Atlanta, Georgia Personal Injury Lawyer
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution today published an editorial from a Cobb County resident who was a foreman on a traffic accident and personal injury case. The Cobb County state court judge indicated that the trial would likely last three days, but that became longer because the deliberations deadlocked as members remained entrenched in their positions. The judge declared a mistrial.
The foreman reflects: “I feel miserable at my own performance. I failed myself and my fellow jurors by not being able to mediate some sort of agreement. I failed [the judge], who had charged us with reaching a conclusion. I failed the defendant and the plaintiff for the same reasons. And I failed the citizens of the county in that this will now become more of a cost burden on our society at a time when austerity is more needed than ever. My failure means there will likely be another frivolous suit tried, more costs for the court, and higher premiums on our auto insurance.”
Michael Neff's position:
There is a reason why our court system is requires a unanimous agreement by all jurors - so that one person with strong opinions can't force a conclusion that is contrary to the evidence. The article stated that at least 3 people on the jury didn't agree with the foreperson that the case was "frivolous."
The foreperson wrote that he was concerned about people's auto insurance. He didn't mention that he had previously given money to the Trucking Industry's Political Action Committee. That doesn't mean he is a bad person. But perhaps he walked into court with some personal opinions and beliefs that made him more likely to see the case from the standpoint of big business. Georgia law forbids the mention of auto insurance in a personal injury trial. So he most likely walked into court with information and beliefs that were pro business.
I hope he was honest when he answered the voir dire questions at the beginning of the trial. The whole reason for jury selection is to identify people whose strong beliefs and experiences may indicate that they should not serve on a particular jury
The foreman reflects: “I feel miserable at my own performance. I failed myself and my fellow jurors by not being able to mediate some sort of agreement. I failed [the judge], who had charged us with reaching a conclusion. I failed the defendant and the plaintiff for the same reasons. And I failed the citizens of the county in that this will now become more of a cost burden on our society at a time when austerity is more needed than ever. My failure means there will likely be another frivolous suit tried, more costs for the court, and higher premiums on our auto insurance.”
Michael Neff's position:
There is a reason why our court system is requires a unanimous agreement by all jurors - so that one person with strong opinions can't force a conclusion that is contrary to the evidence. The article stated that at least 3 people on the jury didn't agree with the foreperson that the case was "frivolous."
The foreperson wrote that he was concerned about people's auto insurance. He didn't mention that he had previously given money to the Trucking Industry's Political Action Committee. That doesn't mean he is a bad person. But perhaps he walked into court with some personal opinions and beliefs that made him more likely to see the case from the standpoint of big business. Georgia law forbids the mention of auto insurance in a personal injury trial. So he most likely walked into court with information and beliefs that were pro business.
I hope he was honest when he answered the voir dire questions at the beginning of the trial. The whole reason for jury selection is to identify people whose strong beliefs and experiences may indicate that they should not serve on a particular jury
Labels: atlanta, auto accident, auto insurance, car wreck, Cobb County, Georgia personal injury, jury, Marietta, trial, trucking, voir dire
The Kansas City Star reported that the Missouri Appeals court upheld a $16 million verdict against Allstate. On March 24, 2000, Wayne Davis Jr. got into his pickup while intoxicated, crossed the center line on U.S. 54 in Camden County and hit a compact car head-on.
The crash pushed the car back more than 100 feet. The driver and the passenger, Edward Johnson and his wife, Virginia, survived but suffered life-threatening injuries. Virginia was hospitalized for 40 days and Edward for 35 days. Their combined hospital bills totaled $320,000.
The Johnsons offered to settle for Davis’ minimal insurance policy limits of $50,000, but Allstate Insurance Co., did not respond for six months. That was after the statutory 60-day limit for accepting the settlement offer had expired.
Now Allstate has to pay much more for its failure to offer a reasonable settlement. On Tuesday, the Missouri Court of Appeals in Kansas City upheld a jury verdict that socked the insurer with more than $16 million in damages.
After Allstate failed to settle, the Johnsons sued Davis. He consented to a judgment in their favor of more than $5 million — $2.5 million in actual damages, $1.5 million in punitive damages and more than $1 million in prejudgment interest.
The Johnsons, however, agreed not to execute on the judgment in return for Davis’ assignment to them of most of his claim against Allstate for its refusal to settle.
The couple and Davis then sued Allstate in Jackson County Circuit Court, alleging the insurer had acted in bad faith when it did not timely respond to the Johnsons’ initial settlement offer.
Allstate claimed it lost the letter proposing the settlement and responded late because it did not receive the Johnsons’ medical records. The jury was unconvinced. On Nov. 8, 2006, it found that Allstate had acted in bad faith and unanimously awarded compensatory damages of $5.8 million plus 9 percent interest since the date of the judgment to the Johnsons. By a vote of 10-2, it also hit Allstate with $10.5 million in punitive damages.
Allstate appealed, and on Tuesday a three-judge panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the verdict. Judge Paul Spinden wrote, “Allstate’s failure to recognize the severity of the Johnsons’ injuries and the probability that the claim would far exceed Davis’s policy limits; its failure to investigate the claim and respond to the demand in accordance with insurance industry standards and its own good faith claim handling manual; and its failure to advise Davis of the demand, his likely exposure for an excess judgment, and his right to retain counsel, are all circumstances supporting a reasonable inference that Allstate’s refusal to settle was in bad faith.”
Although Allstate argued that it was unsure the crash had caused the Johnsons’ injuries, Kansas City lawyer Walter Simpson, testifying as an expert witness, pointed out that they had to be cut out of the wreckage, were flown by helicopter to the hospital and received intensive care.
Mike Siemienas, a spokesman for Allstate, said the company was “disappointed the verdict was not overturned.”
Just a few weeks ago, Allstate settled another bad faith case in Kansas City on undisclosed terms. In that case, Jackson County Circuit Judge Michael Manners fined Allstate $25,000 per day — a penalty that ultimately grew to more than $7 million — for failing to comply with a court order directing it to turn over internal documents concerning its claim handling procedures.
The crash pushed the car back more than 100 feet. The driver and the passenger, Edward Johnson and his wife, Virginia, survived but suffered life-threatening injuries. Virginia was hospitalized for 40 days and Edward for 35 days. Their combined hospital bills totaled $320,000.
The Johnsons offered to settle for Davis’ minimal insurance policy limits of $50,000, but Allstate Insurance Co., did not respond for six months. That was after the statutory 60-day limit for accepting the settlement offer had expired.
Now Allstate has to pay much more for its failure to offer a reasonable settlement. On Tuesday, the Missouri Court of Appeals in Kansas City upheld a jury verdict that socked the insurer with more than $16 million in damages.
After Allstate failed to settle, the Johnsons sued Davis. He consented to a judgment in their favor of more than $5 million — $2.5 million in actual damages, $1.5 million in punitive damages and more than $1 million in prejudgment interest.
The Johnsons, however, agreed not to execute on the judgment in return for Davis’ assignment to them of most of his claim against Allstate for its refusal to settle.
The couple and Davis then sued Allstate in Jackson County Circuit Court, alleging the insurer had acted in bad faith when it did not timely respond to the Johnsons’ initial settlement offer.
Allstate claimed it lost the letter proposing the settlement and responded late because it did not receive the Johnsons’ medical records. The jury was unconvinced. On Nov. 8, 2006, it found that Allstate had acted in bad faith and unanimously awarded compensatory damages of $5.8 million plus 9 percent interest since the date of the judgment to the Johnsons. By a vote of 10-2, it also hit Allstate with $10.5 million in punitive damages.
Allstate appealed, and on Tuesday a three-judge panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the verdict. Judge Paul Spinden wrote, “Allstate’s failure to recognize the severity of the Johnsons’ injuries and the probability that the claim would far exceed Davis’s policy limits; its failure to investigate the claim and respond to the demand in accordance with insurance industry standards and its own good faith claim handling manual; and its failure to advise Davis of the demand, his likely exposure for an excess judgment, and his right to retain counsel, are all circumstances supporting a reasonable inference that Allstate’s refusal to settle was in bad faith.”
Although Allstate argued that it was unsure the crash had caused the Johnsons’ injuries, Kansas City lawyer Walter Simpson, testifying as an expert witness, pointed out that they had to be cut out of the wreckage, were flown by helicopter to the hospital and received intensive care.
Mike Siemienas, a spokesman for Allstate, said the company was “disappointed the verdict was not overturned.”
Just a few weeks ago, Allstate settled another bad faith case in Kansas City on undisclosed terms. In that case, Jackson County Circuit Judge Michael Manners fined Allstate $25,000 per day — a penalty that ultimately grew to more than $7 million — for failing to comply with a court order directing it to turn over internal documents concerning its claim handling procedures.
Labels: Allstate insurance, bad faith, car crashes, drunk driver, DUI
Drug, Alcohol Mix Increases Medication Error Deaths (Update1)
John Taddei of Bloomberg reported today that the mixing of street drugs and alcohol with prescription medications has contributed to a fivefold increase in the number of deaths ascribed to medication errors since the 1980s, according to a study.
The combination of a person taking medications at home with alcohol or street drugs, or with both, accounted for 17 percent of the fatal errors in 2004, up from 2.3 percent in 1983, according to a University of California, San Diego study that examined U.S. death certificates. The study was published today in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
The rise in accidental deaths linked to medication errors has occurred as drug consumption has increasingly shifted to homes from hospitals and clinics, said David P. Phillips, the study's author and a professor of sociology at the university, in telephone interview today.
``More and more often the patient is put in charge of quality control rather than medical staff, and some patients aren't up to it,'' Phillips said. ``We haven't been sufficiently aware that some patients cannot follow directions as scrupulously as nurses or physicians.''
Accidental overdoses were the most deadly error, killing 8,634 people in their homes in 2004. More people in the 45-to-54 age group die of accidental drug overdoses than in car crashes, according to congressional testimony in March by Leonard J. Paulozzi, an epidemiologist for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.
``The vast majority of unintentional drug overdose deaths are not the result of toddlers getting into medicines or the elderly mixing up their pills,'' Paulozzi said during the testimony. ``All available evidence suggests that these deaths are related to the increasing use of prescription drugs, especially opioid painkillers, among people during the working years of life.''
To contact the reporter on this story: John Taddei in New York at jtaddei3@bloomberg.net
John Taddei of Bloomberg reported today that the mixing of street drugs and alcohol with prescription medications has contributed to a fivefold increase in the number of deaths ascribed to medication errors since the 1980s, according to a study.
The combination of a person taking medications at home with alcohol or street drugs, or with both, accounted for 17 percent of the fatal errors in 2004, up from 2.3 percent in 1983, according to a University of California, San Diego study that examined U.S. death certificates. The study was published today in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
The rise in accidental deaths linked to medication errors has occurred as drug consumption has increasingly shifted to homes from hospitals and clinics, said David P. Phillips, the study's author and a professor of sociology at the university, in telephone interview today.
``More and more often the patient is put in charge of quality control rather than medical staff, and some patients aren't up to it,'' Phillips said. ``We haven't been sufficiently aware that some patients cannot follow directions as scrupulously as nurses or physicians.''
Accidental overdoses were the most deadly error, killing 8,634 people in their homes in 2004. More people in the 45-to-54 age group die of accidental drug overdoses than in car crashes, according to congressional testimony in March by Leonard J. Paulozzi, an epidemiologist for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.
``The vast majority of unintentional drug overdose deaths are not the result of toddlers getting into medicines or the elderly mixing up their pills,'' Paulozzi said during the testimony. ``All available evidence suggests that these deaths are related to the increasing use of prescription drugs, especially opioid painkillers, among people during the working years of life.''
To contact the reporter on this story: John Taddei in New York at jtaddei3@bloomberg.net
Labels: atlanta, car accidents, wrongful death
Insurance benefit letters sent to wrong addresses by Blue Cross and Blue Shield reveal claim histories, open door to ID theft.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported today that Georgia's largest health insurer sent an estimated 202,000 benefits letters containing personal and health information to the wrong addresses last week, in a privacy breach that also raised concerns about potential identity theft.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia said Monday that the erroneous mailings were primarily Explanation of Benefits (EOB) letters, which include the patient's name and ID number, the name of the medical provider delivering the service, and the amounts charged and owed.
"A small percentage" of letters also contained the patient's Social Security numbers, said Cindy Sanders, a Blue Cross spokeswoman. The EOB forms were mailed to the addresses of other Blue Cross policyholders.
The security breach may be a violation of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), which protects patients' medical information. The privacy rules were fully implemented in 2003, but few fines have been assessed under the law, experts said.
While the insurer said it was still determining the number of letters involved, state Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine, whose office is investigating the problem, gave a preliminary estimate of 202,000.
"This is very, very serious," Oxendine said. A person with knowledge of medicine or billing, for example, could determine if the patient was treated for cancer, HIV or fertility problems, he said.
Blue Cross' parent company, Indianapolis-based WellPoint, "is committed to protecting the privacy and security of all members' health information and is working diligently to mitigate any impact which may result from this operational error," Sanders said.
Oxendine said he ordered the company to provide free credit monitoring for affected patients for one year. Blue Cross also must give written notice to policyholders whose names were on the EOBs and compile a list of names of those who erroneously received the forms.
Blue Cross is in the process of removing all Social Security numbers from such future mailings, Sanders said.
Rhonda Bloschock, a registered nurse in Atlanta, said Monday that she discovered EOB forms from nine other patients in a large envelope she received Friday from Blue Cross.
"This is a serious privacy breach," Bloschock said. Nurses and other hospital staff "jump through all sorts of hoops protecting people's privacy," she said.
WHAT TO DO?
Policyholders who received an incorrect EOB should contact Blue Cross's dedicated toll-free number at 866-800-8776 between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. Monday through Friday. Members who may have received an EOB of another individual should return it to Blue Cross. The company will provide a postage-paid envelope.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported today that Georgia's largest health insurer sent an estimated 202,000 benefits letters containing personal and health information to the wrong addresses last week, in a privacy breach that also raised concerns about potential identity theft.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia said Monday that the erroneous mailings were primarily Explanation of Benefits (EOB) letters, which include the patient's name and ID number, the name of the medical provider delivering the service, and the amounts charged and owed.
"A small percentage" of letters also contained the patient's Social Security numbers, said Cindy Sanders, a Blue Cross spokeswoman. The EOB forms were mailed to the addresses of other Blue Cross policyholders.
The security breach may be a violation of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), which protects patients' medical information. The privacy rules were fully implemented in 2003, but few fines have been assessed under the law, experts said.
While the insurer said it was still determining the number of letters involved, state Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine, whose office is investigating the problem, gave a preliminary estimate of 202,000.
"This is very, very serious," Oxendine said. A person with knowledge of medicine or billing, for example, could determine if the patient was treated for cancer, HIV or fertility problems, he said.
Blue Cross' parent company, Indianapolis-based WellPoint, "is committed to protecting the privacy and security of all members' health information and is working diligently to mitigate any impact which may result from this operational error," Sanders said.
Oxendine said he ordered the company to provide free credit monitoring for affected patients for one year. Blue Cross also must give written notice to policyholders whose names were on the EOBs and compile a list of names of those who erroneously received the forms.
Blue Cross is in the process of removing all Social Security numbers from such future mailings, Sanders said.
Rhonda Bloschock, a registered nurse in Atlanta, said Monday that she discovered EOB forms from nine other patients in a large envelope she received Friday from Blue Cross.
"This is a serious privacy breach," Bloschock said. Nurses and other hospital staff "jump through all sorts of hoops protecting people's privacy," she said.
WHAT TO DO?
Policyholders who received an incorrect EOB should contact Blue Cross's dedicated toll-free number at 866-800-8776 between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. Monday through Friday. Members who may have received an EOB of another individual should return it to Blue Cross. The company will provide a postage-paid envelope.
Labels: Atlanta Journal Constitution, health insurance, medical error, privacy
A Georgia man owes his ex-fiancee $150,000 for breaking off their engagement, a Hall County jury decided Wednesday. The six-man, six-woman panel spent about three hours deliberating before ruling in favor of RoseMary Shell, who sued Wayne Gibbs for breach of contract after he called off their nuptials.
During the three-day trial, Shell testified that she quit a job paying $81,000 a year in Pensacola, Fla., to move back to Gainesville and be with Gibbs after he proposed in October 2006. In December he left a note in the couple’s bathroom expressing second thoughts about the marriage, and he broke off the engagement for good in March 2007. Shell, who now makes $31,000 a year working for North Georgia College & State University, sued the following June.
The defense lawyer stated that he could find only one prior instance of someone suing over a broken wedding engagement in a search of 25 years of Georgia case histories.
During the three-day trial, Shell testified that she quit a job paying $81,000 a year in Pensacola, Fla., to move back to Gainesville and be with Gibbs after he proposed in October 2006. In December he left a note in the couple’s bathroom expressing second thoughts about the marriage, and he broke off the engagement for good in March 2007. Shell, who now makes $31,000 a year working for North Georgia College & State University, sued the following June.
The defense lawyer stated that he could find only one prior instance of someone suing over a broken wedding engagement in a search of 25 years of Georgia case histories.
Labels: breach of contract, Georgia, jury verdict
An article in The Kansas City Star noted that since Allstate Insurance had finally produced documents in a bad-faith lawsuit that a contempt order against it will be lifted.
Jackson County Circuit Judge Michael Manners had ordered $25,000-a-day fines against Allstate for failing to produce internal documents in the hotly contested action. Over several months, the fines had grown to exceed $7 million.
The case was scheduled to go to trial Monday, but the parties settled on confidential terms. At a brief hearing Wednesday, attorneys told Manners that Allstate had produced the documents and that the contempt citation, and the fines, should be purged. Manners agreed.
The case stemmed from a collision on Interstate 70 near the U.S. 65 exit. On Sept. 15, 2000, Warrensburg resident Dale Deer stopped in a construction zone. Some time later, a car driven by Paul Aldridge of Hawaii and traveling an estimated 70 mph slammed into the rear of Deer’s pickup truck.
After long delays, Allstate, Aldridge’s insurer, eventually settled with Deer for about $1.2 million. Before that settlement, Aldridge sued Allstate for allegedly mishandling the case and acting in bad faith.
In his suit, Aldridge sought internal Allstate documents purporting to show how the company set up a claims payment system in the 1990s that low-balled clients and allowed the company to reap huge profits.
The documents included slides prepared in the early 1990s by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. that allegedly advised Allstate to settle claims quickly for pennies on the dollar and fight claimants who resisted — for years, if necessary. One slide was titled “Good Hands or Boxing Gloves,” an allusion to the insurer’s “You’re in good hands with Allstate” slogan.
“Allstate litigates hundreds of bad faith cases each year,” Allstate stated in court documents.
Jackson County Circuit Judge Michael Manners had ordered $25,000-a-day fines against Allstate for failing to produce internal documents in the hotly contested action. Over several months, the fines had grown to exceed $7 million.
The case was scheduled to go to trial Monday, but the parties settled on confidential terms. At a brief hearing Wednesday, attorneys told Manners that Allstate had produced the documents and that the contempt citation, and the fines, should be purged. Manners agreed.
The case stemmed from a collision on Interstate 70 near the U.S. 65 exit. On Sept. 15, 2000, Warrensburg resident Dale Deer stopped in a construction zone. Some time later, a car driven by Paul Aldridge of Hawaii and traveling an estimated 70 mph slammed into the rear of Deer’s pickup truck.
After long delays, Allstate, Aldridge’s insurer, eventually settled with Deer for about $1.2 million. Before that settlement, Aldridge sued Allstate for allegedly mishandling the case and acting in bad faith.
In his suit, Aldridge sought internal Allstate documents purporting to show how the company set up a claims payment system in the 1990s that low-balled clients and allowed the company to reap huge profits.
The documents included slides prepared in the early 1990s by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. that allegedly advised Allstate to settle claims quickly for pennies on the dollar and fight claimants who resisted — for years, if necessary. One slide was titled “Good Hands or Boxing Gloves,” an allusion to the insurer’s “You’re in good hands with Allstate” slogan.
“Allstate litigates hundreds of bad faith cases each year,” Allstate stated in court documents.
Labels: Allstate insurance, bad faith, lowball settlement, personal injury
The National Safety Council and Nationwide Insurance have announced they will sponsor an International Symposium on Distracted Driving, Oct. 14-15 2008 in Arlington, Virginia.
The symposium will convene leaders in transportation and safety, the auto industry, business, education, and government and social sectors to confront an urgent and escalating safety issue: driving while distracted, which accounts for a significant portion of today’s motor vehicle-related injuries and deaths.
Motor vehicle collisions continue to be the leading cause of injury-related death in the United States, according to the National Safety Council. The Council reports there were 44,700 motor vehicle related fatalities and another 2.4 million disabling injuries in 2006.
"Distracted driving contributes to hundreds of thousands of injuries and deaths each year," said Janet Froetscher, the Council’s President and CEO. "People who drive while talking on a cell phone, for instance, are four times more likely to be involved in a crash than drivers who aren’t on cell phones. This symposium will accelerate critical conversations about how we can most effectively combat distracted driving as a national issue, drawing from a variety of perspectives to save lives."
The International Symposium on Distracted Driving will aim to:
* Document the science of distracted driving.
* Document possible solutions to the problem in four key areas that include public education, business policy, legislation and law, and technology.
* Recommend measures across all sectors of our society to help prevent injuries and deaths caused by distracted driving.
"It is high time to focus public attention on this serious and growing national problem," said Bill Windsor, Associate Vice President of Safety for Nationwide. "The symposium will yield information that may benefit everyone who drives. Individuals, legislators, community leaders, law enforcement officials and others involved in traffic safety will also benefit, from understanding how they might take action in their communities."
Details are available at the National Safety Council’s Web site, http://www.nsc.org/events/conferences/distractedsymp.aspx or by calling the Council’s Transportation Safety Group at 630-775-2334.
The symposium will convene leaders in transportation and safety, the auto industry, business, education, and government and social sectors to confront an urgent and escalating safety issue: driving while distracted, which accounts for a significant portion of today’s motor vehicle-related injuries and deaths.
Motor vehicle collisions continue to be the leading cause of injury-related death in the United States, according to the National Safety Council. The Council reports there were 44,700 motor vehicle related fatalities and another 2.4 million disabling injuries in 2006.
"Distracted driving contributes to hundreds of thousands of injuries and deaths each year," said Janet Froetscher, the Council’s President and CEO. "People who drive while talking on a cell phone, for instance, are four times more likely to be involved in a crash than drivers who aren’t on cell phones. This symposium will accelerate critical conversations about how we can most effectively combat distracted driving as a national issue, drawing from a variety of perspectives to save lives."
The International Symposium on Distracted Driving will aim to:
* Document the science of distracted driving.
* Document possible solutions to the problem in four key areas that include public education, business policy, legislation and law, and technology.
* Recommend measures across all sectors of our society to help prevent injuries and deaths caused by distracted driving.
"It is high time to focus public attention on this serious and growing national problem," said Bill Windsor, Associate Vice President of Safety for Nationwide. "The symposium will yield information that may benefit everyone who drives. Individuals, legislators, community leaders, law enforcement officials and others involved in traffic safety will also benefit, from understanding how they might take action in their communities."
Details are available at the National Safety Council’s Web site, http://www.nsc.org/events/conferences/distractedsymp.aspx or by calling the Council’s Transportation Safety Group at 630-775-2334.
Labels: avoiding car accidents, cell phone, distracted drivers
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Assocation ("NHTSA") car and truck crashes were the leading cause of death in the United States for every age 3 through 6 and 8 through 34.
There are several things Georgians can do to reduce the risk of death and serious injury. One, drive slower. Slower driving leads to less accidents and less serious wrecks. Two, don't drink and drive. That is an obvious impairment to driving ability. Third, wear a seatbelt.
According to a NHTSA study, men wear seatbelts less often than women. People driving alone wear seatbelts less than people that drive with passengers. Young people, age 16-24 wear seatbelts less than older people do. African Americans tend to wear their seatbelts less often than people of other ethnic backgrounds. So, I suppose black men ages 16-24 driving alone are bad insurance risks.
Buckle up Georgia. Its the law - and its for your own good.
There are several things Georgians can do to reduce the risk of death and serious injury. One, drive slower. Slower driving leads to less accidents and less serious wrecks. Two, don't drink and drive. That is an obvious impairment to driving ability. Third, wear a seatbelt.
According to a NHTSA study, men wear seatbelts less often than women. People driving alone wear seatbelts less than people that drive with passengers. Young people, age 16-24 wear seatbelts less than older people do. African Americans tend to wear their seatbelts less often than people of other ethnic backgrounds. So, I suppose black men ages 16-24 driving alone are bad insurance risks.
Buckle up Georgia. Its the law - and its for your own good.
Labels: avoiding car accidents, seatbelt, wrongful death
According to the Governors Highway Safety Assocation, the percentage of Americans 65 and older has tripled in the past 100 years. People are living longer. As a result, it is more and more likely that many Georgians will outlive their ability to drive safely.
According to the American Medical Association, older drivers (also referred to as mature drivers) have a higher risk of traffic fatalities for two reasons. First, drivers aged 75 and older are involved in significantly more car wrecks per mile driven than middle-aged drivers. Second, mature drivers are considerably more fragile than their younger counterparts, and are therefore more likely to suffer a fatal injury in the event of a crash.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that auto accidents actually account for fewer than 1 percent of fatalities among people 70 and older (heart disease and cancer are the leading causes of death). However, increasingly older drivers are keeping their drivers licenses longer and driving more miles than ever before.
An AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety study in 2004 found that drivers over the age of 65 are almost twice as likely to die in car crashes as drivers aged 55 to 64. The report also revealed that drivers over 75 were over two-and-a-half times as likely to die in an auto accident and drivers over 85 were almost four times as likely to die when compared to drivers aged 55 to 64.
The excess crash rate of mature drivers results from impairments in three functions that are important for driving: vision, cognition and motor function.
Vision - Vision is the primary sense utilized in driving. Adequate visual acuity and field of vision are important for safe driving, but tend to decline with age as a result of physiologic changes and an increase in diseases such as cataracts, glaucoma, macular degeneration and stroke. Glare, impaired contrast sensitivity, and an increase in time to adjust to changes in lightness and darkness are other problems commonly experienced by mature drivers. According to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, a person's eyesight deteriorates to such an extent that ten times the amount of light is necessary to see objects at age 60 as that needed at age 16.
Cognition - Driving is a complex activity that requires a variety of high-level cognitive skills, including memory, visual processing, attention and executive skills. Certain medical conditions (such as dementia) and medications that are common in the older population have a large impact on cognition.
Motor function - Motor abilities such as muscle strength, endurance, flexibility and proprioception (the subconscious awareness of weight, posture, movement, position in space in relationship to the body, based on sensory input from the joints and muscles) are necessary for operating vehicle controls and turning to view traffic. Even prior to driving, motor abilities are needed to enter the car safely and fasten the seat belt. Changes related to age and musculoskeletal diseases (such as arthritis) can decrease an individual's ability to drive safely and comfortably.
Changes in vision, physical strength and cognition can contribute to a loss of self-confidence and ability to operate a motor vehicle. The prospect of losing one's drivers license is equated by some older adults as a loss of independence and personal freedom. Faced with this choice, some older adults risk personal injury rather than give up their driver's license.
Georgia addresses these risks by requiring that drivers over 60 renew their licenses every 5 years. Also, license renewals cannot be done by mail. Georgia drivers 65 and older also need a vision test.
According to the American Medical Association, older drivers (also referred to as mature drivers) have a higher risk of traffic fatalities for two reasons. First, drivers aged 75 and older are involved in significantly more car wrecks per mile driven than middle-aged drivers. Second, mature drivers are considerably more fragile than their younger counterparts, and are therefore more likely to suffer a fatal injury in the event of a crash.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that auto accidents actually account for fewer than 1 percent of fatalities among people 70 and older (heart disease and cancer are the leading causes of death). However, increasingly older drivers are keeping their drivers licenses longer and driving more miles than ever before.
An AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety study in 2004 found that drivers over the age of 65 are almost twice as likely to die in car crashes as drivers aged 55 to 64. The report also revealed that drivers over 75 were over two-and-a-half times as likely to die in an auto accident and drivers over 85 were almost four times as likely to die when compared to drivers aged 55 to 64.
The excess crash rate of mature drivers results from impairments in three functions that are important for driving: vision, cognition and motor function.
Vision - Vision is the primary sense utilized in driving. Adequate visual acuity and field of vision are important for safe driving, but tend to decline with age as a result of physiologic changes and an increase in diseases such as cataracts, glaucoma, macular degeneration and stroke. Glare, impaired contrast sensitivity, and an increase in time to adjust to changes in lightness and darkness are other problems commonly experienced by mature drivers. According to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, a person's eyesight deteriorates to such an extent that ten times the amount of light is necessary to see objects at age 60 as that needed at age 16.
Cognition - Driving is a complex activity that requires a variety of high-level cognitive skills, including memory, visual processing, attention and executive skills. Certain medical conditions (such as dementia) and medications that are common in the older population have a large impact on cognition.
Motor function - Motor abilities such as muscle strength, endurance, flexibility and proprioception (the subconscious awareness of weight, posture, movement, position in space in relationship to the body, based on sensory input from the joints and muscles) are necessary for operating vehicle controls and turning to view traffic. Even prior to driving, motor abilities are needed to enter the car safely and fasten the seat belt. Changes related to age and musculoskeletal diseases (such as arthritis) can decrease an individual's ability to drive safely and comfortably.
Changes in vision, physical strength and cognition can contribute to a loss of self-confidence and ability to operate a motor vehicle. The prospect of losing one's drivers license is equated by some older adults as a loss of independence and personal freedom. Faced with this choice, some older adults risk personal injury rather than give up their driver's license.
Georgia addresses these risks by requiring that drivers over 60 renew their licenses every 5 years. Also, license renewals cannot be done by mail. Georgia drivers 65 and older also need a vision test.
Labels: auto accident, auto insurance, car wreck, drivers, Georgia personal injury
Research shows that driver inattention is the leading factor in most crashes and near-crashes. According to a 2006 NHTSA and Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study, nearly 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near-crashes involve some form of driver inattention within three seconds before the crash. Cell phone use is one of the most common driver distractions.
GHSA discourages the use of cell phones while driving. In a recent media alert, Chairman Chris Murphy has stated that “All drivers, but particularly teens, need to focus solely on driving—and that means the cell phone needs to be off."
Concern over the increasing use of cell phones while driving has prompted many state legislatures to restrict the practice, including:
* Banning handheld cell phone use by all drivers
* Restricting cell phone use only for a specific demographic, such as teens or school bus drivers
* Implementing text messaging bans
An increasing number of states are listing cell phone use as a data element on crash forms. There are numerous studies on cell phone use that indicate that any type of cell phone use can distract the driver. One such study is from Carnegie Mellon University: according to researcher Marcel Just, drivers need not dial, hold or even talk into a cell phone to be distracted. Simply listening intently is enough to impair driving.
What is less clear is the impact of cell phone bans. To date, there has been little research on the various handheld bans that have been enacted in numerous jurisdictions. These types of laws are difficult to enforce and may give drivers a false sense of safety. For these reasons, GHSA continues to oppose handheld cell phone bans.
GHSA discourages the use of cell phones while driving. In a recent media alert, Chairman Chris Murphy has stated that “All drivers, but particularly teens, need to focus solely on driving—and that means the cell phone needs to be off."
Concern over the increasing use of cell phones while driving has prompted many state legislatures to restrict the practice, including:
* Banning handheld cell phone use by all drivers
* Restricting cell phone use only for a specific demographic, such as teens or school bus drivers
* Implementing text messaging bans
An increasing number of states are listing cell phone use as a data element on crash forms. There are numerous studies on cell phone use that indicate that any type of cell phone use can distract the driver. One such study is from Carnegie Mellon University: according to researcher Marcel Just, drivers need not dial, hold or even talk into a cell phone to be distracted. Simply listening intently is enough to impair driving.
What is less clear is the impact of cell phone bans. To date, there has been little research on the various handheld bans that have been enacted in numerous jurisdictions. These types of laws are difficult to enforce and may give drivers a false sense of safety. For these reasons, GHSA continues to oppose handheld cell phone bans.
Labels: auto accident, cell phone, distracted drivers
According to the Governors Highway Safety Association, slowing down while driving has 5 important benefits:
* Save lives - Slowing down increases the likelihood of surviving a crash. Researcher Rune Elvik found that a 1% decrease in travel speed reduces injury crashes by about 2%, serious injury crashes by about 3% and fatal crashes by about 4%. 13,500 people died in speed-related crashes in 2006. Don’t become a statistic.
* Save money - Speeding reduces fuel efficiency, causing you to buy gas more often. The Department of Energy estimates that, as a rule of thumb, drivers can assume that each 5 mph they drive above 60 mph is like paying an additional $0.20 per gallon for gas.
* Save the environment - According to Ford Motor Company, driving a vehicle at 65 mph consumes about 15% more fuel than driving the same vehicle at 55 mph. More fuel consumed means more CO2 released into the atmosphere.
* Save yourself a ticket - Highway safety agencies and law enforcement are cracking down on speeders. Obey the sign or pay the fine!
* Save your license - A speeding ticket could lead to points on your driving record. Too many points and you could lose your license and your insurance premiums could go up.
* Save lives - Slowing down increases the likelihood of surviving a crash. Researcher Rune Elvik found that a 1% decrease in travel speed reduces injury crashes by about 2%, serious injury crashes by about 3% and fatal crashes by about 4%. 13,500 people died in speed-related crashes in 2006. Don’t become a statistic.
* Save money - Speeding reduces fuel efficiency, causing you to buy gas more often. The Department of Energy estimates that, as a rule of thumb, drivers can assume that each 5 mph they drive above 60 mph is like paying an additional $0.20 per gallon for gas.
* Save the environment - According to Ford Motor Company, driving a vehicle at 65 mph consumes about 15% more fuel than driving the same vehicle at 55 mph. More fuel consumed means more CO2 released into the atmosphere.
* Save yourself a ticket - Highway safety agencies and law enforcement are cracking down on speeders. Obey the sign or pay the fine!
* Save your license - A speeding ticket could lead to points on your driving record. Too many points and you could lose your license and your insurance premiums could go up.
Labels: rules of the road, safe driving, speeding
According to an article by AP reporter Mark Williams, high gas prices are causing traffic deaths to drop. The National Safety Council reports a 9 percent drop in motor vehicle deaths overall through May compared with the first five months of 2007, including a drop of 18 percent in March and 14 percent in April.
Fatality rates have stable over the last 15 years - totaling 42,642 in 2006. Other factors that may contribute to the safer roads include police stepping up their pursuit of speeders and drunken drivers, better teen-licensing programs, safer vehicles and winter weather that kept many drivers at home. The Governors Highway Safety Association also says seat belt use is probably at record levels.
Some states have reported declines of 20 percent or more. Hopefully Georgia is among the states experiencing safer roadways.
Fatality rates have stable over the last 15 years - totaling 42,642 in 2006. Other factors that may contribute to the safer roads include police stepping up their pursuit of speeders and drunken drivers, better teen-licensing programs, safer vehicles and winter weather that kept many drivers at home. The Governors Highway Safety Association also says seat belt use is probably at record levels.
Some states have reported declines of 20 percent or more. Hopefully Georgia is among the states experiencing safer roadways.
Labels: auto accident, Georgia, traffic wreck
LawyersUSA.com reporter Justin Rebello wrote an article on finding expert witnesses. In the article he interviewed Michael Brennan a research analyst at law firm who specializes in researching expert witnesses. He keeps a computer database containing 7,500 categories of experts.
He discusses going to Amazon or the Library of Congress and search for book on it. There's a very good chance the person who wrote the book is an expert. Colleges and universities are a great resource if you need experts in physics or whatever it might be academically.
For researching opposing witnesses - it's mostly fact gathering for attorneys to see what their background and expertise is.
Three things cited for researching expert's educational background, their professional licensing and their association memberships.
To determine if experts will make for good witnesses - there is a recommendation to look for teachers, such as a college professor, who have experience explaining a concept to an audience. Consultants also have the skills to communicate to an audience.
He discusses going to Amazon or the Library of Congress and search for book on it. There's a very good chance the person who wrote the book is an expert. Colleges and universities are a great resource if you need experts in physics or whatever it might be academically.
For researching opposing witnesses - it's mostly fact gathering for attorneys to see what their background and expertise is.
Three things cited for researching expert's educational background, their professional licensing and their association memberships.
To determine if experts will make for good witnesses - there is a recommendation to look for teachers, such as a college professor, who have experience explaining a concept to an audience. Consultants also have the skills to communicate to an audience.
Labels: deposition, expert witnesses, litigation, personal injury
Ransdell Pierson of Reuters reported that Merck & Co (MRK.N) announced today that more than 97 percent of eligible U.S. claimants had elected to participate in its $4.85 billion proposed Vioxx settlement.
To be eligible for the proposed settlement, patients or their survivors had to have filed a Vioxx product liability lawsuit in the United States for alleged heart attacks, stroke or death or have signaled officially their intent to do so.
Vioxx had generated sales of $2.5 billion a year before the arthritis and chronic pain pill was withdrawn from U.S. drugstores almost four years ago after a Merck study showed that long-term users had twice the risk of heart attack and stroke.
A very large clinical trial of Vioxx conducted almost a decade ago showed the medicine caused about a fourfold higher risk of heart attack than the widely used painkiller naproxen.
Despite the results, the FDA allowed Vioxx to remain on the market. Then Merck heavily advertising the drug despite its knowledge of the risks.
Some good news is that many industry analysts feel the FDA has become far more careful about approving new medicines since Vioxx was taken off the market.
To be eligible for the proposed settlement, patients or their survivors had to have filed a Vioxx product liability lawsuit in the United States for alleged heart attacks, stroke or death or have signaled officially their intent to do so.
Vioxx had generated sales of $2.5 billion a year before the arthritis and chronic pain pill was withdrawn from U.S. drugstores almost four years ago after a Merck study showed that long-term users had twice the risk of heart attack and stroke.
A very large clinical trial of Vioxx conducted almost a decade ago showed the medicine caused about a fourfold higher risk of heart attack than the widely used painkiller naproxen.
Despite the results, the FDA allowed Vioxx to remain on the market. Then Merck heavily advertising the drug despite its knowledge of the risks.
Some good news is that many industry analysts feel the FDA has become far more careful about approving new medicines since Vioxx was taken off the market.
Labels: brain injury, death, injury settlements, pain, vioxx
Being a litigator is a stressful job. Usually personal injury lawyers deal with the stress and keep their behavior in line. However, the Athens Banner-Herald reported
that a Clarke County Superior Court judge has rebuked a local attorney for ridiculing another attorney about his star-shaped lapel pin, a pin the U.S. Army gave in recognition of his son's service and death in Iraq.
Clarke County Superior Court Judge David Sweat held that Georgia lawyer Jim Smith tried to use personal tragedy to provoke fellow attorney Andrew Marshall, whose son Evan died in January when a roadside bomb exploded while the Army corporal was in Iraq.
Smith allegedly made a comment that Marshall thought his son's death gave him the right to intimidate Smith's client, who also is a veteran. Smith refused to discuss Sweat's criticisms on the record.
Judge Sweet awarded Marshall attorney's fees and called Smith's comments "totally uncalled for" and "so ignoble as to bring the legal profession in disrepute."
The Judge also reportedly sent copies to all Superior Court judges in the Western Circuit, as well as the State Bar of Georgia.
During a second deposition, Marshall asked a witness questions Smith thought were irrelevant, and after the witness refused to answer, Marshall announced he was ending the deposition and planned to ask the court to order the witness to pay attorney's fees. Smith told Marshall to "jump in a lake" and then asked, "Where's your pin today?" according to the transcript.
Marshall began to say, "I'll be serving you with...," but Smith interrupted and asked again, "Where's your pin today?" Marshall ordered Smith to leave his office, and accused Smith of dishonoring his late son.
This is a shame and is definitely in the very small minority of lawyers. It is acceptable to be aggressive and zealous in your representation of your client. It is not acceptable to attack your opposing counsel by mentioning the death of a child. Based on reading the above, I'm glad the Judge took the action that he did.
For the full article see http://onlineathens.com/stories/062508/news_20080625068.shtml
that a Clarke County Superior Court judge has rebuked a local attorney for ridiculing another attorney about his star-shaped lapel pin, a pin the U.S. Army gave in recognition of his son's service and death in Iraq.
Clarke County Superior Court Judge David Sweat held that Georgia lawyer Jim Smith tried to use personal tragedy to provoke fellow attorney Andrew Marshall, whose son Evan died in January when a roadside bomb exploded while the Army corporal was in Iraq.
Smith allegedly made a comment that Marshall thought his son's death gave him the right to intimidate Smith's client, who also is a veteran. Smith refused to discuss Sweat's criticisms on the record.
Judge Sweet awarded Marshall attorney's fees and called Smith's comments "totally uncalled for" and "so ignoble as to bring the legal profession in disrepute."
The Judge also reportedly sent copies to all Superior Court judges in the Western Circuit, as well as the State Bar of Georgia.
During a second deposition, Marshall asked a witness questions Smith thought were irrelevant, and after the witness refused to answer, Marshall announced he was ending the deposition and planned to ask the court to order the witness to pay attorney's fees. Smith told Marshall to "jump in a lake" and then asked, "Where's your pin today?" according to the transcript.
Marshall began to say, "I'll be serving you with...," but Smith interrupted and asked again, "Where's your pin today?" Marshall ordered Smith to leave his office, and accused Smith of dishonoring his late son.
This is a shame and is definitely in the very small minority of lawyers. It is acceptable to be aggressive and zealous in your representation of your client. It is not acceptable to attack your opposing counsel by mentioning the death of a child. Based on reading the above, I'm glad the Judge took the action that he did.
For the full article see http://onlineathens.com/stories/062508/news_20080625068.shtml
Labels: deposition, Georgia, Georgia personal injury lawyer
Megan Matteucci, Jose Pagliery, Andria Simmons, Yolanda Rodriguez of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that a truck carrying 43,000 pounds of beer blew a tire, overturned and caught fire shortly before noon Monday on eastbound I-20 in DeKalb County.
According to DeKalb County Fire Rescue spokesman Capt. Eric Jackson, dozens of full and unopened Dos Equis beer kegs inside the truck did not spill during the accident.
The wreck stopped traffic on I-20 but fortunately no one was hurt. No confirmation on whether the Sigma Nu fraternity voluntarily cleared the road of kegs.
According to DeKalb County Fire Rescue spokesman Capt. Eric Jackson, dozens of full and unopened Dos Equis beer kegs inside the truck did not spill during the accident.
The wreck stopped traffic on I-20 but fortunately no one was hurt. No confirmation on whether the Sigma Nu fraternity voluntarily cleared the road of kegs.
Labels: Dekalb County, Georgia, truck wreck
The following is a press release from Georgia Trial Lawyers Association - an organization which I am proud to be a Champion Member.
Georgia Trial Lawyers Association
Protecting the Constitution’s Promise
For Justice for All
Georgia’s strong business climate attracts industry and fosters ingenuity
So why would our Chamber of Commerce tell us differently?
The State of Georgia has reason to celebrate. Last week Georgia was ranked 8th in the nation by financial network CNBC in its “America’s Top States for Business” report, 1 and was named third best state in the nation for developing new biomass industry by Forbes Magazine. 2
Governor Sonny Perdue issued a press release last Friday stating Georgia has a “strong,” “streamlined,” and “pro-active” business environment and reminded citizens that Georgia is already at the forefront of the nation exploring new avenues for alternative renewable energies. 3 Such bioenergy-related business requires ingenuity, the backing of major Universities and other research based institutions and a business climate that fosters the development of new, groundbreaking products. Georgians should be proud of these nationally respected rankings. These accolades are important to remember as politically motivated groups attempt to tell the people of Georgia differently.
In sharp contrast to CNBC’s and Forbes’ independent reports, on April 22 of this year, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) released its 2008 report, in which it ranked Georgia’s legal system as 28th in the nation. 4 This report was given to every legislator in Georgia and received national attention. However, the following facts were not given to the Georgia legislature:
• The ILR is a 30-person board composed of heads of drug, chemical, and insurance corporations with a combined 2007 revenue of $1.4 trillion dollars. 5
• Only corporate defense lawyers from companies earning at least $100 million or more were surveyed. No local attorneys, judges or media were surveyed. 5
• The US Chamber’s own pollster stated that there is no way to measure the fairness of a state’s legal system. 6
• The same pollster confessed to the Charleston Gazette in West Virginia that only a fraction of the corporate lawyers surveyed knew anything about the state’s courts. Yet West Virginia was ranked 49th out of 50 states. 7
“It’s ludicrous. How could Forbes Magazine rank Georgia as 3rd in the nation for groundbreaking industry if what the Chamber says is true?” asked Fred Orr, President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association. “The ILR’s Report, and the other reports that are just like it, are nothing more than concocted statistics and imagined stories intended to scare the citizens and the legislatures in great states like Georgia.”
Several weeks prior to the Chamber’s report, the Pacific Research Institute (PRI) ranked Georgia 27th against the other 49 states using their Tort Liability Index. 8 This index supposedly judges a state’s Civil Justice System and business climate. The lower a state’s ranking, the lower the status of its business community as shown in “higher prices, lower wages, decreased returns on investments in capital and land, restricted access to health care, and less innovation.”
Since then, the PRI has come under fire for conducting unethical and largely false research. An analysis by three leading academics, Tom Baker of University of Pennsylvania Law School, Herbert Kritzer of William Mitchell College of Law, and Neil Vidmar of Duke Law School, found that PRI’s claims are “without scientific merit and present a very misleading picture of the American tort system and its costs.” The professors took PRI to task on multiple accounts, calling their work “advocacy disguised as science,” “pure fiction,” “lack[ing] scientific merit,” and containing “highly dubious extrapolations.” 9
Yet organizations like the Chamber of Commerce and others are still using this information in attempts to forward their extreme corporate agendas. In the June/July 2008 issue of Directorship Magazine, the American Justice Partnership (AJP) ranked Georgia 28th in the nation based on the two reports mentioned above “combined with the experience of the AJP.” 10 In the report, Georgia has a big red circle next to its name which, according to AJP, indicates “the liability climate discourages growth and job creation.” The AJP study calls the Georgia Supreme Court on of the nation’s most ‘activist.’
“What we have here is a business front group putting forth two major lies. First, they say that business growth is limited in Georgia at the same time independent national research clearly shows the exact opposite,” said Andy Childers, an attorney in Atlanta. “Second, they say that our Supreme Court is an activist court and suggest that our Justices should be challenged in an election. Yet just this spring, an independent, non-lobbying, academic study was released ranking the Georgia Supreme Court as one of the five best courts in the nation.”
The University of Chicago Law School released a report in May of 2008 entitled, “Which States Have the Best (and Worst) High Courts?” 11 The study was done in comparison to the Chamber’s Harris Survey.
The University study differs from the Chamber’s in methodology. While the Chamber surveyed only defense attorneys in $100 million firms, the University uses three measures rather than just one and does not survey lawyers.
“The differences between our approach and the earlier studies are driven partly by a different focus—the quality of the courts rather than (only) their influence—and partly by our different judgments about how to measure influence,” the report states. The University study indicates that not only their research, but that of other leading national and academic institutions, finds the Chamber’s research unreliable and inaccurate. “Our hope is that our study will shift the burden to the Chamber of Commerce to explain and justify their rankings more fully,” the study concludes.
“Basically the Chamber just keeps pouring money into in-house studies that are cooked so as to propel their own misguided legislative agendas forward—at the expense of small business owners and the citizens of Georgia.” said Childers. “As a small business owner I’m completely aware of Georgia’s business climate. It is good—just like the Governor said. With the real energy and economic problems we are facing you would think the Chamber would start focusing its attention on creating new industry, like developing alternative energy sources, rather than wasting its members’ time and money continuing to spew made-up propaganda.”
###
1. “America’s Top State’s for Business,” http://www.cnbc.com/id/25447603
2. “America’s Best Places for Alternative Energy,” Forbes Magazine, William Pentlend. 7/9/08
3. “Forbes ranks Georgia as third best state for alternative energy from biomass,” Press Release, Office of Governor Sonny Purdue, 7/11/08
4. “2008 US Chamber of Commerce State Liability Systems Ranking Study,” http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/media/pdf/Harris_Ranking_08.pdf
5. “2006 U.S. Chamber of Commerce State Liability Systems Ranking Study,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 3/28/06, http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/harris/pdf/2006_FULL_Report_FINAL.pdf
6. “Survey says frivolous lawsuits hurt state's reputation,” Copley News Service, 3/8/04
7. “Corporate lawyers rank state's legal climate poor,” The Charleston Gazette, 3/9/05
8. “US Tort Liability Index 2008 Report” http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20080222_2008_US_Tort_Liability_Index.pdf
9. “Jackpot Justice and the American Tort System; Thinking Beyond Junk Science,” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1152306
10. “Dire States,” June/July 2008 Issue, http://www.directorship.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/1/587093ea32eba152454933b12422f4ba/misc/litigation08.pdf
11. “Which states have the best (and worst) high courts?” The Law School of the University of Chicago, May 2008, https://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/405.pdf
For More Information Please Call:
GTLA Communications Director
Rebecca DeHart (404) 376-3495
rdehart@gtla.org
The Georgia Trial Lawyers Association
Protecting the Constitutional Promise of Justice for all by
Guaranteeing the Right to Trial by Jury,
Preserving and Independent Judiciary, and
Providing Access to the Courts for all Georgians
www.gtla.org
Georgia Trial Lawyers Association
Protecting the Constitution’s Promise
For Justice for All
Georgia’s strong business climate attracts industry and fosters ingenuity
So why would our Chamber of Commerce tell us differently?
The State of Georgia has reason to celebrate. Last week Georgia was ranked 8th in the nation by financial network CNBC in its “America’s Top States for Business” report, 1 and was named third best state in the nation for developing new biomass industry by Forbes Magazine. 2
Governor Sonny Perdue issued a press release last Friday stating Georgia has a “strong,” “streamlined,” and “pro-active” business environment and reminded citizens that Georgia is already at the forefront of the nation exploring new avenues for alternative renewable energies. 3 Such bioenergy-related business requires ingenuity, the backing of major Universities and other research based institutions and a business climate that fosters the development of new, groundbreaking products. Georgians should be proud of these nationally respected rankings. These accolades are important to remember as politically motivated groups attempt to tell the people of Georgia differently.
In sharp contrast to CNBC’s and Forbes’ independent reports, on April 22 of this year, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) released its 2008 report, in which it ranked Georgia’s legal system as 28th in the nation. 4 This report was given to every legislator in Georgia and received national attention. However, the following facts were not given to the Georgia legislature:
• The ILR is a 30-person board composed of heads of drug, chemical, and insurance corporations with a combined 2007 revenue of $1.4 trillion dollars. 5
• Only corporate defense lawyers from companies earning at least $100 million or more were surveyed. No local attorneys, judges or media were surveyed. 5
• The US Chamber’s own pollster stated that there is no way to measure the fairness of a state’s legal system. 6
• The same pollster confessed to the Charleston Gazette in West Virginia that only a fraction of the corporate lawyers surveyed knew anything about the state’s courts. Yet West Virginia was ranked 49th out of 50 states. 7
“It’s ludicrous. How could Forbes Magazine rank Georgia as 3rd in the nation for groundbreaking industry if what the Chamber says is true?” asked Fred Orr, President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association. “The ILR’s Report, and the other reports that are just like it, are nothing more than concocted statistics and imagined stories intended to scare the citizens and the legislatures in great states like Georgia.”
Several weeks prior to the Chamber’s report, the Pacific Research Institute (PRI) ranked Georgia 27th against the other 49 states using their Tort Liability Index. 8 This index supposedly judges a state’s Civil Justice System and business climate. The lower a state’s ranking, the lower the status of its business community as shown in “higher prices, lower wages, decreased returns on investments in capital and land, restricted access to health care, and less innovation.”
Since then, the PRI has come under fire for conducting unethical and largely false research. An analysis by three leading academics, Tom Baker of University of Pennsylvania Law School, Herbert Kritzer of William Mitchell College of Law, and Neil Vidmar of Duke Law School, found that PRI’s claims are “without scientific merit and present a very misleading picture of the American tort system and its costs.” The professors took PRI to task on multiple accounts, calling their work “advocacy disguised as science,” “pure fiction,” “lack[ing] scientific merit,” and containing “highly dubious extrapolations.” 9
Yet organizations like the Chamber of Commerce and others are still using this information in attempts to forward their extreme corporate agendas. In the June/July 2008 issue of Directorship Magazine, the American Justice Partnership (AJP) ranked Georgia 28th in the nation based on the two reports mentioned above “combined with the experience of the AJP.” 10 In the report, Georgia has a big red circle next to its name which, according to AJP, indicates “the liability climate discourages growth and job creation.” The AJP study calls the Georgia Supreme Court on of the nation’s most ‘activist.’
“What we have here is a business front group putting forth two major lies. First, they say that business growth is limited in Georgia at the same time independent national research clearly shows the exact opposite,” said Andy Childers, an attorney in Atlanta. “Second, they say that our Supreme Court is an activist court and suggest that our Justices should be challenged in an election. Yet just this spring, an independent, non-lobbying, academic study was released ranking the Georgia Supreme Court as one of the five best courts in the nation.”
The University of Chicago Law School released a report in May of 2008 entitled, “Which States Have the Best (and Worst) High Courts?” 11 The study was done in comparison to the Chamber’s Harris Survey.
The University study differs from the Chamber’s in methodology. While the Chamber surveyed only defense attorneys in $100 million firms, the University uses three measures rather than just one and does not survey lawyers.
“The differences between our approach and the earlier studies are driven partly by a different focus—the quality of the courts rather than (only) their influence—and partly by our different judgments about how to measure influence,” the report states. The University study indicates that not only their research, but that of other leading national and academic institutions, finds the Chamber’s research unreliable and inaccurate. “Our hope is that our study will shift the burden to the Chamber of Commerce to explain and justify their rankings more fully,” the study concludes.
“Basically the Chamber just keeps pouring money into in-house studies that are cooked so as to propel their own misguided legislative agendas forward—at the expense of small business owners and the citizens of Georgia.” said Childers. “As a small business owner I’m completely aware of Georgia’s business climate. It is good—just like the Governor said. With the real energy and economic problems we are facing you would think the Chamber would start focusing its attention on creating new industry, like developing alternative energy sources, rather than wasting its members’ time and money continuing to spew made-up propaganda.”
###
1. “America’s Top State’s for Business,” http://www.cnbc.com/id/25447603
2. “America’s Best Places for Alternative Energy,” Forbes Magazine, William Pentlend. 7/9/08
3. “Forbes ranks Georgia as third best state for alternative energy from biomass,” Press Release, Office of Governor Sonny Purdue, 7/11/08
4. “2008 US Chamber of Commerce State Liability Systems Ranking Study,” http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/media/pdf/Harris_Ranking_08.pdf
5. “2006 U.S. Chamber of Commerce State Liability Systems Ranking Study,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 3/28/06, http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/harris/pdf/2006_FULL_Report_FINAL.pdf
6. “Survey says frivolous lawsuits hurt state's reputation,” Copley News Service, 3/8/04
7. “Corporate lawyers rank state's legal climate poor,” The Charleston Gazette, 3/9/05
8. “US Tort Liability Index 2008 Report” http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20080222_2008_US_Tort_Liability_Index.pdf
9. “Jackpot Justice and the American Tort System; Thinking Beyond Junk Science,” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1152306
10. “Dire States,” June/July 2008 Issue, http://www.directorship.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/1/587093ea32eba152454933b12422f4ba/misc/litigation08.pdf
11. “Which states have the best (and worst) high courts?” The Law School of the University of Chicago, May 2008, https://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/405.pdf
For More Information Please Call:
GTLA Communications Director
Rebecca DeHart (404) 376-3495
rdehart@gtla.org
The Georgia Trial Lawyers Association
Protecting the Constitutional Promise of Justice for all by
Guaranteeing the Right to Trial by Jury,
Preserving and Independent Judiciary, and
Providing Access to the Courts for all Georgians
www.gtla.org
Labels: Allstate insurance, Georgia, insurance, justice system, lowball settlement, tort reform
Reporter Jake Armstrong wrote an article, "Highest courts' opinions favor business, study says" that reported a release by Atlanta based Georgia Watch, a nonpartisan consumer advocacy group that stated that Georgia laws tend to favor businesses over consumers, and appeals court rulings reflect that favortism. Georgia Watch made that determination after tracking Georgia Supreme Court and Georgia Court of Appeals rulings handed down in 2007.
Further support for that conclusion is the statement by Joe Fleming, senior vice president of government affairs for the Georgia Chamber of Commerce. It is reported that Mr. Fleming said the chamber supports the court's "narrow interpretations" of Georgia law.
Among the positive decisions cited by Georgia Watch for consumers came in the area of Insurance. The Georgia Supreme Court did rule that that insurance companies cannot sell policies that contain offsets for personal injury benefits, which deduct from the policy benefits any compensation the insured receives from workers' compensation and Social Security after a car or truck accident.
For the full article see http://savannahnow.com/node/516515
Further support for that conclusion is the statement by Joe Fleming, senior vice president of government affairs for the Georgia Chamber of Commerce. It is reported that Mr. Fleming said the chamber supports the court's "narrow interpretations" of Georgia law.
Among the positive decisions cited by Georgia Watch for consumers came in the area of Insurance. The Georgia Supreme Court did rule that that insurance companies cannot sell policies that contain offsets for personal injury benefits, which deduct from the policy benefits any compensation the insured receives from workers' compensation and Social Security after a car or truck accident.
For the full article see http://savannahnow.com/node/516515
Labels: auto insurance, Georgia personal injury law, Georgia supreme court
An article by reporter Randy Diamond of the Palm Beach Post noted that Allstate Insurance was at the top of the list of the top 10 worst insurance companies as compiled by the American Association for Justice.
Mr. Diamond noted, "The low opinion of Allstate held by the trial lawyers is not surprising, given Allstate's aggressive stance against lawsuits." Mr. Diamond also noted that AAJ's report stated, ''The name of the game is to deny, delay, defend - do anything, in fact, to avoid paying claims."
Allstate does take very aggressive positions in defending personal injury claims. If you are faced with a car accident caused by an Georgia Allstate driver, you are likely to need an aggressive personal injury attorney to represent you. Anything you tell an insurance adjuster will be used against you if it can be. Be careful and get a aggressive injury attorney to represent you. You aren't in good hands with Allstate.
Mr. Diamond noted, "The low opinion of Allstate held by the trial lawyers is not surprising, given Allstate's aggressive stance against lawsuits." Mr. Diamond also noted that AAJ's report stated, ''The name of the game is to deny, delay, defend - do anything, in fact, to avoid paying claims."
Allstate does take very aggressive positions in defending personal injury claims. If you are faced with a car accident caused by an Georgia Allstate driver, you are likely to need an aggressive personal injury attorney to represent you. Anything you tell an insurance adjuster will be used against you if it can be. Be careful and get a aggressive injury attorney to represent you. You aren't in good hands with Allstate.
Labels: Allstate insurance, Georgia personal injury lawyer, injury settlements
The Charleston Post and Courier reported on the AAJ's finding of the "worst insurance companies for consumers." The article again repeated that Allstate Insurance Co. was found the worst insurance company based on its strategy to "force consumers to accept lowball claims or face its 'boxing gloves,' an aggressive strategy designed to deny claims at any cost."
Allstate spokesman Rich Halberg told the San Diego Union-Tribune that he was "not surprised that we're targeted by trial lawyers and personal-injury attorneys, since we're at the forefront of trying to reduce unreasonable claims made by attorneys during litigation." That sounds very similar to the comment made by Allstate spokesman to the Sun Herald. I suppose Allstate PR people have the same script.
Even if attorneys don't like Allstate, Halberg told the Union-Tribune, "the numbers show that our customers do. They renew their policies at high percentages, and we attract millions of new customers every year."
Also noted was State Farm, which, like Allstate, has employed McKinsey consultants and drawn fire for its denials of claims related to Hurricane Katrina.
Liberty Mutual, another company that hired McKinsey to develop what the AAJ report called "aggressive tactics" to deny claims.
A spokesman for the industry-backed Insurance Information Institute defended the companies' practices in general and accused trial lawyers of being responsible for driving up the cost of insurance for consumers.
Allstate spokesman Rich Halberg told the San Diego Union-Tribune that he was "not surprised that we're targeted by trial lawyers and personal-injury attorneys, since we're at the forefront of trying to reduce unreasonable claims made by attorneys during litigation." That sounds very similar to the comment made by Allstate spokesman to the Sun Herald. I suppose Allstate PR people have the same script.
Even if attorneys don't like Allstate, Halberg told the Union-Tribune, "the numbers show that our customers do. They renew their policies at high percentages, and we attract millions of new customers every year."
Also noted was State Farm, which, like Allstate, has employed McKinsey consultants and drawn fire for its denials of claims related to Hurricane Katrina.
Liberty Mutual, another company that hired McKinsey to develop what the AAJ report called "aggressive tactics" to deny claims.
A spokesman for the industry-backed Insurance Information Institute defended the companies' practices in general and accused trial lawyers of being responsible for driving up the cost of insurance for consumers.
Labels: Allstate insurance, injury settlements, insurance claims
The AP reported that Allstate Insurance Co. has agreed to settle an insurance case that had attracted national attention over the insurer's refusal -- and eventual agreement -- to provide key documents on how it evaluates and pays claims.
The company's reluctance to release the records led to more than $7 million in fines from Jackson County Judge Michael Manners.
A July 21 hearing is scheduled on whether to approve the settlement, which is the day the case was scheduled to go to trial. Its not surprising that the insurance company allowed the case to go until the last minute before it faced a jury. That is a typical insurance company defense tactic - delay, delay, delay.
Attorneys for both sides say the terms of the deal are confidential.
Allstate spokesman Mike Siemienas said the nation's second-largest home and auto insurer was happy to resolve the case. He declined to comment further. Again, not surprising.
The case stems from an 8-year-old accident on Interstate 70 involving Allstate policyholder Paul Aldridge, of Hawaii, who struck a truck from behind, severely injuring the driver. Aldridge later sued Allstate for bad faith after it refused for years to pay a claim.
Attorneys for both Aldridge and the accident victim, Dale Deer, of Warrensburg, requested a set of records prepared by consultant McKinsey & Co. on behalf of the insurance company that showed how it set up a claims payment system in the 1990s aimed at generating big earnings while keeping claims payments low.
One of the slides was titled "Good Hands or Boxing Gloves," a take on the company's slogan, "You're in good hands with Allstate."
Allstate refused to turn over the records, saying they contained trade secrets and would reveal the company's trial strategy.
In September, Manners held Allstate in contempt and began fining it $25,000 per day.
The Missouri Supreme Court in November ordered Allstate to turn over the documents, leading the company to disclose more than 120,000 pages of records.
Other states also have fought Allstate over the records, with Florida's insurance commissioner, Kevin McCarty, suspending the company's ability to sell insurance there after it refused subpoenas for the records. An appeals court later sided with McCarty. Allstate eventually signed an affidavit that it had turned over the records and would comply with future requests for documents, leading McCarty to lift the suspension.
The company in April posted 150,000 pages of documents on the Internet related to how it handles customer claims.
"Public criticisms by people with a vested interest in creating an inaccurate picture of the company's claim practices have been based unfairly on only snippets from the documents taken out of context," Allstate said in a statement with the records. Yes, you really need to read all 150,000 pages to understand Allstate's strategy.
"Because of the need to address misunderstandings resulting from the growing misplaced focus by our critics on very small pieces of the whole, we have decided to make the documents public." That, and the Order from the Court and the $7 million in fines, and the impeding trial for punitive damages.
The company's reluctance to release the records led to more than $7 million in fines from Jackson County Judge Michael Manners.
A July 21 hearing is scheduled on whether to approve the settlement, which is the day the case was scheduled to go to trial. Its not surprising that the insurance company allowed the case to go until the last minute before it faced a jury. That is a typical insurance company defense tactic - delay, delay, delay.
Attorneys for both sides say the terms of the deal are confidential.
Allstate spokesman Mike Siemienas said the nation's second-largest home and auto insurer was happy to resolve the case. He declined to comment further. Again, not surprising.
The case stems from an 8-year-old accident on Interstate 70 involving Allstate policyholder Paul Aldridge, of Hawaii, who struck a truck from behind, severely injuring the driver. Aldridge later sued Allstate for bad faith after it refused for years to pay a claim.
Attorneys for both Aldridge and the accident victim, Dale Deer, of Warrensburg, requested a set of records prepared by consultant McKinsey & Co. on behalf of the insurance company that showed how it set up a claims payment system in the 1990s aimed at generating big earnings while keeping claims payments low.
One of the slides was titled "Good Hands or Boxing Gloves," a take on the company's slogan, "You're in good hands with Allstate."
Allstate refused to turn over the records, saying they contained trade secrets and would reveal the company's trial strategy.
In September, Manners held Allstate in contempt and began fining it $25,000 per day.
The Missouri Supreme Court in November ordered Allstate to turn over the documents, leading the company to disclose more than 120,000 pages of records.
Other states also have fought Allstate over the records, with Florida's insurance commissioner, Kevin McCarty, suspending the company's ability to sell insurance there after it refused subpoenas for the records. An appeals court later sided with McCarty. Allstate eventually signed an affidavit that it had turned over the records and would comply with future requests for documents, leading McCarty to lift the suspension.
The company in April posted 150,000 pages of documents on the Internet related to how it handles customer claims.
"Public criticisms by people with a vested interest in creating an inaccurate picture of the company's claim practices have been based unfairly on only snippets from the documents taken out of context," Allstate said in a statement with the records. Yes, you really need to read all 150,000 pages to understand Allstate's strategy.
"Because of the need to address misunderstandings resulting from the growing misplaced focus by our critics on very small pieces of the whole, we have decided to make the documents public." That, and the Order from the Court and the $7 million in fines, and the impeding trial for punitive damages.
Labels: Allstate insurance, injury settlements, insurance claims, punitive damages
Kenneth Reed brought suit against the City of Dallas to recover personal injury damages from a motorcycle accident caused by a two-inch elevation variance on the road that he hit as he was changing lanes.
Mr. Reed alleged the sharp uneven pavement between the traffic lanes constitutes a special defect or a premises defect under the Texas Tort Claims Act. In response, the City argued the two-inch elevation difference between the lanes was not a defect of any kind.
Special defects are defined as “excavations or obstructions on highways, roads, or streets” that present an “unexpected and unusual danger to ordinary users of roadways.”
Where one of these special defects exists, say the court, the State owes the same duty to warn people that a private landowner owes to someone on his or her property. However, the court went on, not only is the two-inch drop-off not in the same kind or class as an excavation or obstruction, there is nothing unusually dangerous about a slight drop-off between traffic lanes in the roadway. Ordinary drivers should expect slight variations on the road caused by normal deterioration.
To prove the city had actual knowledge of the variance, and was therefore negligent, Mr. Reed submitted the street inspector’s testimony that showed she was aware of the drop-off on the roadway and had reported her findings to the city. But the report did not reveal the drop-off's potential danger, and reported the road condition was “fair” at the time of inspection. It was not until after the accident that the street inspector acknowledged the road could likely receive a poor rating. But because actual knowledge requires knowledge that the dangerous condition existed at the time of the accident, and the city lacked actual knowledge of the dangerous condition, the case was dismissed.
If you know someone who was injured in Georgia because of a road design defect or negligent road construction or maintenance, please contact the injury attorneys at The Law Offices of Michael L. Neff for a free consultation
Mr. Reed alleged the sharp uneven pavement between the traffic lanes constitutes a special defect or a premises defect under the Texas Tort Claims Act. In response, the City argued the two-inch elevation difference between the lanes was not a defect of any kind.
Special defects are defined as “excavations or obstructions on highways, roads, or streets” that present an “unexpected and unusual danger to ordinary users of roadways.”
Where one of these special defects exists, say the court, the State owes the same duty to warn people that a private landowner owes to someone on his or her property. However, the court went on, not only is the two-inch drop-off not in the same kind or class as an excavation or obstruction, there is nothing unusually dangerous about a slight drop-off between traffic lanes in the roadway. Ordinary drivers should expect slight variations on the road caused by normal deterioration.
To prove the city had actual knowledge of the variance, and was therefore negligent, Mr. Reed submitted the street inspector’s testimony that showed she was aware of the drop-off on the roadway and had reported her findings to the city. But the report did not reveal the drop-off's potential danger, and reported the road condition was “fair” at the time of inspection. It was not until after the accident that the street inspector acknowledged the road could likely receive a poor rating. But because actual knowledge requires knowledge that the dangerous condition existed at the time of the accident, and the city lacked actual knowledge of the dangerous condition, the case was dismissed.
If you know someone who was injured in Georgia because of a road design defect or negligent road construction or maintenance, please contact the injury attorneys at The Law Offices of Michael L. Neff for a free consultation
Labels: Georgia personal injury law, injury attorney, negligent road design
At the Law Offices of Michael L. Neff, we always stress the importance of seeking immediate medical care after you are injured. Some people want to think if they go home and rest, the injury will heal itself. Remember this: if you suffer an injury in an accident, but don’t report it and seek prompt medical help, an insurance company is likely to argue that your injury wasn't caused by the accident.
So hoping it goes away is a good thing to do - but seeing a doctor won't hurt if the pain doesn't go away. Don't take a chance. A concussion is a mild brain injury. So report all symptoms, even if you think they are minor. Even a mild head injury can lead to long lasting and serious problems.
Serious brain injuries are usually apparent when the accident happens. But mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) is not as easy to diagnose. Symptoms associated with MTBI include:
· Brief loss of consciousness
· Loss of memory
· Any alteration in mental state
· Focal neurological deficits (nerve-related problems that affect movement, sensations, speech, etc.)
There have been many "mild traumatic brain injury" cases in which the person initially appears fine, but then endures chronic functional problems, including concussion syndrome, which can cause significant changes in personality and brain function. Have you, or has someone you love been in an accident with the possibility of brain injury, through no fault of your own? After calling the doctor for medical advice - call the Law Offices of Michael L. Neff and get the legal advice you need.
So hoping it goes away is a good thing to do - but seeing a doctor won't hurt if the pain doesn't go away. Don't take a chance. A concussion is a mild brain injury. So report all symptoms, even if you think they are minor. Even a mild head injury can lead to long lasting and serious problems.
Serious brain injuries are usually apparent when the accident happens. But mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) is not as easy to diagnose. Symptoms associated with MTBI include:
· Brief loss of consciousness
· Loss of memory
· Any alteration in mental state
· Focal neurological deficits (nerve-related problems that affect movement, sensations, speech, etc.)
There have been many "mild traumatic brain injury" cases in which the person initially appears fine, but then endures chronic functional problems, including concussion syndrome, which can cause significant changes in personality and brain function. Have you, or has someone you love been in an accident with the possibility of brain injury, through no fault of your own? After calling the doctor for medical advice - call the Law Offices of Michael L. Neff and get the legal advice you need.
Labels: accident, doctors, lawyer, symptoms, traumatic brain injury
South Mississippi's Sun Herald newspaper noted the recent study on the worst insurers. The article, found at http://www.sunherald.com/201/story/675669.html, reported that AAJ's report concluded that Allstate is the nation's worst insurance company for consumers.
According to the article, Allstate spokesman Michael Siemienas said, "We're not surprised we're being targeted by the trial and personal injury lawyers because Allstate has been at the forefront of the fight against insurance fraud and the effort to resist unreasonable demands made by lawyers."
The article did not note any studies of insurance fraud or cite specific examples of "unreasonable demands."
The AAJ noted that the U.S. insurance industry collects more than $1 trillion in premiums annually, and has $3.8 trillion in assets, surpassing the Gross Domestic Products of all countries but the United States and Japan.
The top 5 offenders on the list:
1. ALLSTATE - CEO, Thomas Wilson; 2007 compensation, $10.7 million; 2007 profits, $4.6 billion; assets: $156.4 billion. "According to investigations and documents Allstate was forced to make public, the company systematically placed profits over its own policyholders... The amount Allstate paid in claims dropped from 79 percent of its premium income in 1996 to just 58 percent 10 years later. In auto claims, payouts dropped from 63 percent to just 47 percent.
2. UNUM - CEO, Thomas Watjen; 2007 compensation, $7.3 million; 2007 profits, $679 million; assets, $52.4 billion. "Unum, one of the nation's leading disability insurers, has long had a reputation for unfairly denying and delaying claims.."
3. AIG - CEO, Robert Willumstad; 2007 compensation for former CEO, 14.3 million; 2007 profits: $6.2 billion; assets, $1.06 trillion; "AIG executives have also come under fire for opportunistically seeking price increases during catastrophes. Now the company has been labeled 'the new Enron' because of charges of multibillion-dollar corporate fraud."
4. STATE FARM - CEO: Edward B. Rust Jr.; 2007 compensation, $11.7 million; 2007 profits: $5.5 billion; assets, $181.4 billion. "In many cases, the company has gone to extreme lengths to avoid paying claims, including forging signatures on earthquake waivers after the deadly Northridge earthquake, and altering engineering reports regarding damage after Hurricane Katrina."
5. CONSECO - CEO, C. James Prieur; 2007 compensation: $2.6 million; 2007 profits: $179.9 million; assets: $33.5 billion. "Conseco sells long-term-care policies, typically to the elderly. Unfortunately, Conseco uses the deteriorating health of its policyholders to its advantage because the company knows if it waits long enough to pay out claims, its customers will die."
According to the article, Allstate spokesman Michael Siemienas said, "We're not surprised we're being targeted by the trial and personal injury lawyers because Allstate has been at the forefront of the fight against insurance fraud and the effort to resist unreasonable demands made by lawyers."
The article did not note any studies of insurance fraud or cite specific examples of "unreasonable demands."
The AAJ noted that the U.S. insurance industry collects more than $1 trillion in premiums annually, and has $3.8 trillion in assets, surpassing the Gross Domestic Products of all countries but the United States and Japan.
The top 5 offenders on the list:
1. ALLSTATE - CEO, Thomas Wilson; 2007 compensation, $10.7 million; 2007 profits, $4.6 billion; assets: $156.4 billion. "According to investigations and documents Allstate was forced to make public, the company systematically placed profits over its own policyholders... The amount Allstate paid in claims dropped from 79 percent of its premium income in 1996 to just 58 percent 10 years later. In auto claims, payouts dropped from 63 percent to just 47 percent.
2. UNUM - CEO, Thomas Watjen; 2007 compensation, $7.3 million; 2007 profits, $679 million; assets, $52.4 billion. "Unum, one of the nation's leading disability insurers, has long had a reputation for unfairly denying and delaying claims.."
3. AIG - CEO, Robert Willumstad; 2007 compensation for former CEO, 14.3 million; 2007 profits: $6.2 billion; assets, $1.06 trillion; "AIG executives have also come under fire for opportunistically seeking price increases during catastrophes. Now the company has been labeled 'the new Enron' because of charges of multibillion-dollar corporate fraud."
4. STATE FARM - CEO: Edward B. Rust Jr.; 2007 compensation, $11.7 million; 2007 profits: $5.5 billion; assets, $181.4 billion. "In many cases, the company has gone to extreme lengths to avoid paying claims, including forging signatures on earthquake waivers after the deadly Northridge earthquake, and altering engineering reports regarding damage after Hurricane Katrina."
5. CONSECO - CEO, C. James Prieur; 2007 compensation: $2.6 million; 2007 profits: $179.9 million; assets: $33.5 billion. "Conseco sells long-term-care policies, typically to the elderly. Unfortunately, Conseco uses the deteriorating health of its policyholders to its advantage because the company knows if it waits long enough to pay out claims, its customers will die."
Labels: Allstate, worst insurance companies
Unfortunately, when you are in an accident that is not your fault, many people (or their insurance company) will not take responsibility for their mistakes and do the right thing. Insurance companies are in business to make money. The longer it holds onto its money, the more it can make off of investing the money.
Thus, insurance companies like Allstate and State Farm routinely attempt to refuse to compensate victims, or offer them much less than what is right and fair. Insurance companies also know this: most people don’t know what legal rights they have, how much their injuries are worth, and how to settle for a fair amount. Many times, insurance companies are not opposed to take advantage of victims, and offer only the lowest possible settlement.
Consider the case in Missouri where State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is likely to be punished with punitive damages for unethical conduct. As reported in Daily Record and the Kansas City Daily News-Press - In 2000 Linda Grewell and James Kephart crashed their cars. After swapping insurance info they discovered they both were covered by State Farm.
Each insured was assigned their own claims consultant. Neressa Wilkins first found Grewell 20 percent at fault for the accident but changed the determination - for reasons unknown at this point - to 50 percent liability after Kephart was found 50 percent at fault and his claims adjuster assigned Grewell with an equal amount of blame.
Grewell's attorney Bruce Brown said the case was a minor personal injury claim, but when the insurance adjuster changed her mind for no apparent reason, he got curious and started asking for claims documents. State Farm refused saying the files were a work product.
In 2003 the Missouri Supreme Court held that insurance claims file are analogous to the file of a client held by an attorney. So people should be provided free and open access to that file.
Yet State Farm still said you can look at the file and take notes but we won't give you a copy. So another lawsuit was filed and the Court ruled that a copy of the file had to be given to the insured and pay attorney's fees.
The court of appeals said the insurance company breached its fiduciary duty to Grewell by denying access to the file and found there are facts in evidence to infer that State Farm had an evil motive and displayed reckless conduct.
For a more complete view of the case, see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20050519/ai_n14634113.
Unfortunately, that’s why we’re here. The experienced personal injury attorneys at The Law Offices of Michael L. Neff know how insurance companies operate. We've seen the "evil motive". We know how to build a case and negotiate with insurance companies to obtain the relief you are entitled to. And if that doesn’t work, we have the experience and expertise to take your case to trial. We’re in a good position to help you obtain a settlement that far exceeds one you might obtain alone. You can't count on the insurance companies to be fair.
Thus, insurance companies like Allstate and State Farm routinely attempt to refuse to compensate victims, or offer them much less than what is right and fair. Insurance companies also know this: most people don’t know what legal rights they have, how much their injuries are worth, and how to settle for a fair amount. Many times, insurance companies are not opposed to take advantage of victims, and offer only the lowest possible settlement.
Consider the case in Missouri where State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is likely to be punished with punitive damages for unethical conduct. As reported in Daily Record and the Kansas City Daily News-Press - In 2000 Linda Grewell and James Kephart crashed their cars. After swapping insurance info they discovered they both were covered by State Farm.
Each insured was assigned their own claims consultant. Neressa Wilkins first found Grewell 20 percent at fault for the accident but changed the determination - for reasons unknown at this point - to 50 percent liability after Kephart was found 50 percent at fault and his claims adjuster assigned Grewell with an equal amount of blame.
Grewell's attorney Bruce Brown said the case was a minor personal injury claim, but when the insurance adjuster changed her mind for no apparent reason, he got curious and started asking for claims documents. State Farm refused saying the files were a work product.
In 2003 the Missouri Supreme Court held that insurance claims file are analogous to the file of a client held by an attorney. So people should be provided free and open access to that file.
Yet State Farm still said you can look at the file and take notes but we won't give you a copy. So another lawsuit was filed and the Court ruled that a copy of the file had to be given to the insured and pay attorney's fees.
The court of appeals said the insurance company breached its fiduciary duty to Grewell by denying access to the file and found there are facts in evidence to infer that State Farm had an evil motive and displayed reckless conduct.
For a more complete view of the case, see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20050519/ai_n14634113.
Unfortunately, that’s why we’re here. The experienced personal injury attorneys at The Law Offices of Michael L. Neff know how insurance companies operate. We've seen the "evil motive". We know how to build a case and negotiate with insurance companies to obtain the relief you are entitled to. And if that doesn’t work, we have the experience and expertise to take your case to trial. We’re in a good position to help you obtain a settlement that far exceeds one you might obtain alone. You can't count on the insurance companies to be fair.
Labels: adjuster, evil motive, insurance claims, personal injury attorney, State Farm
In Pennsylvania, the family of Michael Herrin, who was killed in a truck accident at 15 years of age, reached a court settlement. Brian and Robert Bramlet are the owners of a Ford F-100 farm truck that killed young Mr. Herrin. Brian Bramlet, who was driving the truck at the time, ran through a stop sign and struck Mr. Herrin’s Jeep Cherokee, carrying him and two passengers. The two passengers were ejected from the vehicle, as was Mr. Herrin, whose injuries were fatal.
Labels: injury settlements, truck accident, wrongful death
In Atlanta, we see a lot of lawyers advertising on TV. However, there is only so much a person can learn from a 30 second TV or radio ad. Some ads may feature an old TV star but what does that tell you about the lawyer? Will you even meet that lawyer? Does the lawyer provide quality time with the client? Does the lawyer go to court, if necessary, to get the maximum recovery?
Some ads are placed by referral agencies that collect calls and then divvy them up between attorneys that pay for the service. Other times, cases are referred out to firms who share the incredible costs this type of advertising incurs. The insurance companies know what lawyers are spending big money on advertising - and they know those lawyers need to pay for those bills. Some insurance companies have assigned adjusters solely to deal with TV lawyers. Do you think those insurance adjusters have been trained to lowball the quick settlement offer?
Like so many other professions, some of the best personal injury attorneys don’t do much advertising; instead, their reputations for getting results lead them to get referrals from other lawyers.
If you’re considering hiring a personal injury lawyer, ask for referrals from friends and other attorneys. At the Law Offices of Michael L. Neff, you’ll find a professional approach when listening to your case—and a compassionate ear. Plus we are aggressive when filing a lawsuit is necessary to maximize your ability to recover. If you are injured in Georgia or because a Georgia resident or business was negligent, please consider giving us a call or email us.
Some ads are placed by referral agencies that collect calls and then divvy them up between attorneys that pay for the service. Other times, cases are referred out to firms who share the incredible costs this type of advertising incurs. The insurance companies know what lawyers are spending big money on advertising - and they know those lawyers need to pay for those bills. Some insurance companies have assigned adjusters solely to deal with TV lawyers. Do you think those insurance adjusters have been trained to lowball the quick settlement offer?
Like so many other professions, some of the best personal injury attorneys don’t do much advertising; instead, their reputations for getting results lead them to get referrals from other lawyers.
If you’re considering hiring a personal injury lawyer, ask for referrals from friends and other attorneys. At the Law Offices of Michael L. Neff, you’ll find a professional approach when listening to your case—and a compassionate ear. Plus we are aggressive when filing a lawsuit is necessary to maximize your ability to recover. If you are injured in Georgia or because a Georgia resident or business was negligent, please consider giving us a call or email us.
Labels: atlanta, attorney, insurance company, lowball settlement, personal injury lawyer
Structured settlements can actually be advantageous to a injured person. If you are resolving a personal injury claim, a structured settlement can be an advantage if you wish to:
1. Ensure that funds will exist for a long period of time to make up for lost wages because of a disability.
2. Force careful management upon you if you have money management problems or have suffered a brain injury and are unable to manage your money.
3. Ensure the money will be there in case you may become tempted to “share the wealth” with family members or friends. It takes that option away because the money only comes in when you have predetermined it will.
If you have been hurt and have a serious personal injury claim, discuss the settlement with your attorney. The Law Offices of Michael L. Neff are experienced in discussing the good and bad of structured settlements and can help you decide the best way to settle your case.
1. Ensure that funds will exist for a long period of time to make up for lost wages because of a disability.
2. Force careful management upon you if you have money management problems or have suffered a brain injury and are unable to manage your money.
3. Ensure the money will be there in case you may become tempted to “share the wealth” with family members or friends. It takes that option away because the money only comes in when you have predetermined it will.
If you have been hurt and have a serious personal injury claim, discuss the settlement with your attorney. The Law Offices of Michael L. Neff are experienced in discussing the good and bad of structured settlements and can help you decide the best way to settle your case.
Labels: Georgia personal injury, structured settlement
For people who have been successful with personal injury claims, the claim has traditionally been settled by the insurance company agreeing to pay a one time lump sum of money in exchange for releasing the plaintiff’s claim.
But today, a trend we are seeing in the Law Offices of Michael L. Neff is the “structured settlement.” In this kind of settlement, instead of a lump sum, the injured person usually agrees to accept multiple payments over a period of time. These can extend over a person’s lifetime, or over an agreed number of years. These agreements typically act as an annuity.
If you are faced with a decision to make about a structured settlement, ask an experienced personal injury lawyer to help you make that decision. At the Law Offices of Michael L. Neff we are here to help our clients get the best result possible.
But today, a trend we are seeing in the Law Offices of Michael L. Neff is the “structured settlement.” In this kind of settlement, instead of a lump sum, the injured person usually agrees to accept multiple payments over a period of time. These can extend over a person’s lifetime, or over an agreed number of years. These agreements typically act as an annuity.
If you are faced with a decision to make about a structured settlement, ask an experienced personal injury lawyer to help you make that decision. At the Law Offices of Michael L. Neff we are here to help our clients get the best result possible.
Labels: injury, insurance company, release, structured settlement
Falls constitute the largest percentage of deaths and disabling injuries. How can that be so? Improperly constructed stairways, ramps, landings and porches contribute to fall accidents around the home. How safe is your home? Protect yourself, and visitors who could trip, fall, and file a lawsuit against you.
In Georgia, each county will likely have a building code stating requirements for construction and safety of stairways, ramps, landings and porches in all standard building codes. Failure to follow these would likely result in the construction being hazardous and unreasonably dangerous. Check over these and make sure your home is safe for you—and visitors.
· Stairs: According to the 1994 Standard Building Code, “Treads (depth) and risers (height) should be proportioned so that the sum of two risers and a tread, exclusive of projection of nosing, is not less than 24 inches nor more than 25 inches. The height of the riser shall not exceed 7 3/4 inches and treads, exclusive of nosing, shall be no less than 9 inches wide.”
· Handrails: The 1992 CABO code requires one and two family homes to have handrails for stairways having three or more risers. Handrails are to be located not less than 30 inches nor more than 38 inches above the leading edge of the tread.
· Guardrails: Guardrails are required for balconies, porches, ramps, landings and open sides of stairs, which are more than 30 inches above a finished ground level or floor below. Depending on the structure classification, guardrails shall be a minimum of 36 inches high according to CABO or 42 inches high according to the Standard Building Code.
In Georgia, each county will likely have a building code stating requirements for construction and safety of stairways, ramps, landings and porches in all standard building codes. Failure to follow these would likely result in the construction being hazardous and unreasonably dangerous. Check over these and make sure your home is safe for you—and visitors.
· Stairs: According to the 1994 Standard Building Code, “Treads (depth) and risers (height) should be proportioned so that the sum of two risers and a tread, exclusive of projection of nosing, is not less than 24 inches nor more than 25 inches. The height of the riser shall not exceed 7 3/4 inches and treads, exclusive of nosing, shall be no less than 9 inches wide.”
· Handrails: The 1992 CABO code requires one and two family homes to have handrails for stairways having three or more risers. Handrails are to be located not less than 30 inches nor more than 38 inches above the leading edge of the tread.
· Guardrails: Guardrails are required for balconies, porches, ramps, landings and open sides of stairs, which are more than 30 inches above a finished ground level or floor below. Depending on the structure classification, guardrails shall be a minimum of 36 inches high according to CABO or 42 inches high according to the Standard Building Code.
Labels: building maintenance, Georgia building code, trip and fall
When you are seeking a personal injury lawyer, you should make sure that the attorney you retain is knowledgeable in the type of suit you are filing. For instance, many personal injury lawyers do not practice premises liability or trip and fall law. Instead, they may only handle car accidents. Many won’t handle workers’ compensation cases. Some won't take a case to trial. It is always best to seek an trial attorney who has significant experience in the area of law that is specific to your case.
At the Law Offices of Michael L Neff, we focus primarily on serious injuries like brain and spinal cord injuries and the injuries that cause the need for surgeries. Make sure you determine that the lawyer you are considering has experience with your type of case before you decide to hire him or her. If you are seeking a personal injury lawyer, we ask you to consider our attorneys — where at our Atlanta Buckhead offices, you will find expert guidance in personal injury claims, and a compassionate ear.
At the Law Offices of Michael L Neff, we focus primarily on serious injuries like brain and spinal cord injuries and the injuries that cause the need for surgeries. Make sure you determine that the lawyer you are considering has experience with your type of case before you decide to hire him or her. If you are seeking a personal injury lawyer, we ask you to consider our attorneys — where at our Atlanta Buckhead offices, you will find expert guidance in personal injury claims, and a compassionate ear.
Labels: atlanta, brain injury, injury attorney, personal injury lawyer
New Jersey State Senator Robert Singer has agreed to pay a $1.175 million settlement to end a lawsuit filed by a woman he seriously injured in 2005.
Barbara Sara, 76 years old, was walking across East Veterans Highway when she was struck by Mr. Singer’s SUV. Ms. Sara suffered a concussion, a fractured arm, two fractured ankles and a fractured leg; she was put in critical condition and remained hospitalized for nearly four months.
This is the second such altercation for Mr. Singer. In 1991 he hit two (allegedly) intoxicated men who walked in front of his car.
Barbara Sara, 76 years old, was walking across East Veterans Highway when she was struck by Mr. Singer’s SUV. Ms. Sara suffered a concussion, a fractured arm, two fractured ankles and a fractured leg; she was put in critical condition and remained hospitalized for nearly four months.
This is the second such altercation for Mr. Singer. In 1991 he hit two (allegedly) intoxicated men who walked in front of his car.
Labels: brain injury, car accidents, concussion, fractured ankle
If you’re lucky enough to be involved in a collision where nobody was injured or any injuries were minor, it might be possible for you to resolve your claims for medical care and property damage directly with the insurance companies. But the greater the damage or injury, the more likely it is that a lawsuit will follow.
What are the most common causes for automobile accidents? They include:
· Driver Error—the most common cause, it can include failure to yield the right of way, following too closely, and driving at excessive speeds.
· Distractions—these can occur from outside of the car, such as when something at the side of the road attracts the driver’s attention, or inside, such as where the driver attempts to dials a cellular phone.
· Intoxication—when the ability to drive is impaired as a result of alcohol or drugs, drivers are more likely to cause car accidents.
· Bad weather—bad weather conditions can contribute to an accident by decreasing visibility, diminishing traction, or an unexpected hazard such as black ice.
· Road design—poorly designed roadways, intersections, or poorly placed and poorly designed road signs or barriers can all be causes of accidents.
· Vehicle Defects—an accident can result from a tire blowout, brake failure, or other mechanical failure.
Most automobile accident litigation involves a driver from one vehicle claiming that the driver of the second caused the accident through negligent driving. It can also involve a passenger claiming injury as a result of a driver’s negligence. Litigation can also be brought against a governmental agency, which fails to properly design or maintain a road. or include a product liability claim against the manufacturer of a car or car part, or a mechanic who left a vehicle in a dangerous condition. If you’ve been injured in a car accident, don’t waste time. Call the Law Offices of Michael L. Neff today - before the evidence disappears. We can tell you if you have cause for litigation.
What are the most common causes for automobile accidents? They include:
· Driver Error—the most common cause, it can include failure to yield the right of way, following too closely, and driving at excessive speeds.
· Distractions—these can occur from outside of the car, such as when something at the side of the road attracts the driver’s attention, or inside, such as where the driver attempts to dials a cellular phone.
· Intoxication—when the ability to drive is impaired as a result of alcohol or drugs, drivers are more likely to cause car accidents.
· Bad weather—bad weather conditions can contribute to an accident by decreasing visibility, diminishing traction, or an unexpected hazard such as black ice.
· Road design—poorly designed roadways, intersections, or poorly placed and poorly designed road signs or barriers can all be causes of accidents.
· Vehicle Defects—an accident can result from a tire blowout, brake failure, or other mechanical failure.
Most automobile accident litigation involves a driver from one vehicle claiming that the driver of the second caused the accident through negligent driving. It can also involve a passenger claiming injury as a result of a driver’s negligence. Litigation can also be brought against a governmental agency, which fails to properly design or maintain a road. or include a product liability claim against the manufacturer of a car or car part, or a mechanic who left a vehicle in a dangerous condition. If you’ve been injured in a car accident, don’t waste time. Call the Law Offices of Michael L. Neff today - before the evidence disappears. We can tell you if you have cause for litigation.
Labels: drunk driver, negligent maintenance road, negligent road design
In the case of a man who suffered a permanent neck injury in an accident while driving a Ford Aerostar van, a Florida jury recently has awarded $6 million.
Mr. Julian Felipe was traveling to a family vacation in Sarasota in 2002 when a tire blew out, causing the van to roll over and the roof to cave in. Mr. Felipe’s neck was broken during the accident, paralyzing him.
According to the lawsuit, Ford knew there was a propensity for vans and trucks to roll over, especially after a blowout, but failed to provide adequate safety measures to drivers and passengers.
If you know someone injured because of a defect in a car or truck, please contact our injury attorneys at The Law Offices of Michael L. Neff.
Mr. Julian Felipe was traveling to a family vacation in Sarasota in 2002 when a tire blew out, causing the van to roll over and the roof to cave in. Mr. Felipe’s neck was broken during the accident, paralyzing him.
According to the lawsuit, Ford knew there was a propensity for vans and trucks to roll over, especially after a blowout, but failed to provide adequate safety measures to drivers and passengers.
If you know someone injured because of a defect in a car or truck, please contact our injury attorneys at The Law Offices of Michael L. Neff.
Labels: broken neck, paralysis, product liability
Following a traumatic brain injury, or TBI, the injured person can experience a variety of psychological effects, including change of personality, loss of impulse control, decreased judgment and depression. The depression may be a result of the brain injury, or it can be a reaction to other symptoms. Other effects can include speech and communication difficulties, memory loss, a feeling of disorientation, anger and lack of perception.
Victims of TBI often have difficulties adjusting to these changes during their recovery. What used to come naturally to them might now be a struggle. The recovery process can be exhausting—not only physically, but emotionally, as well.
If you, or someone you love, have been diagnosed with a TBI, physicians and psychologists who specialize in brain injury cases are best able to help you make the fullest possible recovery. If the TBI is a result of an accident that was not your fault, we encourage you to call or email us at the Law Offices of Michael L. Neff right away. We can help you get the help you need.
Victims of TBI often have difficulties adjusting to these changes during their recovery. What used to come naturally to them might now be a struggle. The recovery process can be exhausting—not only physically, but emotionally, as well.
If you, or someone you love, have been diagnosed with a TBI, physicians and psychologists who specialize in brain injury cases are best able to help you make the fullest possible recovery. If the TBI is a result of an accident that was not your fault, we encourage you to call or email us at the Law Offices of Michael L. Neff right away. We can help you get the help you need.
Labels: accident, brain injury, depression, memory loss, TBI
Insurance Industry Employs “Deny, Delay, Defend” Strategy, Puts Profits Over Policyholders
A comprehensive study of thousands of documents by American Association for Justice has declared Allstate as the worst insurer for consumers.
The rankings show a distinct pattern of insurance industry greed amongst 10 companies that refuse to pay just claims, employ hardball tactics against policyholders, reward executives with extravagant salaries, and raise premiums while hoarding excessive profits.
“While Allstate publicly touts its ‘good hands’ approach, it has instead privately instructed its agents to employ a ‘boxing gloves’ strategy against its policyholders,” said American Association for Justice CEO Jon Haber. “Allstate ducks, bobs and weaves to avoid paying claims to increase its profits.”
Allstate (NYSE: ALL) set the standard for insurance company greed and placing profits over policyholders. Allstate contracted with consulting giant McKinsey & Co. in the mid-1990s to systematically force consumers to accept lowball claims or face its “boxing gloves,” an aggressive strategy designed to deny claims at any cost. One Allstate employee reported that supervisors told agents to lie and blame fires on arson, and in turn, were rewarded with portable fridges.
Thousands of court documents, materials uncovered from litigation and discovery, testimony, complaints filed with state insurance departments, SEC and FBI records, and news accounts were reviewed to compile the rankings and statistics.
The rest of the rankings are as follows:
2. Unum (NYSE: UNM) – Unum’s actions are even more shameful considering the type of insurance it sells: disability. Unum’s behavior was epitomized when it denied the claim of a woman with multiple sclerosis for three years, stating her conditions were “self-reported,” contrary to doctors’ evaluations. In 2005, Unum agreed to a settlement with insurance commissioners from 48 states over their practices.
3. AIG (NYSE: AIG) – The world’s biggest insurer, AIG’s slogan was “we know money.” AIG, described by commentators as “the new Enron,” has engaged in massive corporate fraud and claims abuses. In 2006, the company paid $1.6 billion to settle a host of charges.
4. State Farm – State Farm is notoriou
A comprehensive study of thousands of documents by American Association for Justice has declared Allstate as the worst insurer for consumers.
The rankings show a distinct pattern of insurance industry greed amongst 10 companies that refuse to pay just claims, employ hardball tactics against policyholders, reward executives with extravagant salaries, and raise premiums while hoarding excessive profits.
“While Allstate publicly touts its ‘good hands’ approach, it has instead privately instructed its agents to employ a ‘boxing gloves’ strategy against its policyholders,” said American Association for Justice CEO Jon Haber. “Allstate ducks, bobs and weaves to avoid paying claims to increase its profits.”
Allstate (NYSE: ALL) set the standard for insurance company greed and placing profits over policyholders. Allstate contracted with consulting giant McKinsey & Co. in the mid-1990s to systematically force consumers to accept lowball claims or face its “boxing gloves,” an aggressive strategy designed to deny claims at any cost. One Allstate employee reported that supervisors told agents to lie and blame fires on arson, and in turn, were rewarded with portable fridges.
Thousands of court documents, materials uncovered from litigation and discovery, testimony, complaints filed with state insurance departments, SEC and FBI records, and news accounts were reviewed to compile the rankings and statistics.
The rest of the rankings are as follows:
2. Unum (NYSE: UNM) – Unum’s actions are even more shameful considering the type of insurance it sells: disability. Unum’s behavior was epitomized when it denied the claim of a woman with multiple sclerosis for three years, stating her conditions were “self-reported,” contrary to doctors’ evaluations. In 2005, Unum agreed to a settlement with insurance commissioners from 48 states over their practices.
3. AIG (NYSE: AIG) – The world’s biggest insurer, AIG’s slogan was “we know money.” AIG, described by commentators as “the new Enron,” has engaged in massive corporate fraud and claims abuses. In 2006, the company paid $1.6 billion to settle a host of charges.
4. State Farm – State Farm is notoriou