Adjuster Claims Nationwide’s ‘On Your Side’ Is Deceptive Advertising

By Andrew G. Simpson | March 10, 2014

  • March 10, 2014 at 11:56 am
    Adam says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 82
    Thumb down 23

    Wow, Snyder’s argument is dead on here! I agree that by definition this is clearly false advertising. Why has this never come up before? If I was Nationwide, I would be getting my attorney’s ready for a fight. Would be crazy if Nationwide lost the right to use “On Your Side” just because they decided they wanted to try and push around this public adjusting company and it back fired on them. Definitely gets you thinking!!

    • March 10, 2014 at 1:27 pm
      Justin says:
      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 33
      Thumb down 43

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      • March 12, 2014 at 4:20 pm
        Adam says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 24
        Thumb down 1

        THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY TWO DIFFERENT SIDES TO AN INSURANCE CONTRACT? Usually the process of making a binding contract begins when one party makes an offer. An offer is a proposal to enter into a contract; it is not the contract by itself. An offer blossoms into a binding contract when it is accepted by the “OTHER SIDE”. It is important to remember that offers, standing alone, are not contracts. An offer may be revoked before it is accepted by the “OTHER SIDE”, and if that happens, there cannot be a binding contract because the “TWO SIDES” have not come to an agreement.

  • March 10, 2014 at 1:16 pm
    Libby says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 49
    Thumb down 27

    Go David, go! Slay Goliath!!

  • March 10, 2014 at 1:21 pm
    Dan Smith says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 32
    Thumb down 42

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • March 10, 2014 at 1:56 pm
      Adam says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 51
      Thumb down 15

      So what your saying is that Nationwide’s defense should be that “People shouldn’t actually believe their slogan or what they say in their ads” unless they have a low IQ or are lawyers or other bottom feeders. LOL Nice!! We’ll see if they go with that one. LOL

      • March 10, 2014 at 2:53 pm
        Taint Farm says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 14
        Thumb down 17

        Ditto Adam. Next would be SF being a good neighbor? Get real. A good neighbors helps when called on.

        • March 10, 2014 at 4:47 pm
          Adam says:
          Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 28
          Thumb down 6

          Yeah but an insurance contract does not address neighbors, a pc of a rock, or a red umbrella as described in another comment but it does however legally have two sides. In the event of a policy dispute, a public adjuster or an attorney would be ON THE SIDE of the insured, Nationwide would be ON THE SIDE of Nationwide. Again I could be wrong, it’s just my point of view.

    • March 10, 2014 at 4:24 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 23
      Thumb down 2

      It’s the courts job to determine what their slogan is supposed to mean. The reasonable/prudent standard may be met, but I’d be willing to bet that if you talked to everyone who is insured with Nationwide that has had a claim denied or if Nationwide made a liability decision against their insured’s account of what happened in a loss, 100% of those folks would readily admit Nationwide wasn’t on their side nor was Nationwide concerned for their policyholders.

      The insurance contract is interpreted in the best interests of the policyholder. At no point in time has any court, relative to an insurance contract, accepted a carrier’s argument of “we know what we wrote can’t be taken verbatim, and sure, it was in writing and we wrote the form, but we totally meant that to mean something else”

      • March 12, 2014 at 2:01 pm
        You're being ridiculous says:
        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 13

        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      • March 12, 2014 at 3:01 pm
        K. Eff Dee says:
        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 13

        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

  • March 10, 2014 at 1:36 pm
    KY jw says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 55
    Thumb down 2

    This is going to be fun to follow.

  • March 10, 2014 at 1:47 pm
    Libby says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 34
    Thumb down 15

    It’s obvious by the thumbs that we have some Nationwide employees on this blog.

  • March 10, 2014 at 2:06 pm
    Whodathunkit? says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 29
    Thumb down 8

    It’s just as obvious that there are Nationwide haters on this blog. “Can’t we all just get along?” (Rodney King). I don’t want to get sued for plagarism, so I gave appropriate credit to the speaker.

  • March 10, 2014 at 2:16 pm
    Cheetoh Mulligan says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 51
    Thumb down 15

    OMG. Are you saying that SF is NOT a good neighbor? And that this piece of the rock I own is worthless? And my deductible isn’t disappearing? And my red umbrella is gonna leak? …

    • March 10, 2014 at 2:44 pm
      ConcernedAdjuster says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 25
      Thumb down 5

      I see your point but I can really see what the public adjusters is saying here. Statefarm is not actually a bad neighbor based on the contract they sign, and the others are not signing contracts that actually include the product they are using for a slogan but Nationwide is in fact advertising that they are on a side and defining that side as “your side” when referring to the insured, and then signing a contract that contradicts that statement. To me that is false advertising. Nationwide is clearly not “On The Side” of the insured. I see both points but this could get very interesting.

      • March 12, 2014 at 2:02 pm
        You're being ridiculous says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 9

        Actually, when you sign an inurance policy the insurer will take care of all claims and hire a lawyer to defend you in court, so quite literally, they are on your side of the lawsuit.

    • March 10, 2014 at 6:51 pm
      And, Cheetoh says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 10
      Thumb down 15

      Don’t forget the “Good Hands” that you are in!!!

      • March 13, 2014 at 10:18 am
        Cheetoh Mulligan says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 10
        Thumb down 0

        It would be great if On Your Side Adjusting is insured by Nationwide for this battle!!!

    • March 11, 2014 at 5:45 pm
      Don't Call Me Shirley says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 12
      Thumb down 11

      …and Flo isn’t really hot?

  • March 10, 2014 at 2:28 pm
    JH says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 13
    Thumb down 23

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • March 10, 2014 at 4:20 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 30
      Thumb down 4

      I think all those that are commenting that only crazy people believe Nationwide’s slogan is deceptive really need to get a life. (Begin sarcasm) What a great way to foster an intelligent conversation!

  • March 10, 2014 at 3:41 pm
    reality bites says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 24
    Thumb down 16

    15 seconds is all it took for me to save 15% of my brain cells and go straight to the comments.

  • March 10, 2014 at 4:04 pm
    Libby says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 34
    Thumb down 9

    It’s as crazy as Nationwide calling trademark infringement on a tiny PA firm in Tennessee. I hope they spend tons of money only to lose their suit.

    And Nationwide is NOT on your side. Nationwide is on Nationwide’s side.

  • March 10, 2014 at 4:34 pm
    Adam says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 27
    Thumb down 7

    The big question I see here after researching this for the last hour or so.

    Is it deceptive for Nationwide to claim “On Your Side” when used to solicit a policy in which it’s enforcement puts them on the opposite side of the person such policy was solicited to?

    Image signing a contract with an attorney who marketed and claimed to be on your side, then when you got to court that attorney was sitting across from you representing the other party while you were trying to enforce the contract he/she wrote for the other party, the same contract that he/she persuaded you to sign by claiming to be “On Your Side”.

    In my view that is what Nationwide is doing here. I agree with the adjuster on this one. People don’t always understand insurance policies or the insurance process and they look for people who will be on their side to help them with the process. It appears that based on the adjusters argument, Nationwide has exploited this fact and may have made a billion dollar blunder on this one. Just one mans opinion though.

  • March 11, 2014 at 8:13 am
    greybeard says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 18
    Thumb down 22

    I suspect Nationwide believes that they are “on the side” of the policyholder whenever they defend a policyholder’s liability claim. They probably also consider themselves “on the side” of the policyholder because they are a mutual company and are owned by their policyholders. I don’t see this adjuster’s argument going anywhere and I suspect he will eventually refrain from his obvious attempt to profit from the use of Nationwide’s trade mark slogan.

    • March 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm
      ConcernedAdjuster says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 29
      Thumb down 4

      Defending a policy holders liability claim is just Nationwide fighting on Nationwide’s side to limit how much Nationwide pays out. I mean come on!

      • March 11, 2014 at 1:34 pm
        InsGuy says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 9
        Thumb down 18

        Not necessarily. Defense costs can easily exceed liability or the occurrence limit – but I doubt they would let that happen with a personal lines policy – they’d just tender the limit and be done.

    • March 11, 2014 at 1:40 pm
      companyman says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 9
      Thumb down 18

      good point to make.. also you could argue that they are “on your side” in couseling a current or potential insured in proper coverages, possible gaps, or other needs that many non insurance people don’t think of until a claim occurs. The position that the adjusting firm is taking is a reactive position (a claim happened) versus a proactive stance that they are looking out for “your side” and your insurance needs.

      • March 11, 2014 at 2:42 pm
        ConcernedAdjuster says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 25
        Thumb down 9

        First off, no disrespect as most of my friends are in the insurance business and my brother works for Travelers, but for the sake of debate I would say that in my view it is FALSE for a company to say that they would be “On The Side” of someone because they are recommending something for that person to purchase that puts profits in the pocket of the person who is recommending the product. That would be like saying a car salesman would be on your side for recommending that you to buy a more expensive car that they make a commission on because it has some better features.

        To me it seems simple, there are three types of adjusters that exist. Staff and IA who both work “on the side” of the insurance company and the public adjuster who works “on the side” of the policy holder. Nationwide is using the name to make people feel all warm and fuzzy but they are not literally working on behalf “on the side” of the insured and the public adjusting firm appears to be using the name to define which side they are “descriptively and literally” working on when it comes to the insured. The policy holder and the insurance company are without doubt on opposite sides of their contract and obligations when it comes to the policy conditions.

        The insurance company is not obligated to prove the claim but if the insured does not, they are more then willing to do so at an extremely discounted rate in most cases. When you are selling that insurance and being on their side as you say, are you explaining that information to them? I only ask this because in my experience only about 1 in 100 people realize that they have to prove their claim. Most are under the delusion that their insurance company, being “on their side” and all, always determines and pays what the insured is entitled to or just denies the claim. If that was the case their would be no need for public adjusters and this debate would not be going on. So with that being said I can see where marketing “On Your Side” by an insurance company could be proven to be a misrepresentation.

        One point I read in the article that jumped out at me that I want to mention is that in most states the insurance commissioner requires a license for a company to be descriptively “on the side” of an insured. I am confidante that Nationwide does not hold that license in any state. Even if the adjusting firm doesn’t win this in court, Nationwide could still lose the right to use the slogan “on your side” if the insurance commission steps in, researches the complaint, if filed with them, and agrees with the public adjuster. Just because something is marketed everywhere you look, that doesn’t make it right. Maybe I’m crazy but I believe that the PA could win this!

        • March 12, 2014 at 2:03 pm
          You're being ridiculous says:
          Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 12

          Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

        • March 12, 2014 at 3:23 pm
          K. Eff Dee says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 7
          Thumb down 9

          You make very articulate arguments.

          But, I’m willing to bet you haven’t considered any court decisions Re the use of slogan.

          The few I’ve read, all recognize that a slogan is understood by the average person to be the seller saying something IN GENERAL about the potential benefits they offer prospective clients.

          And courts seem to rule a statement is misleading when it makes SPECIFIC untrue claims and that the seller knows it is not true.

          “Nationwide’s CLAIMS HANDLERS Are On Your Side” would be a potentially misleading statement.

          Insurance commissioners are no friendlier to insurance buyers in this respect than courts, and they certainly have much less authority than a judge to rule an insurer must withdraw a slogan.

          You’ll note that I said judges tend to consider what an average person would conclude, they are more aware than most people of what idiots usually conclude.

          The fact that idiots receive less protection under the law, is one of those unavoidable inequities of life that are similar to the unavoidable inequities in nature’s selection of victims of her disasters.

          I don’t think this is even a close call, no judge or insurance commissioner will require they withdraw their slogan.

  • March 11, 2014 at 9:50 am
    Libby says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 27
    Thumb down 6

    I don’t see any of this going anywhere, since Nationwide’s intitial claim was ridiculous to begin with. It was obvious retaliation against the P.A. firm. They have now countersued. Welcome to America!

  • March 11, 2014 at 4:07 pm
    Libby says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 17
    Thumb down 18

    No disrespect, but I’ve been in agency claims for 30+ years and if you have a good agent, you don’t need a P.A. What I see once a P.A. gets involved is delayed settlements, acrimony, and headaches.

    I think is wrong for you to say “It is FALSE for a company to say that they would be “On The Side” of someone because they are recommending something for that person to purchase that puts profits in their pocket.” You just described 99% of all business relationships.

    I also think it is disingenuous to say you are on the insured’s side when your whole agenda is to jack up the claim dollars so you can get your cut. Chances are the insured would have gotten the same amount of money, alot faster, and with alot less hassle. Just sayin.

    • March 11, 2014 at 5:50 pm
      ConcernedAdjuster says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 24
      Thumb down 4

      Libby, I’m not saying that most insurance companies aren’t honest, nor am I saying all PA’s are honest and I agree with you on your point that “if you have a good agent” as I’m sure you are, but thats not always the case. I often look over a potential clients claim paperwork and advise the client that in my view they were treated correctly by their insurance company and didn’t need me. On the other side of it, I am very often called on claims that were denied and after a close look it is determined that they should have been approved and most often are after my work. About 95% of my reopens are approved after a second look because I won’t get involved unless I know the insured is in the right. 95% is a lot of mistakes.

      As far as the “FALSE On The Side” comment, I’m just saying that even know most businesses are out to be honest and do good for their clients they are mostly all in it for themselves and their business, which makes sense. Even PA’s or Attorneys are in it to make a profit of course, but we literally work “On The Side” of and are legally obligated to be “On The Side” of our clients. Other’s companies including insurance companies are not.

  • March 12, 2014 at 2:37 pm
    K. Eff Dee says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 13

    My prediction: It’s a publicity stunt, that will immediately get thrown out.

    First, Snyder. the adjuster will have to prove that “on your side” can ONLY mean that Nationwide can ONLY mean they are on the buyer’s side in a claim dispute.

    But “on your side” could also mean any number of things, such as Nationwide is on the insurance buyers side by protect their property from loss caused by the other side, the human and natural causes of destruction.

    Worse, Snyder enters a contract with insurance buyers when he gives them a written or VERBAL offer to represent them for a fee in an insurance claim. In those cases, it’s SNYDER representing his interest in the provision of his adjustment services, not the buyer’s interest, while simultaneously telling them he’s on their side.

    So, if his own argument is correct, Snyder is unavoidably being just as deceptive when he claims to be on the insurance buyer’s side.

    Keep in mind, Snyder has an economic interest in generating enough mistrust of all insurance companies to convince a potential customer to surrender a contractually agreed share of their claim payment, for his contractually provided services.

    I have no reason at all to suspect that Snyder does anything less than a stellar job in representing his insurance buyer clients.

    But, I have plenty of reason to suspect that he knows his suit is BS, and that he expects to lose in municipal court while winning increased sales $ in the kangaroo court of public opinion.

    • March 12, 2014 at 10:04 pm
      ConcernedAdjuster says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 15
      Thumb down 8

      Sounds like Nationwide sent one of their lawyers K. Eff Dee to come comment to their rescue since it appears from what I can see that most people out there agree with Snyder’s view on this case.

      Again, as I have read in other post and said myself. In my opinion all Snyder has to prove here is that Nationwide is marketing and selling an insurance contract “that by definition requires two or more sides to exist” by telling people that they “Nationwide” is “On Your Side”, when they are actually on the opposite side of that contract. The terms of that contract is the “product” that is actually acquired directly from the marketing and in my view, the marketing of that contract is falsely representing the “product” that is being sold.

      Also once again, Public adjusters are licensed to represent “be on the side of” the insured. Nationwide is not! You cannot market to be something you are not licensed to do.

      Also from what I read, it was Nationwide that started this battle with Snyder so I think it is wrong to say that this was a publicity stunt on Snyder’s part. I bet he didn’t want to deal with this headache but now that Nationwide brought it to him, from what I’ve read around the internet, he is out for blood. I’d look at it more as a major backfire on Nationwide’s part, especially “IF” they end up loosing the right to use “On Your Side” as their slogan. Also just think of all the other lawsuits that will follow “IF” Snyder wins this one or even if it just makes the National news for a few days and gets attorneys and competitors thinking. If I was Nationwide I’d be asking myself “WHAT IF”? I hope Snyder goes all the way with this but my guess is he’ll end up getting paid off big to go away. Maybe not though, maybe he is a man who will fight for what he believes in. I can’t wait to see how this plays out.

      • March 15, 2014 at 2:17 pm
        K. Eff Dee says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 4

        Concerned,

        So, because most people side with Snyder I must be a Nationwide lawyer?

        That’s some very impressive outside the box thinking.

        I’m glad I didn’t waste money going to law school, I’ll just send Nationwide a bill for this super legal representation I’ve given them here.

        I’m just basing my opinion on the little reading I’ve done on claims of misrepresentation when it comes to slogans. The law seems to recognize it’s not making a specific claim.

        If Synder wins, I’ll admit my guess was off base.

        Will you admit you may have been if it gets thrown out, or will you just assume the judge is corrupt or stupid?

        • March 16, 2014 at 1:05 am
          ConcernedAdjuster says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 7
          Thumb down 1

          No, I just get notice of posts via e-mail and I saw that u came into the conversation fast and out of the blue with 4-5 posts all within minutes of each other all discrediting what appeared to me to be some valid points made by Snyder. Believe me I think the chance of Snyder winning this battle is slim as I’m sure his company is well out gunned by Nationwide but I do think he has good points and I hope he fights for them.

          As far as court cases to read. Read the case where Dominos went up against Papa Johns for deceptive marketing because Papa Johns claimed their pizza had better ingredients and was better pizza, which Dominos said was a false claim. A federal court judge in Dallas ruled January 3,2000 that Papa John’s (Nasdaq:PZZA – news) can no longer use its “Better Ingredients. Better Pizza.” trademarked slogan. Granted Papa Johns ended up winning an appeal after making some changes to their ingredients and other changes but this is an example of a false slogan that a federal court made the company stop using. Nationwide’s false “on your side” claim is no different that that, as Nationwide is not licensed to work on the side of the insured to whom they are claiming to be on the side of.

        • March 16, 2014 at 1:31 am
          ConcernedAdjuster says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          Sorry I meant Pizza Hut VS Papa Johns.

          • March 16, 2014 at 10:16 pm
            K. Eff Dee says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 2

            Concerned,

            Thanks for the Dominos vs. Papa Johns info.

            Very interesting especially about the slogan.

            Note Papa J’s slogan makes a very specific claim “better ingredients”.

            Being “on someone’s side” is much more a general statement, and because it’s about NW’s state of mind, it can’t really be disproven.

            I can’t recall the name of a recent case I read where it wasn’t a slogan, but a recommendation of an investment manager by an innocent Professional Society sponsoring his services for their members, where the general nature of that recommendation was crucial to the court.
            The court ruled for the defendant, which I believe was an Opthamologists Professional Society who was sued by one of their members who invested funds with the investment manager, because the investment manager stole everyone’s money.

            As I recall it, the court held that the Society’s recommendation of the investment manager was so general that it couldn’t be disproven by the plaintiff, and also the Society’s recommendation didn’t relieve the member of their responsibility to do their own due diligence on the investment manager before investing with him.

            So, based on that court’s comments, I’d guess the court hearing Snyder’s suit against NW would likely also find that Snyder and disgruntled NW insured’s won’t be able to prove NW is using the slogan to deceive them, and that insured’s certainly shouldn’t be making buying decisions base on the NW slogan.

            As for NW’s case against Snyder I wouldn’t hazard a guess on how that’s going to go. But I do recall reading that in a case of this type NW has to prove Snyder’s use of “on your side” is likely to cause confusion to a potential client. That seems like a high barrier for NW, but it also seems likely NW’s legal budget will allow their attorney to file enough motions to keep the case from going to trial for years.

            I’d be happy to have an attorney or someone more familiar with the law than I am correct me on this, but I don’t think Snyder’s allegations against NW in his countersuit, offers any defense at all against the allegations NW made against him.

            While Snyder certainly can defend the NW suit and countersue at the same time, the countersuit still seems more like a stunt than a serious legal strategy.

            Sorry to go on so long, but I thought the more details I provide on why I think what I do, will allow this friendly argument to conclude before the NW/Snyder litigation does.

    • March 13, 2014 at 3:42 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 8
      Thumb down 5

      “Snyder…has an economic interest…to convince a potential customer to surrender a contractually agreed share of their claim payment…”

      Wait, what?! That’s an interesting point considering prior reports indicate Snyder’s involvement happens AFTER Nationwide has denied a claim and payment has not occurred.

      If their claim was denied ($0 payment) and he takes his 10-20% fee based off the claim payment….let’s see – $0 x 15% = $0. Yup. He’s asking them to surrender a share of their non-existent settlement payment they never got from their insurance company. Mkay.

      • March 15, 2014 at 2:29 pm
        K. Eff Dee says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 4

        Rosenblatt,

        So if someone working on a contingency gets nothing 10% of the time, they not better off losing 10% of 500 cases than 10% of 100?

  • March 14, 2014 at 2:05 pm
    Marty says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 2

    I have had many discussions with companies that Independent agents represent.. The companies seem to think that they pay us 15% commission… Where they are incorrect is that we pay them 85% commission..

  • March 17, 2014 at 10:19 am
    Exadjuster says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    At least we can all agree that Tide gives the “Whitest White” and Top Flight is the “longest ball.”

  • March 18, 2014 at 11:39 am
    SM says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    Would this be pandora’s box? If Nationwide does lose this case it could set a precedent with other “big name” insurers who use similar taglines. The “good hands” people are the first that come to mind. Although I think this case is a little different because as the PA points out – your home insurance policy is a contract with two parties involved. So the question would arise – how can another party be on your side? I could see Nationwide losing this case and the PR collateral damage could be catastrophic. As we all know…. sometimes you just let sleeping dogs lie.

  • April 2, 2014 at 10:56 am
    Adam says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    WOW, have your seen the On Your Side Adjusters old website? Looks like Snyder is really going after Nationwide! LOL

  • May 11, 2014 at 6:13 pm
    mike Lucariello says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    no one insurance company is on your side they are all out there to make big money and are clearly on their own side -they only use it because it it rimes But there is the implication that they are on your side –wrong — not – where-as a public adjuster is clearly on your side.by Mike Lucariello –former Insurance agent for 17 years

  • May 14, 2014 at 1:30 pm
    K Eff Dee says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    Jeremy Snyder in this 3/10/14 Insurance Journal article:
    “Several firms have contacted us and offered to take our case on a contingency after reviewing the facts and our plans for the case,” he told Insurance Journal.

    Jeremy Snyder in 5/14/14 article:
    “Snyder says being his own lawyer will keep down his costs, part of his strategy to weather what could be a lengthy legal tangle with the giant insurer.”

    • May 14, 2014 at 4:12 pm
      Brian says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      I have really been following this case and I read on Snyder’s Facebook page a while back that he interviewed a lot of attorneys and couldn’t find an attorney pro bono or otherwise that he felt could handle the case as well as he thinks he can. He claims that his experience within the industry is what he is using to try and win the case and at this point he is using his in house team for the majority of the case with his attorney/s only as advisors. He says that is the only way he can insure that he doesn’t lose control of the direction of the case. He claimed that decision would also limited his cost of daily tasks. I don’t think he contradicted himself on this one if you read all of his other previous stuff I just think the story might of not made it all clear or maybe it didn’t come out in the interview. You should read up some more on this case K Eff Dee, I read the whole thing in the court records and Snyder makes some dang good arguments. I personally think he is gonna win.

      • May 14, 2014 at 4:22 pm
        Brian says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        I meant “he couldn’t find an attorney based on a contingency fee or otherwise that he felt could handle the case as well as he thinks he can.”

        I assume you knew what I meant but I thought I would point that out before you called me on it.

  • May 14, 2014 at 9:27 pm
    K Eff Dee says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Brian,

    Thanks for the additional information.

    But, keep in mind he is countersuing before he’s even conducted a defense of the NWide suit. I’ve never heard of a countersuit brought so early in the process that has helped in the defense of the original suit, but I’ve heard of plenty of such premature countersuits that are nothing more than a desperate attempt by a defendant with a weak defense to try to save face or leverage a settlement, but if you’ve heard of any countersuits filed before the original suit is finalized let me know and I’ll stand corrected.

    Don’t forget if Jeremy prevails in his defense there’s nothing to stop him from filing a countersuit supported by his victory.

    I agree Jeremy hasn’t contradicted himself, but the quote in this article is absolutely contradictory to the other quotes you cited.

    Most times when people who claim they were misquoted say what they actually said, the misquote usually bears at least some resemblance to what the person who claims to have been misquoted says they actually said, usually alleging the reporter left out a crucial part of what was said,or the context in which it was said.

    I think it’s more likely that Jeremy was actually blowing smoke than it is that he actually told Insurance Journal he will conduct his own defense and they misquoted him as saying he has offers from several firms to work on contingency.

    There are other things on his website that tell me he has no case, but I’ve already gone on too long.

    Unless you want to know more, I’ll close now.

    I’ll just say I’ll that if Jeremy is actually willing to say that he has a lawyer working on contingency AND is conducting his own defense perhaps he does have the skills necessary to prevail against Nationwide.

    • May 14, 2014 at 10:22 pm
      Brian says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      I think you misunderstood what I said. He didn’t deny saying he had contingency offers, he just said that he explored those options and didn’t feel that any of those attorneys or any other paid ones he interviewed could win the case for him or do better then he felt he could do himself. That, with other factors weighed in is why he decided to act as his own council. That decision was made by him sometime between the first article and the Facebook message I saw.

      I probably don’t know as much about this stuff as you do but Snyder did have several solid defenses included in his answer and counter claim. You should really read his answer and counterclaim and give your feedback of the case. I would love to hear what you had to say after reading it. Unless I’m really missing something it seems very solid and I think he knows exactly what he’s doing. I really like hearing peoples thoughts on this, for some reason I find the case very interesting to follow. Maybe it’s just the root for the underdog thing. lol

  • May 15, 2014 at 12:11 pm
    K Eff Dee says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Brian:
    Thanks, I’ll read up on his counterclaim and let you know what I think.

  • May 15, 2014 at 1:29 pm
    K Eff Dee says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Brian:

    Do you have links to his answer and counterclaim, can’t find them on his website.

  • August 22, 2014 at 4:02 pm
    K Eff Dee says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    Brian:

    Snyder has known since 3/24/14 that On Your Side Adjusters has not offered any defense whatsover of of the NW lawsuit, and that On Your Side is not a party to Jeremy Snyder’s counterclaim against NW. Snyder learned this on 3/24 per case doc “21″ on http://dockets.justia.com/docket/tennessee/tnmdce/3:2014cv00586/59082
    since Judge Brown advised “A corporation must be represented by an attorney and there is no indication that Defendant Snyder is an attorney.”

    So, at the time Jeremy Snyder stated that he had decided to forgo pro bono offers from attorneys to defend On Your Side, he knew those statements were hogwash.

    On the 7/31/14 Justia case doc “103″ Judge Brown ruled the court cannot determine whether the “On Your Side” website and facebook page postings violate the law. But he did warn that sanctions can be imposed on Snyder as a non-attorney conducting a pro se defense, if it can be proven he controlled any website or social media accounts that contained inappropriate posts about the case. Since he is acting pro se all of his comments regarding the case must be made to the court.

    In Case doc “103″ Judge Brown also advises Snyder that the filing of motions does not stay filing deadlines in the case, and that “Mr. Snyder should provide his initial disclosures concerning his defenses and counterclaims by the close of business on August 7, 2014.”

    The judge concludes by noting the possibility of a settlement was mentioned and that he “would strongly encourage the parties to see if they can resolve the matter.”

    So as I’m posting this comment, the case is probably all over for Jeremy Snyder as a person, and is definitely over for On Your Side Adjusters.

    We’ll just have to wait for a case update to be published on the web to see if there was a settlement, or whether Snyder the individual failed to offer a defense against the NW suit by failing to meet the judge’s 8/7/14 deadline to provide his initial disclosures on how he intends to defend himself.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features