its not the trial lawyers who are hurting the system, its the insurance industry..pure and si mple; its their greed that caused the damage in the first place..you never see a lawyer on the jury that awasrds th ose damages..its rate payers like us who are trying to level the playing field..wtg guest..
the insurance companies also say they will defend their client when a lawsuit arrises out of an automobile accident. That does not happen either. You pay your premiums and when something happens you are given the least amount of treatment providing the least amount of $$. the insurance companies see you (the great customer as long as the premiums come in)then when something happens you are a liability. It is strictly a take care of your self business profit oriented only. Insurance companies claims representatives do and say anything to \”discount\” the payments on claims. They bank on the uneducated in the matter of insurance and the law of the person making the claim. You can be sure of one thing – miss your premium by one day and you are out! No loyalty there now time to increase your rates.
I find it incredible that anyone with 1/2 a brain would ever work for Allstate. This case confirms that not only does Allstate treat its customers like dirt but it also treats its employees the same way. (See Allstateinsurancesucks.com) The only thing that allows this company to stay in business is the constant, ever flowing propaganda it spews that convinces the uneducated that somehow you are in \”Good Hands\” when they are your insurance company. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Scott asks some good questions. It would be nice to know why Guest and Allstate were sued by the accident victims–i.e., for bad faith, for loss of evidence, for conspiracy, etc. In any event as an ex-Allstate defense attorney, I do not think it would be unusual for Allstate to defend and indemnify its attorney for a suit against the attorney which arose out of work performed on behalf of Allstate and/or its insureds. Although I was never a party to such a case, I have seen other cases filed where the attorney\’s malpractice carrier is left out of the picture and the employing carrier agrees to defend and indemnify the attorney. So I don\’t think Guest\’s claim that Allstate initially agreed to indemnify her is far fetched. The more interesting question is why Allstate changed its mind–did Allstate later learn something about Guest\’s conduct that it didn\’t know when it initially promised to defend her? I would also comment that the total award, including punitive damages, is substantially
more than Suzanne Guest could have earned in her remaining lifetime as an Allstate defense counsel. The hourly rate paid by Allstate is not that great. So Suzanne is the clear beneficiary of a $9 million punitive damages windfall from the jury. As for the compensatory award of $1.8 million, that seems high as well. Suzanne could have started a new legal practice like she did in New Mexico (I believe she moved there from Denver); her compensation should have been limited to her loss while re-establishing herself.
Allstate treated her like they wanted her to treat all claimants or insureds. Now, I guess she understands the dark soul of her employer.
This is not new. Allstate has lots of failure to defend cases. They consistently lowball legitimate claims by injured non-insureds and screw over their insureds.
I\’m glad to see that Allstate is no different in New Mexico than it is in New Jersey—they are the worst example of corporate greed in the USA. I understand that there is a lawyer in Texas who is about to publish a book detailing Allstate\’s deliberate plan to subvert the claims process and the court system in the US.
(1) Why was Allstate supposed to defend the attorney? The article makes it sound like Allstate was simply the attorney\’s client. Was Allstate also her legal malpractice carrier?
(2) It\’s fairly odd for a party in a lawsuit to file a second lawsuit against the opposing party\’s attorney? What did the injured party claim the attorney representing Allstate did wrong?
(3) Was the attorney an in-house lawyer for Allstate (ie, an Allstate employee)? If not, did Allstate somehow prevent her from taking on other clients?
There are too many holes in this story to figure out if what the jury decided was reasonable.
So if I am reading you right Hal we just let the Allstates of the world continue to conduct their business to the detriment of their insureds and their employees without any consequences or ramifications? Whatever happened to the concept of being responsible for one\’s actions–mega insurance companies included. I am sure Allstate had plenty of opportunity to resolve the claim for substantially less than $11,000,000. Instead, they probably denied the claim or lowballed it like they do with almost every claim they are presented. Since they treat mostly all claims the same–poorly– it is just a question of time when they will get hit big as was seen in this claim. Statistically it is bound to catch up with their intentionally poor claims process.
Your \”jack pot\” justice argument is the same propaganda spewed by the industry every day without a shred of foundation or truth. I am sure this Albuquerque attorney drank of the same kool-aid vat that you drink from until Allstate turned on her as it eventually does with many of its employees and most of its insureds. I have heard the angry stories of many former Allstate adjusters and house counsel confirming Allstate\’s mistreatment of them despite their dedication and devotion to all things Allstate and years–sometimes 20 plus– of working for Allstate.
Its incredible how blinded Allstate\’s apologists are to Allstate\’s actions, which are detrimental to our society as a whole. The best thing that could happen is that Allstate gets hit like this hundreds of times and they go out of business to be replaced by a more socially responsible member of the Insurance Industry. The jury heard 8 days of testimony and came to its conclusion. You dismiss, with the touch of a keystroke, that jury\’s work by suggesting somehow in your distorted way of thinking that Allstate is the victim. Let\’s hope you are never on the bad side of an Allstate or any other bad insurance company decision. However, if you ever are, we can only hope that you don\’t turn hypocrit on us and make a stink or file a legal action, even if your life savings is lost or your livlihood has been terminated, so you can never be accused of seeking \”jack pot\” justice.
Nope. That\’s not what I\’m saying. I\’m saying that an independent contractor (the lawyer in this case) needs liability insurance. Professional liability insurance, in the case of a lawyer.
Standard defense is to pass the buck. The general contractor passes the buck to the independent subs. It\’s common in construction and the principal is not different here.
How do you know she was an independent contractor? All of her work was for Allstate and I must assume that Allstate exercised some degree of control over her work activities.
It is likely that the jury found her to be an employee and, as such, owed defense and indemnification by her employer, Allstate, who, as usual, proved penny wise and pound foolish.
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.
its not the trial lawyers who are hurting the system, its the insurance industry..pure and si mple; its their greed that caused the damage in the first place..you never see a lawyer on the jury that awasrds th ose damages..its rate payers like us who are trying to level the playing field..wtg guest..
the insurance companies also say they will defend their client when a lawsuit arrises out of an automobile accident. That does not happen either. You pay your premiums and when something happens you are given the least amount of treatment providing the least amount of $$. the insurance companies see you (the great customer as long as the premiums come in)then when something happens you are a liability. It is strictly a take care of your self business profit oriented only. Insurance companies claims representatives do and say anything to \”discount\” the payments on claims. They bank on the uneducated in the matter of insurance and the law of the person making the claim. You can be sure of one thing – miss your premium by one day and you are out! No loyalty there now time to increase your rates.
I find it incredible that anyone with 1/2 a brain would ever work for Allstate. This case confirms that not only does Allstate treat its customers like dirt but it also treats its employees the same way. (See Allstateinsurancesucks.com) The only thing that allows this company to stay in business is the constant, ever flowing propaganda it spews that convinces the uneducated that somehow you are in \”Good Hands\” when they are your insurance company. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Scott asks some good questions. It would be nice to know why Guest and Allstate were sued by the accident victims–i.e., for bad faith, for loss of evidence, for conspiracy, etc. In any event as an ex-Allstate defense attorney, I do not think it would be unusual for Allstate to defend and indemnify its attorney for a suit against the attorney which arose out of work performed on behalf of Allstate and/or its insureds. Although I was never a party to such a case, I have seen other cases filed where the attorney\’s malpractice carrier is left out of the picture and the employing carrier agrees to defend and indemnify the attorney. So I don\’t think Guest\’s claim that Allstate initially agreed to indemnify her is far fetched. The more interesting question is why Allstate changed its mind–did Allstate later learn something about Guest\’s conduct that it didn\’t know when it initially promised to defend her? I would also comment that the total award, including punitive damages, is substantially
more than Suzanne Guest could have earned in her remaining lifetime as an Allstate defense counsel. The hourly rate paid by Allstate is not that great. So Suzanne is the clear beneficiary of a $9 million punitive damages windfall from the jury. As for the compensatory award of $1.8 million, that seems high as well. Suzanne could have started a new legal practice like she did in New Mexico (I believe she moved there from Denver); her compensation should have been limited to her loss while re-establishing herself.
Good for her.
Allstate treated her like they wanted her to treat all claimants or insureds. Now, I guess she understands the dark soul of her employer.
This is not new. Allstate has lots of failure to defend cases. They consistently lowball legitimate claims by injured non-insureds and screw over their insureds.
Lots more to come!
I\’m glad to see that Allstate is no different in New Mexico than it is in New Jersey—they are the worst example of corporate greed in the USA. I understand that there is a lawyer in Texas who is about to publish a book detailing Allstate\’s deliberate plan to subvert the claims process and the court system in the US.
(1) Why was Allstate supposed to defend the attorney? The article makes it sound like Allstate was simply the attorney\’s client. Was Allstate also her legal malpractice carrier?
(2) It\’s fairly odd for a party in a lawsuit to file a second lawsuit against the opposing party\’s attorney? What did the injured party claim the attorney representing Allstate did wrong?
(3) Was the attorney an in-house lawyer for Allstate (ie, an Allstate employee)? If not, did Allstate somehow prevent her from taking on other clients?
There are too many holes in this story to figure out if what the jury decided was reasonable.
So if I am reading you right Hal we just let the Allstates of the world continue to conduct their business to the detriment of their insureds and their employees without any consequences or ramifications? Whatever happened to the concept of being responsible for one\’s actions–mega insurance companies included. I am sure Allstate had plenty of opportunity to resolve the claim for substantially less than $11,000,000. Instead, they probably denied the claim or lowballed it like they do with almost every claim they are presented. Since they treat mostly all claims the same–poorly– it is just a question of time when they will get hit big as was seen in this claim. Statistically it is bound to catch up with their intentionally poor claims process.
Your \”jack pot\” justice argument is the same propaganda spewed by the industry every day without a shred of foundation or truth. I am sure this Albuquerque attorney drank of the same kool-aid vat that you drink from until Allstate turned on her as it eventually does with many of its employees and most of its insureds. I have heard the angry stories of many former Allstate adjusters and house counsel confirming Allstate\’s mistreatment of them despite their dedication and devotion to all things Allstate and years–sometimes 20 plus– of working for Allstate.
Its incredible how blinded Allstate\’s apologists are to Allstate\’s actions, which are detrimental to our society as a whole. The best thing that could happen is that Allstate gets hit like this hundreds of times and they go out of business to be replaced by a more socially responsible member of the Insurance Industry. The jury heard 8 days of testimony and came to its conclusion. You dismiss, with the touch of a keystroke, that jury\’s work by suggesting somehow in your distorted way of thinking that Allstate is the victim. Let\’s hope you are never on the bad side of an Allstate or any other bad insurance company decision. However, if you ever are, we can only hope that you don\’t turn hypocrit on us and make a stink or file a legal action, even if your life savings is lost or your livlihood has been terminated, so you can never be accused of seeking \”jack pot\” justice.
Nope. That\’s not what I\’m saying. I\’m saying that an independent contractor (the lawyer in this case) needs liability insurance. Professional liability insurance, in the case of a lawyer.
Standard defense is to pass the buck. The general contractor passes the buck to the independent subs. It\’s common in construction and the principal is not different here.
Hal:
How do you know she was an independent contractor? All of her work was for Allstate and I must assume that Allstate exercised some degree of control over her work activities.
It is likely that the jury found her to be an employee and, as such, owed defense and indemnification by her employer, Allstate, who, as usual, proved penny wise and pound foolish.
By the way, Allstate sucks