth Haines in approximately 1993. Haines instructed me to immediately implement this policy and instructed others to do so as well in my presence. Ms. Haines instructed me to \”broadcast\” this unwillingness to settle and desire to litigate \”low damager\” claims to all plaintiffs attorneys offices I dealt with. Ms. Haines told me this policy was being implemented on a regionwide basis.
20. During this conversation and others Ms. Haines and Angelo Mazza (Divisional Claim Manager, now two levels above Mr. Arnold in the chain of command) communicated the \”low damager\” policy to me and others in my presence.
21. The stated goal and purpose of the \”low damager\” policy was to make it unprofitable, too expensive and costly, for plaintiff\’s attorneys to handle \”low damager\” cases, even those in which liability was clear. As explained to me, the results of the policy were intended to be a short-term increase in legal fees for the company but a significant long term decrease in benefits payments once the plaintiffs bar became aware that handling \”low damager\” cases would be too costly and unprofitable. From both personal experience and from what I have been told at State Farm, this policy was extremely effective. When I left the comply in in August of 1996 the \”low damager\” policy was still in effect.
#1 Don’t blame the insurance industry for your having to carry insurance on your home. If I remember my insurance 101 correctly, it is not the insurance companies that require you to purchase insurance on your home. The banking industry and more specifically the mortgage industry requires that you purchase the coverage. Why does the banking industry require you to purchase insurance? The reason behind that in order for a bank to be federally insured, the bank must be able to prove that it will remain solvent. To do that, the bank must be sure that it will be able to collect on loans it makes. (note I am talking legitimate banks and not these sub prime loan groups)
#2 Right now there are two problems with homeowners insurance in Florida. The first is cost and the second is availability. The route that the state is taking is going to greatly impact the availability of insurance. We see that now with carriers backing out of the state or not accepting new business. As the number of carriers decreases, the remaining carriers percentage of exposure in an area increases. Our reinsurers do not like for us to have too high of an exposure in any one area and they in turn charge the industry higher premiums, forcing the rates up even more. So how does that impact cost? If the state would stay out of the insurance business and allow open competition, the probability is that there would be more carriers doing business in the state. Competition feeds competitiveness and while the premiums may be higher than “YOU” want them to be, coverage would be available and probably at a lower cost than todays rates.
#3 Finally, while it is interesting to read some of the emotional posts on this sight the amount of misinformation or the illogical positions taken prove that very few people outside of the industry actually understand anything more than Premiums In = Losses Out.
You have more of an education than I could ever afford?
I can go buy a box of Cracker Jack and pull out the little prize diploma too. I can even get the matching drivers license!
Your grammar is horrible, your spelling worse and your reading comprehension is horrendous. In addition to that, you lack logic skills necessary to have a debate with someone. As someone else posted before \”You can\’t have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.\” And you, my dear, are as unarmed as it gets around here (with a couple of exceptions).
I hope aunti everything doesn\’t mind if I post this quote- \”Nutters just post illegible messages on web sites with no knowledge of the subject.\” I LOVE that quote…so true.
to pay for the policy limits of just ONE home that has been destroyed?
If my HO insurance is $1500 a year… and yours is $xxxx and the next person\’s is $xxxx and someone\’s home is destroyed by fire… their limit is $200,000 on the dwelling… how many insurance premiums get sucked up paying just that ONE loss?
If a company has a 30% expense ratio (which is maybe a little high, but not necessarily,) it takes 191 policy premiums of $1500 to cover a $200,000 loss. ouch.
I\’m at a loss as to why people answer Kathy. She is a typical supercilious person that feels she comprehends the business others are in. Never mind that most insurance agents are college graduates, some with advanced degrees and most with professional designations. She ignores the fact that most insurance company executives have advanced degrees or law degrees. KATHY KNOWS BEST!
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.
By company policy \”minor impact\”/\”low damager\” claims were not to be settled. Instead they were to be \”fully litigated\” and every effort was to be made to make it financially unfeasible for the insured to obtain any benefits regardless of whether liability was clear or not. The company policy was to \”fully litigate\” such claims by:
i. retaining \”outside\” counsel rather than attempt to resolve the claims;
ii. instructing outside counsel commence formal discovery;
iii. retaining biomechanical experts and accident reconstructionists on \”low damager\” cases;
iv. instructing outside counsel subpeona records instead of using authorizations to obtain
medical and employment records;
v. taking depositions of the claimant/insured, even after the insured had voluntarily given a recorded statement; and
vi. forcing the insured/claimant to undergo so-called IME\’s performed by doctors the company was confident would give reports unfavorable to the claimant/insured.
19. I was told of this policy when I was a bodily injury negotiator by Superintendent Elizabeth Haines in approximately 1993. Haines instructed me to immediately implement this policy and instructed others to do so as well in my presence. Ms. Haines instructed me to \”broadcast\” this unwillingness to settle and desire to litigate \”low damager\” claims to all plaintiffs attorneys offices I dealt with. Ms. Haines told me this policy was being implemented on a regionwide basis.
20. During this conversation and others Ms. Haines and Angelo Mazza (Divisional Claim Manager, now two levels above Mr. Arnold in the chain of command) communicated the \”low damager\” policy to me and others in my presence.
21. The stated goal and purpose of the \”low damager\” policy was to make it unprofitable, too expensive and costly, for plaintiff\’s attorneys to handle \”low damager\” cases, even those in which liability was clear. As explained to me, the results of the policy were intended to be a short-term increase in legal fees for the company but a significant long term decrease in benefits payments once the plaintiffs bar became aware that handling \”low damager\” cases would be too costly and unprofitable. From both personal experience and from what I have been told at State Farm, this policy was extremely effective. When I left the comply in in August of 1996 the \”low damager\” policy was still in effect.
THE HANDLING OF THE STOLIAR CLAIMS
Jewel,s
Comment:
I care. I just don\’t think you should get to steal my money from me.
#1 Don’t blame the insurance industry for your having to carry insurance on your home. If I remember my insurance 101 correctly, it is not the insurance companies that require you to purchase insurance on your home. The banking industry and more specifically the mortgage industry requires that you purchase the coverage. Why does the banking industry require you to purchase insurance? The reason behind that in order for a bank to be federally insured, the bank must be able to prove that it will remain solvent. To do that, the bank must be sure that it will be able to collect on loans it makes. (note I am talking legitimate banks and not these sub prime loan groups)
#2 Right now there are two problems with homeowners insurance in Florida. The first is cost and the second is availability. The route that the state is taking is going to greatly impact the availability of insurance. We see that now with carriers backing out of the state or not accepting new business. As the number of carriers decreases, the remaining carriers percentage of exposure in an area increases. Our reinsurers do not like for us to have too high of an exposure in any one area and they in turn charge the industry higher premiums, forcing the rates up even more. So how does that impact cost? If the state would stay out of the insurance business and allow open competition, the probability is that there would be more carriers doing business in the state. Competition feeds competitiveness and while the premiums may be higher than “YOU” want them to be, coverage would be available and probably at a lower cost than todays rates.
#3 Finally, while it is interesting to read some of the emotional posts on this sight the amount of misinformation or the illogical positions taken prove that very few people outside of the industry actually understand anything more than Premiums In = Losses Out.
I don\’t think the insurance industry would mind if you move the private market out. It sure would eliminate problems for us.
You have more of an education than I could ever afford?
I can go buy a box of Cracker Jack and pull out the little prize diploma too. I can even get the matching drivers license!
Your grammar is horrible, your spelling worse and your reading comprehension is horrendous. In addition to that, you lack logic skills necessary to have a debate with someone. As someone else posted before \”You can\’t have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.\” And you, my dear, are as unarmed as it gets around here (with a couple of exceptions).
I hope aunti everything doesn\’t mind if I post this quote- \”Nutters just post illegible messages on web sites with no knowledge of the subject.\” I LOVE that quote…so true.
to pay for the policy limits of just ONE home that has been destroyed?
If my HO insurance is $1500 a year… and yours is $xxxx and the next person\’s is $xxxx and someone\’s home is destroyed by fire… their limit is $200,000 on the dwelling… how many insurance premiums get sucked up paying just that ONE loss?
As difficult as it was, I read most of her posting. I think she helps Michael Moore with his Documentaries.
David Slays Goliath. Thank you Kathy.
If a company has a 30% expense ratio (which is maybe a little high, but not necessarily,) it takes 191 policy premiums of $1500 to cover a $200,000 loss. ouch.
I\’m at a loss as to why people answer Kathy. She is a typical supercilious person that feels she comprehends the business others are in. Never mind that most insurance agents are college graduates, some with advanced degrees and most with professional designations. She ignores the fact that most insurance company executives have advanced degrees or law degrees. KATHY KNOWS BEST!