SOME COMPANIES are stubborn or have been in the past with authority. So for the sake of argument let’s assume SOME COMPANIES did actually do what would have been according to most of the Commercial Auto Policies denied coverage to the driver(not in the course and scope of employment).
Some companies may have had an attorney there to represent the named insured but not the driver. The named insured is the deep pocket not the driver, so the driver agrees to a consent judgment with the plaintiff for the $75,000,000 with an agreement not to execute against the driver but only to the extent of the money the plaintiffs can get against the insured and their insurer.
There is now for all practical intents and purposes a judgment against the insured and for that matter SOME COMPANIES. The insured may also have been concerned for their assets and have been a party to the consent judgment. They may have demanded that SOME COMPANIES settle the claim within the policy limits and SOME COMPANIES refuse to do so and decides they want to take their chance at trial.
Now what do SOME COMPANIES do with a $75,000,000 judgment against them? Do they appeal something that will cost them an arm and a leg to appeal with no guarantees or do they attempt to make bitter lemonade out of bitter lemons and hope the adjuster who originally had this claim has some sugar to make it sweeter or can they bury the claim with a confidentiality agreement.
Let’s go back to SOME COMPANIES do not like to settle claims until they are against the wall. How many attempts were there made by the plaintiffs and/or SOME COMPANIES to settle the claim? Remember this is a catastrophic injury and even if there is no liability on the named insured thee are never any guarantees in a jury trial. How many times had the adjuster ignored a settlement offer that made sense either with or without management approval.
Again keep in mind SOME COMPANIES are stubborn and for some reason do not understand sometimes even for SOME COMPANIES putting the interest of the insured is what their primary duty should be above all others. There should have without a doubt been coverage for the named insured, maybe not for the insured driver. Coverage issues are totally different than liability issues. Liability issues are manipulated by juries and judges and attorneys on both sides. There are situations just as one person referred to, that the two sides(attorneys know the outcome of the case prior to the resolution because deals have been made by the attorneys. By the way what were the total legal bills involved in defending and settling the cases for the company, the named insured and the insured driver once all was said and done. How much entertaining of the company, people handling this claim or for that matter any claims the firms handled for the companies was there? How many legal fees did this company manage to collect from these companies?
How many cases did they try? How many did they settle? At what point were they settled… early on when it was clear it needed to be settled or at the courthouse steps when suddenly everything went south.
By the way that doesn’t happen as often as defense counsel would have you believe if they were honest. That doesn’t excuse the file handlers, that barn door should have been closed much earlier. In defense of the file handler SOME COMPANIES have long been known as believing in hiring the most for the least, work them to death and don’t pay them too much. If you have to pay them they must be worth something so they aren’t needed at SOME COMPANIES unless you can work them into the ground and burn them out so they can’t even work files they way they are capable of doing. If that’s not enough why not check into some contributions made by some company for certain catastrophes. How was the contribution made and who got the tax credit when the company did not ask but made the decision rather than giving raises to its employees they would make a large tax deductible contribution in the company’s name and for a year no employee would get a raise. Wonder if that applied to bonuses and salaries of the higher echelon? Tomorrow I election day…..shall we vote?
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.
SOME COMPANIES are stubborn or have been in the past with authority. So for the sake of argument let’s assume SOME COMPANIES did actually do what would have been according to most of the Commercial Auto Policies denied coverage to the driver(not in the course and scope of employment).
Some companies may have had an attorney there to represent the named insured but not the driver. The named insured is the deep pocket not the driver, so the driver agrees to a consent judgment with the plaintiff for the $75,000,000 with an agreement not to execute against the driver but only to the extent of the money the plaintiffs can get against the insured and their insurer.
There is now for all practical intents and purposes a judgment against the insured and for that matter SOME COMPANIES. The insured may also have been concerned for their assets and have been a party to the consent judgment. They may have demanded that SOME COMPANIES settle the claim within the policy limits and SOME COMPANIES refuse to do so and decides they want to take their chance at trial.
Now what do SOME COMPANIES do with a $75,000,000 judgment against them? Do they appeal something that will cost them an arm and a leg to appeal with no guarantees or do they attempt to make bitter lemonade out of bitter lemons and hope the adjuster who originally had this claim has some sugar to make it sweeter or can they bury the claim with a confidentiality agreement.
Let’s go back to SOME COMPANIES do not like to settle claims until they are against the wall. How many attempts were there made by the plaintiffs and/or SOME COMPANIES to settle the claim? Remember this is a catastrophic injury and even if there is no liability on the named insured thee are never any guarantees in a jury trial. How many times had the adjuster ignored a settlement offer that made sense either with or without management approval.
Again keep in mind SOME COMPANIES are stubborn and for some reason do not understand sometimes even for SOME COMPANIES putting the interest of the insured is what their primary duty should be above all others. There should have without a doubt been coverage for the named insured, maybe not for the insured driver. Coverage issues are totally different than liability issues. Liability issues are manipulated by juries and judges and attorneys on both sides. There are situations just as one person referred to, that the two sides(attorneys know the outcome of the case prior to the resolution because deals have been made by the attorneys. By the way what were the total legal bills involved in defending and settling the cases for the company, the named insured and the insured driver once all was said and done. How much entertaining of the company, people handling this claim or for that matter any claims the firms handled for the companies was there? How many legal fees did this company manage to collect from these companies?
How many cases did they try? How many did they settle? At what point were they settled… early on when it was clear it needed to be settled or at the courthouse steps when suddenly everything went south.
By the way that doesn’t happen as often as defense counsel would have you believe if they were honest. That doesn’t excuse the file handlers, that barn door should have been closed much earlier. In defense of the file handler SOME COMPANIES have long been known as believing in hiring the most for the least, work them to death and don’t pay them too much. If you have to pay them they must be worth something so they aren’t needed at SOME COMPANIES unless you can work them into the ground and burn them out so they can’t even work files they way they are capable of doing. If that’s not enough why not check into some contributions made by some company for certain catastrophes. How was the contribution made and who got the tax credit when the company did not ask but made the decision rather than giving raises to its employees they would make a large tax deductible contribution in the company’s name and for a year no employee would get a raise. Wonder if that applied to bonuses and salaries of the higher echelon? Tomorrow I election day…..shall we vote?