You would hope that there is more info to this than what is in the story, especially since the source is the firm that represented the pltf. If not Atlantic was surely penny wise pound foolish for not simply paying their limits early on and not doing so based on “rumor”
I would guess that the info that is not shared is how the pltf was lifting a weight that he was unable to support, or that no one was holding a gun to his head to tell him to lift the weights. This machine was in front of him to use or not use that was his decision, obviously there appears to be no thought of his own responsibility, Much like the rest of society.
I was a juror and we spoke to defense counsel after the verdict. Atlantic Mutual is an Insurance Company for the MFG of the equipment the injury took place on. Atlantic Mutual appointed counsel to defend the MFG hereafter the insured and themselves. Atlantic Mutual’s own counsel advised them it was “dangerous” not to accept the policy limits demand due to the evidence that was unfolding and they warned them they would be exposed to a potential excess verdict. Then additionally when Atlantic’s counsel advised the insured of the same concern for his MFG business who then got a second opinion from another attorney who also opined to Atlantic Mutual to pay the policy limits demand and get the insured out of the case or the insured would look to Atlantic Mutual for the excess verdict. This product had in previous models had the safety stops and this newer model did not have then, and the previous jury had already apportioned fault 90% the insureds equipment and 10% the plaintiff’s this was clear. If you pay for insurance to protect a your business and then they do not pay claims and expose you to a loss everything you worked 20 plus years for then you would understand why the law allows you to assign the rights to sue. The insured did not hold the purse the Insurance Carrier did, they had a duty under the law as such and having accepted the insurance premiums from the business who designed and mfg the machine to make decision’s not just for their own interest but for those of their insured. The agents for Atlantic Mutual were contradicted by there own experts and even there experts contradicted each other. This was compound by the testimony of their agents indicated they could not communicate an offer to the person with authority without certainty of liability which is almost impossible, another’s apportionment of possibility of liability based on the evidence he had he calculated at almost zero percent and even to a lay jury was so far off the measure of reality it was perceived by me loss of credibility to the extent that it appeared as though it was a personal and malicious intent to justify non-payment.
The Plaintiff counseling laid out a very clear concise map of the evidence explaining in real understandable reasonable terms and did this plaintiff very well. This man was a Captain in the Marines and served our country, he had a bright future and a more than respectable educational level. He was not perceived to act like a victim but rather a strong and very decent man. His demeanor was that of a man who was trying to live the fullest life God could offer him in his condition by continuing his education and appearing to be rather fit. As this case unfolded the impression I was left with is that he was not playing anything up for sympathy but rather standing up for what he was awarded in his day in court previously for his injuries. His injuries did not generate unequal sympathy from me, I was more moved by obvious efforts to live a full and rewarding life despite his injuries. I hope for him this closes off the fight and God willing no more appeals, that he uses the proceeds to find a way to further his recovery as it appears to be amazing, and he can be a source of hope for others in his shoes. This insurer and its insured both wronged this plaintiff and my respect and admiration to see this man is drinking in life and staying positive!
He was exercising to try to control high cholesterol. The machine didn’t have the necessary safeties. Carrier just messed up on claim handling and exposed their insured to an excess loss.
The carrier bought the loss due to their own stupidity. Even if the insured was found only 10% at fault, this was an excess loss. Here, their insured was found to be very nearly 100% at fault as there was no proof that Leon was not using the equipment for its intended purpose and the injury was completely forseeable.
Leon’s life med costs will be very high as he is only 36 and will require extensive care for a very long time.
Where is the bad faith? Atlantic decided they wanted to fight the claim. That is the right of the insurance company under the policy, albeit a stupid decision given the offer to settle and a high upside. They don’t have a duty under law to settle.
This should have been tried. Because Atlantic refused an offer inside limits they are obligated to the outcome of the lawsuit. But they ARE entitled to a fair day in court.
Bad, bad decision. Bad faith should rarely be made available to third parties.
I am the lead trial lawyer for Mr. Bostick. In California, the lay says that if an Insurance Company knows or should know that it will have to pay its policy but chooses to go to trial (as Good Hands says, it’s their right to go to trial), and the verdict comes in in excess of the policy limit, they pay the full amount. That is what happened here. Atlantic Mutual had the right to go to trial, but could not complain if they lost. They knew they were going to pay the $1m policy limits, they were gambling with their insured’s money when they rejected the policy limits demand. That is why this is bad faith.
All the legal manuvering still does not add up to bad faith. Cagurliegirl lays out a compelling argument that Atlantic was foolish to go to court, and that the individual had very real damages to be compensated, but Atlantic still should have that right to their trial.
It sounds a very real warning bell that simply pursuing your legal rights can now be construed as bad faith, pressuring companies to settle cases that have legal questions attached needing ajudicaiton. Now we must consider the ‘weight’ of the question before proceeding.
Still not quite on point. By rejecting a settlement offer within policy limits Atlantic was no longer gambling with the Mfr’s or the gym’s money, by their own insurance agreement they were gambling with their own money. The Mfr and the gym were no longer exposed so there was no bad faith as respects the defendants.
That Atlantic acted foolishly I freely grant, that they owed whatever specific verdict came from the trial I grant even in excess of limits. That is insurance 101. Where I hope we see an appeal is the award for bad faith if it is based solely on Atlantic stalling this out and insisting on going to trial. Do they have an obligation to be friendly with the plaintiff?
We only sued to confirm what you said: that Atlantic was liable for the excess. But that is not automatic in California, pursuant to “California Civil Instructions,” we had to prove all of the following:
1 That a lawsuit was brought against Flex for a claim covered by Atlantic Mutual;
That Atlantic Mutual defended [name of plaintiff] in a lawsuit brought against [him/her/it] without reserving the right to deny Liability;]
2 That [name of defendant] unreasonably failed to accept a reasonable settlement demand for an amount within policy limits;
3 That a monetary judgment was entered against [name of plaintiff] for a sum greater than the policy limits; and
4 The amount in excess of the policy limits that [name of plaintiff] [paid/is obligated to pay].
“Policy limits” means the highest amount available under the policy for the claim against [name of plaintiff].
A settlement demand is reasonable if in light of the claimed injuries or loss and [name of plaintiff]’s probable Liability, the judgment in the lawsuit was likely to exceed the amount of the settlement demand.
Therefore, the “bad faith” we were pursuing in this case was solely the excess on the grounds that Atlantic knew or should have known that there would have been an excess verdict when we made the demand for the policy limits. Because Atlantic did not agree, we had to Pursue this all the way through trial. Maybe next time they will listen to someone like you. Thanks for your thoughts and input.
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.
You would hope that there is more info to this than what is in the story, especially since the source is the firm that represented the pltf. If not Atlantic was surely penny wise pound foolish for not simply paying their limits early on and not doing so based on “rumor”
I would guess that the info that is not shared is how the pltf was lifting a weight that he was unable to support, or that no one was holding a gun to his head to tell him to lift the weights. This machine was in front of him to use or not use that was his decision, obviously there appears to be no thought of his own responsibility, Much like the rest of society.
I was a juror and we spoke to defense counsel after the verdict. Atlantic Mutual is an Insurance Company for the MFG of the equipment the injury took place on. Atlantic Mutual appointed counsel to defend the MFG hereafter the insured and themselves. Atlantic Mutual’s own counsel advised them it was “dangerous” not to accept the policy limits demand due to the evidence that was unfolding and they warned them they would be exposed to a potential excess verdict. Then additionally when Atlantic’s counsel advised the insured of the same concern for his MFG business who then got a second opinion from another attorney who also opined to Atlantic Mutual to pay the policy limits demand and get the insured out of the case or the insured would look to Atlantic Mutual for the excess verdict. This product had in previous models had the safety stops and this newer model did not have then, and the previous jury had already apportioned fault 90% the insureds equipment and 10% the plaintiff’s this was clear. If you pay for insurance to protect a your business and then they do not pay claims and expose you to a loss everything you worked 20 plus years for then you would understand why the law allows you to assign the rights to sue. The insured did not hold the purse the Insurance Carrier did, they had a duty under the law as such and having accepted the insurance premiums from the business who designed and mfg the machine to make decision’s not just for their own interest but for those of their insured. The agents for Atlantic Mutual were contradicted by there own experts and even there experts contradicted each other. This was compound by the testimony of their agents indicated they could not communicate an offer to the person with authority without certainty of liability which is almost impossible, another’s apportionment of possibility of liability based on the evidence he had he calculated at almost zero percent and even to a lay jury was so far off the measure of reality it was perceived by me loss of credibility to the extent that it appeared as though it was a personal and malicious intent to justify non-payment.
The Plaintiff counseling laid out a very clear concise map of the evidence explaining in real understandable reasonable terms and did this plaintiff very well. This man was a Captain in the Marines and served our country, he had a bright future and a more than respectable educational level. He was not perceived to act like a victim but rather a strong and very decent man. His demeanor was that of a man who was trying to live the fullest life God could offer him in his condition by continuing his education and appearing to be rather fit. As this case unfolded the impression I was left with is that he was not playing anything up for sympathy but rather standing up for what he was awarded in his day in court previously for his injuries. His injuries did not generate unequal sympathy from me, I was more moved by obvious efforts to live a full and rewarding life despite his injuries. I hope for him this closes off the fight and God willing no more appeals, that he uses the proceeds to find a way to further his recovery as it appears to be amazing, and he can be a source of hope for others in his shoes. This insurer and its insured both wronged this plaintiff and my respect and admiration to see this man is drinking in life and staying positive!
He was exercising to try to control high cholesterol. The machine didn’t have the necessary safeties. Carrier just messed up on claim handling and exposed their insured to an excess loss.
The carrier bought the loss due to their own stupidity. Even if the insured was found only 10% at fault, this was an excess loss. Here, their insured was found to be very nearly 100% at fault as there was no proof that Leon was not using the equipment for its intended purpose and the injury was completely forseeable.
Leon’s life med costs will be very high as he is only 36 and will require extensive care for a very long time.
Leon took up body building after the accident, while an “incomplete” quad. He’s pretty successful in that venue. He discussed it in an interview at:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drobson297.htm
His own wheelchair bodybuilding website is at:
http://www.wheelchair-bodybuilding.com/leon_bostick
Where is the bad faith? Atlantic decided they wanted to fight the claim. That is the right of the insurance company under the policy, albeit a stupid decision given the offer to settle and a high upside. They don’t have a duty under law to settle.
This should have been tried. Because Atlantic refused an offer inside limits they are obligated to the outcome of the lawsuit. But they ARE entitled to a fair day in court.
Bad, bad decision. Bad faith should rarely be made available to third parties.
I am the lead trial lawyer for Mr. Bostick. In California, the lay says that if an Insurance Company knows or should know that it will have to pay its policy but chooses to go to trial (as Good Hands says, it’s their right to go to trial), and the verdict comes in in excess of the policy limit, they pay the full amount. That is what happened here. Atlantic Mutual had the right to go to trial, but could not complain if they lost. They knew they were going to pay the $1m policy limits, they were gambling with their insured’s money when they rejected the policy limits demand. That is why this is bad faith.
All the legal manuvering still does not add up to bad faith. Cagurliegirl lays out a compelling argument that Atlantic was foolish to go to court, and that the individual had very real damages to be compensated, but Atlantic still should have that right to their trial.
It sounds a very real warning bell that simply pursuing your legal rights can now be construed as bad faith, pressuring companies to settle cases that have legal questions attached needing ajudicaiton. Now we must consider the ‘weight’ of the question before proceeding.
Still not quite on point. By rejecting a settlement offer within policy limits Atlantic was no longer gambling with the Mfr’s or the gym’s money, by their own insurance agreement they were gambling with their own money. The Mfr and the gym were no longer exposed so there was no bad faith as respects the defendants.
That Atlantic acted foolishly I freely grant, that they owed whatever specific verdict came from the trial I grant even in excess of limits. That is insurance 101. Where I hope we see an appeal is the award for bad faith if it is based solely on Atlantic stalling this out and insisting on going to trial. Do they have an obligation to be friendly with the plaintiff?
Good Hands:
We only sued to confirm what you said: that Atlantic was liable for the excess. But that is not automatic in California, pursuant to “California Civil Instructions,” we had to prove all of the following:
1 That a lawsuit was brought against Flex for a claim covered by Atlantic Mutual;
That Atlantic Mutual defended [name of plaintiff] in a lawsuit brought against [him/her/it] without reserving the right to deny Liability;]
2 That [name of defendant] unreasonably failed to accept a reasonable settlement demand for an amount within policy limits;
3 That a monetary judgment was entered against [name of plaintiff] for a sum greater than the policy limits; and
4 The amount in excess of the policy limits that [name of plaintiff] [paid/is obligated to pay].
“Policy limits” means the highest amount available under the policy for the claim against [name of plaintiff].
A settlement demand is reasonable if in light of the claimed injuries or loss and [name of plaintiff]’s probable Liability, the judgment in the lawsuit was likely to exceed the amount of the settlement demand.
Therefore, the “bad faith” we were pursuing in this case was solely the excess on the grounds that Atlantic knew or should have known that there would have been an excess verdict when we made the demand for the policy limits. Because Atlantic did not agree, we had to Pursue this all the way through trial. Maybe next time they will listen to someone like you. Thanks for your thoughts and input.