The reason they do not pay is easy. The insurance mafia builds huge plush skyscrapers every year, hires ad' agencies to come up with creative spokespersons who's I.Q is so low they could not work in fast food.(either a lizard or a strawberry AX murderer ....).....in order to steal such low I.Q customers from the next insurance company. All the while not paying legit claims because they insist that the system is rife with fraud. You cannot even say the word "insurance" in a court proceeding.
Well, congratulations, big shot. By your own acknowledgment, you were a litigator prior to being an in-house counsel, and the opposite career path is far more unusual. My point earlier was that while MOST companies DO have in-house counsel, MOST of them have different duties apart from litigation. I see nowhere that I said in house counsel, so calm down and put your faux outrage down. That's like LeBron being offended if one says he is inadequate to fill in for Joe Mauer.
Sorry, but "you're simply wrong.” I’ve been staff counsel for 4 years with a major carrier. I’ve had a constant case load of about 150, taken over 40 cases to a jury verdict and was a litigator prior to being staff counsel. As such, your comments of house counsel being inferior are insulting. I have more trial experience than many outside firms who bill the shit out of a file until the carrier finds it cheaper to settle than continue to litigate. It funny tho 'cause us gotta deal wit claims to.
Gladaseeya: This is a fairly accurate depiction of the claims industry. I practiced insurance defense before switching sides to sue these jerks. In-house lawyers are overworked and have little meaningful trial experience (there are exceptions re: trial experience, but most in-house insurance lawyers will admit to not having too many files). Of my cases in litigation, about 10% are defended by in-house counsel. If I was assigned in-house counsel to defend me, I'd hire my own attorney.
Unfortunately, aringoth....you're simply wrong. Even the biggest and the most effective and efficient insurance companies hire outside counsel in nearly all cases of litigation. In-house matters may deal with things like coverage, but as far as litigation goes, having in-house counsel handle litigation is akin to the old adage about the lawyer who represents himself having a fool for a client. Often, in-house counsel are so far from the courtroom that they have no business being in one.
@TheDHXTRA I respectfully disagree with some of your comments. Almost all major insurance companies have and use in house counsel to defend their insured's on a large variety of their cases. Although the in house attorneys are employees of the ins. co., they defend the ins. co's individual insureds personally. Ins. Co's also rely on outside counsel or panel counsel as well. Almost every coverage dispute I have seen went to outside counsel, not in house counsel.
@Gladaseeya I've litigated exclusively my entire career. While every insurance company has and uses in house counsel, and should, litigation is best left to the professionals, and in-house counsel simply are not in court enough to handle most litigation. Moreover, coverage disputes are a different thing altogether. In-house counsel are adequately equipped for that, but often can't partake in that decision because of bad faith concerns. Litigation is another matter entirely.
It depends on the adjustor, but some are just like this. The truest part is this: "research this for me, but I can't pay you for research." If defense attorneys asked for pre-authorization for everything, then the adj would get nothing but authorization requests in each update.
Wrongo, TheSteveGibson. Perhaps with personal auto or homeowners this is not true due to consumer protection laws, but if you handle cases involving multiple additional insureds and a coverage issue or two...this is spot on...at least if there is catastrophic injury or damage. LIKE.
The reason they do not pay is easy. The insurance mafia builds huge plush skyscrapers every year, hires ad' agencies to come up with creative spokespersons who's I.Q is so low they could not work in fast food.(either a lizard or a strawberry AX murderer ....).....in order to steal such low I.Q customers from the next insurance company. All the while not paying legit claims because they insist that the system is rife with fraud. You cannot even say the word "insurance" in a court proceeding.
automan1223 3 months ago
Well, congratulations, big shot. By your own acknowledgment, you were a litigator prior to being an in-house counsel, and the opposite career path is far more unusual. My point earlier was that while MOST companies DO have in-house counsel, MOST of them have different duties apart from litigation. I see nowhere that I said in house counsel, so calm down and put your faux outrage down. That's like LeBron being offended if one says he is inadequate to fill in for Joe Mauer.
TheDHXTRA 10 months ago
Sorry, but "you're simply wrong.” I’ve been staff counsel for 4 years with a major carrier. I’ve had a constant case load of about 150, taken over 40 cases to a jury verdict and was a litigator prior to being staff counsel. As such, your comments of house counsel being inferior are insulting. I have more trial experience than many outside firms who bill the shit out of a file until the carrier finds it cheaper to settle than continue to litigate. It funny tho 'cause us gotta deal wit claims to.
TheJudge313 10 months ago
Gladaseeya: This is a fairly accurate depiction of the claims industry. I practiced insurance defense before switching sides to sue these jerks. In-house lawyers are overworked and have little meaningful trial experience (there are exceptions re: trial experience, but most in-house insurance lawyers will admit to not having too many files). Of my cases in litigation, about 10% are defended by in-house counsel. If I was assigned in-house counsel to defend me, I'd hire my own attorney.
jcarroll597 11 months ago
Unfortunately, aringoth....you're simply wrong. Even the biggest and the most effective and efficient insurance companies hire outside counsel in nearly all cases of litigation. In-house matters may deal with things like coverage, but as far as litigation goes, having in-house counsel handle litigation is akin to the old adage about the lawyer who represents himself having a fool for a client. Often, in-house counsel are so far from the courtroom that they have no business being in one.
TheDHXTRA 11 months ago 2
@TheDHXTRA I respectfully disagree with some of your comments. Almost all major insurance companies have and use in house counsel to defend their insured's on a large variety of their cases. Although the in house attorneys are employees of the ins. co., they defend the ins. co's individual insureds personally. Ins. Co's also rely on outside counsel or panel counsel as well. Almost every coverage dispute I have seen went to outside counsel, not in house counsel.
Gladaseeya 11 months ago
@Gladaseeya I've litigated exclusively my entire career. While every insurance company has and uses in house counsel, and should, litigation is best left to the professionals, and in-house counsel simply are not in court enough to handle most litigation. Moreover, coverage disputes are a different thing altogether. In-house counsel are adequately equipped for that, but often can't partake in that decision because of bad faith concerns. Litigation is another matter entirely.
TheDHXTRA 11 months ago
Sadly not true in all cases, any insurance company worth their dollar has in house representation.
aringoth 11 months ago
friggin' hilarious and on point
ozsweet 1 year ago 2
This is very true!
clamarca75 1 year ago
I am a defense lawyer and this is exactly how it is. It is hilarious because I really have this conversations.
EthanAlThor 1 year ago
It depends on the adjustor, but some are just like this. The truest part is this: "research this for me, but I can't pay you for research." If defense attorneys asked for pre-authorization for everything, then the adj would get nothing but authorization requests in each update.
icesyckel 1 year ago
TYPICAL!!!!
Shyster316 1 year ago
This is what I do for a living and it is so close to actual conversations that is isn't even funny.
ukkfayooyay 1 year ago
"ridiculous. That isn't even how it is." - haha, you're right, it's actually far WORSE
adh0522 1 year ago
dkibaner - I don't know about adjusters, but I'm certainly more sympathetic to insurance defence lawyers now.
dukhobearl 1 year ago
Wrongo, TheSteveGibson. Perhaps with personal auto or homeowners this is not true due to consumer protection laws, but if you handle cases involving multiple additional insureds and a coverage issue or two...this is spot on...at least if there is catastrophic injury or damage. LIKE.
booleanmatrix99 1 year ago
ridiculous. That isn't even how it is.
TheSteveGibson 1 year ago
Are you more sympathetic to insurance adjusters now?
dklibaner 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheOtisFife 1 year ago