High Settlements in Auto Accident Cases Tactics to Influence - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Leveraging Demand Letters to Obtain High Settlements in Auto Accident Cases

Tactics to Influence Insurance Companies to Pay at or Above Policy Limits

Today’s faculty features:

1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific

The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's

• speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you

have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2015

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Ronald J. Cook, Partner, Willoughby Stuart Bening & Cook, San Jose, Calif. Richard Hastings, Founding Partner, Hastings Cohan & Walsh, Ridgefield, Conn.

• Dr. Frank Liberti, St. Petersburg, Fla.

Tips for Optimal Quality

Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality

• f your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet

connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-866-869-6667 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Continuing Education Credits

For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by completing each of the following steps:

• In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of

attendees at your location

• Click the SEND button beside the box

If you have purchased Strafford CLE processing services, you must confirm your participation by completing and submitting an Official Record of Attendance (CLE Form). You may obtain your CLE form by going to the program page and selecting the appropriate form in the PROGRAM MATERIALS box at the top right corner. If you'd like to purchase CLE credit processing, it is available for a fee. For additional information about CLE credit processing, go to our website or call us at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 35.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Program Materials

If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps:

• Click on the ^ symbol next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-

hand column on your screen.

• Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a

PDF of the slides for today's program.

• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.
• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Leveraging Demand Letters to Obtain Higher Settlements in Auto Accident Claims

TIPS AND TECHNIQUES FOR INCREASING THE VALUE OF YOUR CLIENT’S CLAIM Richard P. Hastings

RPHASTINGS@SNET.NET

Richard P. Hastings - Connecticut Personal Injury & Accident Attorney Hastings, Cohan & Walsh, LLP

Pulling Back the Curtain

Behind the Process of Drafting the Settlement Demand Letter

The Client The Healthcare Providers The Adjuster

6

The Plaintiff’s Attorney

& How YOU Can Affect the Value

Richard P. Hastings - Connecticut Personal Injury & Accident Attorney Hastings, Cohan & Walsh, LLP

• Detailed intake;
• Educate your client about responsibilities and

expectations;

• Review client’s medical records and provide to client;
• Go over inconsistencies and have client review them with

their medical provider; and

• Develop a rapport with the adjuster and constantly

provide updates.

7

How Your Client

• Specifically describing all problems to medical

professionals;

• Prepare for each medical appointment;
• Regular and consistent treatment; and
• Carefully review medical records and report inaccuracies

to the doctor.

Richard P. Hastings - Connecticut Personal Injury & Accident Attorney Hastings,

Cohan & Walsh, LLP

Can Affect the Value of their Case

8

Richard P. Hastings - Connecticut Personal Injury & Accident Attorney Hastings, Cohan & Walsh, LLP

How Your Dealings with the Adjuster

Can Affect the Value

• Develop a relationship;
• Under promise and over deliver;
• Constantly update;
• Learn about the adjuster;
• Know what you want to accomplish before you call; and
• Always be prepared and don’t let the adjuster know more

about your client than you do.

9

Richard P. Hastings - Connecticut Personal Injury & Accident Attorney Hastings, Cohan & Walsh, LLP

Adding Value

Through Your Client’s Medical Records

• Educate your client;
• Specifically describing pain complaints;
• How do these problems affect them;
• Duties under duress; and
• Home health activities and aids.

10

Richard P. Hastings - Connecticut Personal Injury & Accident Attorney Hastings, Cohan & Walsh, LLP

Value Drivers

• Medical bills;
• Specialists;
• Positive diagnostic testing;
• Buzz words and key

phrases;

• Documented out of pocket

expenses;

• Medical insurance

premiums;

• Property damage to your

vehicle;

• Documented lost time

from work; and

• Duties under duress.

11

Richard P. Hastings - Connecticut Personal Injury & Accident Attorney Hastings, Cohan & Walsh, LLP

Tying it ALL Together

• 1. Client education;
• 2. Robust medical records;
• 3. Detailed client challenges; and
• 4. Constant communication with adjuster.

12

ADJUSTER SECRETS

Attorney & Adjuster Tips & Techniques That Guarantee Larger Settlements

• FREE Chapter Download
• www.adjustersecrets.com

Richard P. Hastings - Connecticut Personal Injury & Accident Attorney Hastings, Cohan & Walsh, LLP 13

Using Value Divers and Decision Points to Leverage Demand Letters to Obtain Higher Settlements in Auto Accident Cases

• Dr. Frank Liberti

f_liberti@msn.com

Its No Secret

…to personal injury lawyers that the insurance industry uses an armory of claims handling software and computer programs to determine claim value and cut settlement case value reserves.

15

As the software’s engage cost

containment measures to limit bodily

injury settlements, it has made it difficult for plaintiff attorneys to oppose, without specific knowledge of how the system works, adding a new layer of complexity to the drafting of demand letters.

16

Colossus

One of the most widely used claims settlement software’s is Colossus, from Computer Sciences Corp. (CSC). According to CSC spokesperson Marian Kelley, Colossus is used by more than 50 percent of the nation's claims adjusters and by 38 agencies that represent more than 300 insurance companies.

17

• Mr. Smith of American National

Property and Casualty Co.

• Mr. Smith of American National

… “insurers have invested big-time bucks in Colossus and every adjuster is expected to use the computer program for all applicable claims. Colossus' price is a well-kept secret, but it's very expensive," according to Smith.

18

There are 80 different version as;

• Injury IQ
• Teach
• Injury Claims Evaluations (“ICE”) and
• Claims Outcome Advisor (“COA”)

Every Insurance Company Uses A Software.

19

Sylvia Hsieh, Lawyers USA (2006):

…”plaintiffs' attorneys are not keeping up with the insurance companies, and for the most part are getting beaten by

the system”.

20

Karen Greig, ESQ. in Bellevue, Wash.,

…who's litigated dozens of bodily injury suits

against Allstate says:

"There's something sinister and surreal about a computer becoming the arbiter of the value of human life"

"You can't negotiate with a computer."

21

Plaintiff Attorneys Agree “Various Elements Of The

Software’s Operate In A Systematic Way to Deny Policyholders Legitimate Benefits”

22

Plaintiff Disadvantage

...since Colossus guidelines are not available to the public, it puts plaintiffs at a severe disadvantage.

23

Since 2004,

…All State has been ignoring a Superior Court order to release the Colossus guidelines known as: “Decision Points” & “Value Drivers” …from which they determine settlement value. They claim their Decision Point Guidelines are proprietary and they elect their right to “Civil Disrespect”.

24

FINE Allstate Agreed to Pay a Ten Million Dollar ($10,000,000.00) Regulatory Settlement.

25

“Business Processing Improvement” (BPI) & “Core Claim Process Redesign” (CCPR) Changed Personal Injury

It’s a Revolution and… Not What You Think

26

SUPREME COURT RULING

• Allstate’s Practice of Law under

CCPR Harms the Public Interest.

The Supreme Court believes CCPR gives a competitive edge that goes beyond expense control in reducing claims costs.

• Washington State Bar Assn. v.

Great Western Union Federal

• Sav. and Loan Ass’n., 91 Wn.2d

48, 54-55, 586 P.2d 870 (1978).

CCPR HARMFUL TO PUBLIC

“CCPR HARMS PUBLIC INTEREST”

27

• Consumer Federation

Of America …released it's report citing court documents that reveal; “insurer's utilization of claims evaluation software's result in huge and questionable insurer claims’ savings”

28

The Report Stated;

…“computer claims software’s utilized by 95% of the nation’s largest insurance companies, can be manipulated to produce unjustifiably low injury payments to consumers and tens of millions of dollars in illegitimate ‘savings’ for insurers.”

29

The Report Also Stated:

…”unfortunately, these companies violate their obligation to deliver fair claims’ payments to their own policyholders on a huge scale, in order to increase profits.”

30

And finally:

…”most of the nation’s top insurers use “Claim’s Handling Software’s” in ways that put millions of American consumers at risk of not getting the claims payments that they paid for with their premiums”.

31

We Practice In A World Of Improper Claims Tactics, Driven By Computers And Decision Point Guidelines

32

Decision Points

…The set of factors for which Colossus determines a range of values that convert into settlement dollars using a formula.

Decision points are the points by which Decisions are made regards value

33

The Formula To Convert “Decision Points” Into Settlement Dollars Is:

“Point to Dollar Translation Percentage Multiplier” Formula!

34

Decision Points that Determine Value

• 14,357 “Value Drivers”
• 27,125 “Severity Drivers”
• 26,350 “Standard Multipliers”
• 33 “Liability Drivers”
• 15 “Additional Increase Multipliers”
• 67,847 Decision Points
• PLUS:
• Injury Severity Points
• Case Maximizers
• Prolonged Modifiers

35

Since

…these decision points are not well known by the legal, medical or public communities, it makes it difficult to represent the full value of the injury.

36

80% 0% Of Of The e De Deci cisi sion

• n Poi
• ints

nts Ar Are e Mi Miss ssin ing g In The e Average rage De Deman mand

37

Mi Miss ssin ing g De Decision cision Points ints Equal ual Mi Miss ssin ing g Settlement ttlement Do Dollar lars

38

Understanding that missing “Decision Points” cause missing settlement value.

39

How It Works

To use these claim settlement software’s as Colossus, an adjuster inputs the “Decision Points” and “Value Drivers” about a claim and Colossus calculates a range of values for the claim's worth.

40

Original programmers at CSC,

…Report Colossus was set up to calculate GENERAL DAMAGE CATEGORIES based upon Decision Point Guidelines in: Administrative Economic and Legal Areas

41

Original programmers at CSC

…Report Colossus was also set up to calculate GENERAL MEDICAL INJURY (non-economic) damages based upon four (4) medical decision point corners of a claim.

42

• 1. Injury Severity Points
• 2. Duties Under Duress
• 3. Loss Of Enjoyment
• 4. % Whole Person Impairment

43

Assessing Medical Claim Value

Injury Types:………………………..25% value Duties under Duress:…………….25% value Loss Of Enjoyment:……………….25% value % Whole Person Impairment:..25% value 100% value

44

45

46

47

48

49

#1 Injury Severity Points

Injuries are represented by diagnoses. Colossus requires double digit diagnoses represented by ICD 9 Codes. Average # of diagnosis = 4 HCFA form = room for 4 diagnoses 1st area of missing Decision Points and missing value therefore is the diagnoses = 25% value

50

…"When it comes to discussing the damages issues re injuries, the lawyer must stick to the four corners of the medical records documents.

• 1. Injury Severity Points
• 2. Duties Under Duress
• 3. Loss of Enjoyment
• 4. % Whole Person Impairment

If it is not in the medical records, it doesn't

• count. Stupid rule, but that's apparently how it's

done."

Las Vegas Attorney Steven Burris Reports

51

Therefore the physician is the single most important aspect of a Colossus case and data contained within the doctor’s chart notes, [not narrative] are the only source

• f information that adjustors are allowed

to derive decision points from to enter into Colossus.

52

Injury Model Assessment International Classification of Functioning DRE Categories DBI Estimates Spine Impairment Summary Specific Disorders of the Spine 5th Edition AMA Guidelines Whole Person Impairment

53

Aaron DeShaw, ESQ

“It’s no secret that many plaintiffs' attorneys believe there is nothing that can be done to prevent unfair settlements unless they involve major injuries”. He points out that this is NOT the case as soft tissue injuries meet the “Serious Injury Threshold”.

54

• 1. MTBI = Closed Head Injuries
• 2. Sensory Loss
• 3. Motor Loss /weakness
• 4. Range Of Motion Loss
• 5. Diminished Deep Tendon Responses
• 6. Disc (Disorder/Derangement)
• 7. Ligament Laxity (728.4 Loss of Segment Integrity/AOMSI)
• 8. Radiculopathies
• 9. Fractures (Vertebral Body, Uncinate Process)
• 10. Spondylolisthesis
• 11. Stenosis

55

#2 % Whole Person Impairment

The evaluator must identify the involved body;

• Parts
• Systems and
• Functions

…The evaluator must list:

• AMA Guide Edition
• Chapter and
• Table

…used to make the WPI Determination.

56

All claims should be assessed for whole person impairment according to 5th edition guides.

Colossus Uses 5th Edition AMA Guides

57

Attorney Aaron DeShaw:

"While the legal profession has historically used narrative-style demand letters to convey claims, much of the information provided in medical or legal narrative style demand letters has no value in

• Colossus. Adjusters look almost entirely to the

medical records for the decision points that input value required by Colossus. Only a minority of lawyers and doctors have a clue what's going on. Attorneys need to convey data about the claim using TABLE format”.

58

59

60

SO, HOW CAN WE PREVENT OR REDUCE IMPROPER, LOW VALUATION?

61

2 Main Factors

All settlement claims will be devalued due to the use

• f the insurance company’s software’s and Business

Process Improvement (BPI) culture, however settling a claim favorably without trial is dependent upon two main factors: 1). The physician’s ability to chart the medical decision points so they input value into Colossus and 2). The attorneys specific mirroring, formatting and sequencing of the decision points in the demand letter

62

Strict Requirements of Adjuster

“The claims handling software’s themselves make a lot of demands on adjusters, requiring them to enter scores of information. You have to have a good medical record of what the injury is" …says Mr. Smith of American National Property and Casualty Co.

63

Peripherals

"Any injury can have many peripherals attached to it. A neck injury might cause a pinched nerve, which may or may not cause injury down to the finger tip, for example. Colossus is very good at finding out what kind of injuries are actually present. The more information an adjuster inputs, the more accurate Colossus' calculation becomes”.

64

What To Include In Demand

Because Colossus asks many specific questions about claims factors, you need to know what is being asked, what is being valued, what is missing and what to include in your demand.

65

Decision Points Normally Included In The Average Demand:

 Summary of Claim  Background  Damages Facts and faults of Accident - Liability  Injuries and Treatment  Economic factors (property damage, lost wages, etc).  Medical Expenses – current and future  Past Medical History  Evaluation, Summary, settlement demand and supporting documents

66

Colossus Expert & Attorney Aaron Deshaw

“ Plaintiffs' lawyers are frequently unaware of what other decision

points & value drivers are treated as significant by Colossus”.

67

Value Drivers That Should Be Included In Every Demand:

In response to the data contained in both the medical chart notes and the demand, Colossus will then bring up “drop- down” screens seeking additional information.

68

Colossus Questions

Here are some of the medical “pop-up” questions Colossus will ask when seeking data.

69

As we review the following list, compare how many Administrative Legal Economic and Medical Decision Points are included and how many are omitted in both your medical experts chart notes and also in your demand.

70

Points To Be Included In Demand

 Medical, Administrative, Legal & Economic Decision Points  Value Drivers  Injury Severity Points  Case Maximizers  Prolonged Modifiers  Standard Multipliers  Additional Increase Multipliers  Liability Drivers  Injury Drivers  Mileage Drivers  Undisputed Statements Of Fact  Points Of Memorandum  Evidentiary Burdens Of Proof & Authorities

71

Points To Be Included In Demand

 Medical History  Medical Office Records with Laboratory Tests, Special Tests, Diagnostic Procedures  Hospital Records  Records From Client  Records From Other Sources  Explanations For Delay In Seeking Care  Explanations For Gaps In Treatment  Medical Validation Letter – 2nd opinion from independent 3rd medical party

72

 Functional Physical Examination

 Injury Types (ICD’s) [25% value of claim]  Symptoms (Documented)  Laboratory Tests  Special Tests (CRMA/MDF)  Diagnostic Procedures  Specialist’s Evaluation  Diagnoses (Double Digits)  Complaints – (intensity, frequency, type, radiation, further effects)  Duties Under Duress [25% value of claim]  Loss Of Enjoyment [25% value of claim]  Treatment  Stability of Medical Condition

73

 Medical Determination of Future Treatment  Prognosis Overall  Prognosis Each Body Area  Future Treatment Plan  Number of Future Visits (On stable injuries)  Future Treatment Duration and Time Lines  MMI For Each Body Part  % Whole Person Impairment with Medical Validation Letter. [25% value of claim]  Evidentiary burdens of proof showing soft tissue injuries meet “Serious Injury Thresholds”  Diagnostic Related Estimates (DRE’s)  Diagnosis Based Injuries (DBI’s)  Spine Impairment Summary  Specific Disorders Of The Spine  Whole Person Impairment

74

Monetary Factors

 Administrative and legal costs  Damages  Current Medical Costs  Future Medical Costs and Probability  Economic Expenses & Loses  Property Damage & any additional losses  Vehicle Repair Costs  Car Rental Expenses  Mileage calculated @52 cents per mile  Current Income Loss  Future Income Loss  Supportive Statements of Costs & Losses

75

• 1. Medical History
• 2. Medical Office records
• 3. Hospital Records
• 4. Records From Other Source
• 5. Records From Client
• 6. Explain Delay in Seeking

Care

• 7. Explain Gaps in Treatment
• 8. Physical Examination
• 9. Injuries (ICD-9 codes)

10.Symptoms (Documented) 11.Laboratory Tests 12.Special Tests 13.Diagnostic Procedures 14.Specialist’s Evaluation 15.Medical Validation & Determination Letter 16.Diagnoses(double digits)

Attorney

ATTORNEY OUTLINE/ CHECKLIST FOR DEMAND LETTER Attorney Demand Letter

Use this checklist to tag and extract decision points and value drivers to be included in the demand to input value into Colossus

76

28.MMI For Each Body Part 29.% Whole Person Impairment (Provided by MD Utilizing

5th Edition AMA Guidelines

• r with a Medical

Validation Letter as a 2nd Opinion from an MD)

30.Monetary Damages

• Current Medical Costs
• Future Medical Costs

and Probability

• Economic Loses
• Property Damage & any

additional losses

• Vehicle Repair Costs
• Car Rental Expenses
• Mileage calculated @52

cents per mile

• Current Income Loss
• Future Income Loss
• Supportive Statements
• f Costs & Losses

Attorney

ATTORNEY OUTLINE/ CHECKLIST FOR DEMAND LETTER

“Claim Finalization and Demand Letter”

Attorney Demand Letter

• 17. Complaints – have to be

rated according to; intensity, frequency, type, radiation, further effects 18.Duties Under Duress 19.Loss Of Enjoyment 20.Treatment 21.Stability of Medical Condition 22.Medical Determination of Future Treatment 23.Prognosis Overall 24.Prognosis Each Body Area 25.Future Treatment Plan 26.Number of Future Visits (if Not Stable)

• 27. Future Treatment Duration

and Time Line

77

78

SOFT TISSUE INJURY LIABILITY CASE CLAIM RESERVE

2004 was $15,800 2015 is $5,800

79

80

81

How Do We Win the “Greater Weight” of the Evidence Challenges?

82

Colossus rates a 2nd opinion with weighted value. A 2nd opinion, validation letter from an independent 3rd medical party, is the court approved method to meet evidentiary burdens of proof to win the Greater Weight of the evidence challenges.

Validate

83

• 1. Eliminate varying opinions
• 2. Establish preponderance meeting court

accepted evidentiary burdens of proof

• 3. Win the “Greater Weight” of the

Evidence challenges

• 4. Prevent Unfair Settlements

Validate The Case To:

84

85

86

87

88

89

Simply Stated

• Improving Settlement Claim Value Is A Matter Of;

…understanding and sequencing the Medical Decision Points with the Administrative, Economic and Legal Decision Points to interface with the insurance company software’s to input value

into Colossus.

• …And winning the Great Weight Challenges!

90

91

92

93

94

95

LEVERAGING DEMAND LETTERS TO OBTAIN HIGH SETTLEMENTS

Ronald J. Cook, ESQ Willoughby Stuart, Bening & Cook 50 W. San Fernando, Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 408.494.9211 408.295.6375 (fax) ron@wsbclawyers.com www.wsbclawyers.com

 TYPICAL CASE  Great Facts  Serious Injury  Clear (or close to it) Liability  Good Plaintiff  Inadequate Insurance Coverage

INTRODUCTION

98

WHAT ARE THE LIMITS?

 Policy limits are confidential. (e.g., Ins. Code §

791.13; Griffith v. State Farm (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 59, 65-68) --BUT SEE

 Boicourt v. Amex Assurance Co. (2000) 78

Cal.App.4th 1390

 “No less an authority on insurance law than John Alan

Appleman declared 40 years ago that a liability insurer ‘is playing with fire’ when it refuses to disclose policy limits. Such a refusal ‘cuts off the possibility of receiving an offer within the policy limits’”.

99

WHAT ARE THE LIMITS? (cont.)

 Ask nicely-Many carriers volunteer information  “Limits are more than adequate”  Umbrella Coverage  Personal Counsel Cooperation  Use Boicourt to discover limits:

 Ins. Co. obligated to seek insured’s permission to disclose  Refusal to ask is bad faith since settlement is impossible  Send letter citing Boicourt and instructing carrier to forward a

copy to the insured

 If insured refuses is that good news?

100

3rd PARTY POLICY LIMIT DEMAND

 Adverse carrier refuses to pay policy limit  Judgment in excess of limit exposes

insured to personal liability

 Plaintiff can file “direct action” to collect  If carrier acted unreasonably, owes full

amount, not policy limit.

 Assignment from insured for bad faith

101

UM/UIM

 First party relationship-Duty to Settle/Negotiate  Better to chase UIM or an Open Limit?  Must Exhaust Limits to trigger UIM  UM/UIM Arbitration to Prove Liability/Damages  Cannot Open Limit for Refusing to Settle  Demand Letter Can Set Up Bad Faith Case  Carrier is not Immune From Bad Faith…

102

UM/UIM-Bad Faith

 Maslo v. Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins.

(2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 626

 Insured demanded UM policy limit ($250K)

and supported it with back-up documents

 Carrier offered $0 and demanded Arbitration  Arbitrator awarded $164,120.91  Bad Faith Case Followed  HELD: No Offer = Bad Faith

103

What Does Carrier Know?

 Independent Investigation  Police Report  Medical Records  Liability  Discovery (in litigated cases)  How old is claim  Educate, Educate, Educate!

104

What if 3rd Party Case Isn’t Worth Policy Limit?

 No bad faith unless verdict exceeds limit  Adverse driver deserves their day in court  Force them to make smart decision (settle)  Allowed to be stubborn and stupid  Create risk of excess verdict in letter

 Take a shot at opening limit

105

Demand (Set Up) Letter

 Is The Time Right?  What if You Don’t Know the Limit?

 Demand Right Number or the Limit,

Whichever is Less

 Personal Assets of Defendant  Client Authority (Will they take the limit?)

106

Demand (Set Up) Letter

plaintiffmagazine.com/Mar11/Cook_The-​letter-perfect...

Crucial Elements:

• 1. Factual Support (To run up chain)
• 2. Liability
• 3. All special damages supported
• 4. Verdict Value-Jury Verdict Reports
• 5. Deadline (Be reasonable!)
• a. One day is enough if on eve of trial-(Kelly v.

British Commercial Ins. Co. (1963) 221 Cal.App. 2d 554

• b. What will a judge/jury think?

107

Demand (Set Up) Letter

• 6. Tell Ins. Co. Everything it Needs to Know To Decide
• 7. Full and Final Release of All Claims
• 8. Husband and Wife (Loss of Consortium)
• 9. Medical Lien (Most Common Omission)

10. Demand Will Not Be Repeated After Deadline

• a. No Duty to Repeat Offer

11. Offer to Grant Extension For Good Reason

• a. Must specify why, how long and what will be done

108

Demand (Set Up) Letter

• 12. Definite Enough to Be Accepted
• a. No contingencies
• b. Asset Declaration?

13. Demand Letter Doesn’t Have to Be “Letter Perfect”

If the insurer fails to accept the settlement offer without seeking clarification of its terms, it cannot later avoid the consequences by claiming the offer was uncertain. (Betts v. Allstate Ins.Co. (1984) 154 Cal.App. 3d 688, 708).

109

Demand (Set Up) Letter



The law “does not require claimants against insureds to begin settlement overtures with letter perfect offers to which insurers need

• nly respond “yes” or “no.” An insurer’s duty of good faith would be

trifling if it did not require an insurer to explore the details of a settlement offer that could prove extremely beneficial to its insured [evidence supports the conclusion that the insurance company ignored the offer, “as a calculated gamble on which only its insured could lose.”]. (Allen v. Allstate Ins.Co.,656 F.2d 487, 490 (9th Cir. 1981)

 No duty To Remind Carrier of Deadline

110

 Make Them Tell You Why  What’s Missing?  Would it Look Unreasonable to Deny  Refuse and Later Deemed Unreasonable,

Policy Isn’t Open

Extra Time?

111

• Ins. Co. Standards

 Carrier Required to Look for Opportunity to

Settle Within Limits

 Coverage Doubts Cannot Justify Rejection  “...in determining whether a settlement offer is reasonable, an

insurer may not consider the issue of coverage.[citation]. Rather, ‘[t]he only permissible consideration in evaluating the reasonableness of the settlement offer. . . is whether, in light of the victim’s injuries and probable liability of the insured, the ultimate judgment is likely to exceed the amount of the settlement offer.”



(Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Jacobson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 489, 498)

112

• Ins. Co. Standards

 Reasonable Conduct Defined:

“acceptance of a settlement offer within an insurer’s policy limits will be the most reasonable manner of disposing of a claim ‘whenever it is likely that the judgment against the insured will exceed policy limits.’” (Isaacson v. Calif. Ins. Guar. Assn. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 775, 792, fn12, citing Johannsen v. CSAA (1975) 15 Cal.3d 9, 16).

 Did Carrier Notify Insured of Chance to Settle

Before Rejection (Insured Has Right to Pay Demand or Make up Difference)?

113

• Ins. Co. Standards



THE BOTTOM LINE: (best quote ) “An insurer’s failure to accept an offer of a reasonable settlement within policy limits when there is great risk of liability in excess of the policy limits may ‘in the ordinary course of things,’ result in a judgment against the insured beyond the policy limits. [citation]. As such, the insured has a legitimate right to expect that ‘the method of settlement within policy limits’ will be used to protect him or her from

• liability. [citation]. Since liability beyond policy limits constitutes

damages that arise ‘naturally’ from a liability insurer’s failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer, such damages are foreseeable within the meaning of Civil Code section 3300.” (Archdale v. American Internat. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 449, 469-470).

114

Rejection: Good News/Bad News

 Is the Policy Really Open?  Second Lawsuit After Verdict  Jury Question: What Would a Reasonable

Carrier Have Done?

115

CONCLUSION

Should You Have Any Further Questions Please Feel Free to Contact Me: RONALD J. COOK WILLOUGHBY, STUART BENING 50 W. SAN FERNANDO ST., #400 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 408-494-9211 ron@wsbclawyers.com

116