BP Oil Spill Claims Chief Braces for Surge in Filings
N.Y. Regulator Issues ‘Cease and Desist’ Order to Car-Sharing Firm RelayRides
Tornadoes Spin Through Texas Towns After Dark, Killing Six
U.S., European Retailers Divided on Safety Plan for Bangladesh Factories
Government to Share Cyber Security Information with Private Sector
50 Top Apps for Independent Agents
Medical Liability Market Profitable But Deteriorating Results Expected: Fitch
Three Insurance Companies Placed in Liquidation in IllinoisFree Newsletters
Sign up to receive insurance news alerts!Most Popular
Current Issue
Editors and Contributors
-
Andrea WellsAgency Compensation Playbook: 2013 Agency Salary Survey -
Andrew G. SimpsonHow Process Improvement Drives Agency Profitability -
Stephanie JonesThe Acquisition Cycle -
Don JerglerIndustry Predictions -
Chris BurandReasonable Compensation -
Andrea WellsPersonal Lines: How Technology is Changing the Way Agents Do Business
First, I have the utmost of empathy for the insured and the stress the denial by Ability Insurance may have caused the family.
I have not read the policy, so I do not know if Ability Insurance had grounds for their actions of denying coverage. BUT, this outcome is exactly what is wrong with this Country.
If Ability was wrong, and “misinterpreted and misapplied the policy rules,” then the outcome should be the payment of all back coverage. There might be a small amount due the family if they had to borrow money to pay for mom’s care, etc. and substantiated loss of money, but…
Where does anyone get the idea they should give $32 MILLION in punitive damages. Does anyone realize where this money is coming from? It seems our society thinks that money is just printed and free. Someone has to pay for that $32M and that someone is you and me.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
The problem is that Ability refused to pay the back payments. Obviously, that made the jury mad. You are right that the verdict is appalling, but sometimes insurance companies create their own problems.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
At the end of a lengthy appeals process, the daughter will likely be 90 and the grandkids, if any, stand to make-out pretty well.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
The company refused to pay for the time coverage was denied…come on now. You really think it was an a mistake? How would you feel if it happened to your 90 year old Mother? Sounds like they should have offered to set things right and avoided court. Lesson learned.
I agree on the punitives being excessive but I am also amazed at the apparently poor handling of the issue. To restore payments without covering the back pay and without having a corrective agreement is asking for an adverse judgement. Seems like the company could use a thorough claims / dispute process review. They should be preparing for market conduct reviews as follow up to this mess.
Not for me to second guess the best legal system in the world. Such a staggering award for punitive damages suggests a high degree of culpability on the part of the insurer. If nothing else it serves as warning to use utmost professional dilligence in determining coverage before claim denial.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Agreed that verdict is crazy and unwarranted, but…
Very sad to see anyone put in their comments that any harm done was less severe because the insured suffered from dementia. **In my mind** it’s even more hearless to take someone who is already confused and change their surroundings.
Having quite a bit of experience with the long term side of health care and it’s insurances and a second career in insurance from the carrier side, this type of activity on the part of carriers and the providers utilization review process is exactly why jurors lean toward this type of settlements.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
That’s how they do it in most European countries.
I don’t agree with such a large judgment but regardless, the punitive damages should not be paid from the company’s general funds – it should be paid by the CEO, other top management, and those directly at fault. And company records should be audited for at least 3 years to be sure they are not reimbursed. As pointed out by in another comment, this will just be passed on to the consumer. Maybe new rules like this would help.
Enough finanacial industry CEOs make that in a year. Yes, slap them and slap them hard when they abuse the publics trust by trying to rip off a poor old lady, or anyone for that matter. Hopefully the greedy jerks who run these companies will learn some ethics from this case. Don’t tell me they didn’t know perfectly well what they were doing.
Ok, bring on the defence of the grossly overpaid CEO’s and innocent insurance companies who are out there to do good for society, not to make a profit for the stock holders. This should be amusing.
This sounds like a movie in the making by John Grisham. Remember the “Rainmaker”
I’m heading off to the USA right away. First stop Las Vegas to get a quickie divorce and then to Montana to propose to Arlene
I have no problem with the either the punitive damage award or its amount. The problem I DO have with ALL punitive damage awards is the recipient of the award.
For years I have felt that since it is punitive that it should be awarded to the jurisdiction that the suit was filed in and that by inference Punitive damage is a penalty of PUNISHMENT and that the claimant should be entitled to the special damages only and either none of the punitive award or only what can be ascribed to true injury other than inconvenience.
In any case the attorney should receive NONE of the punitive damage award. After all it is an award NOT a reward.
34 Million…dollars? as in $34,000,000.00?…
Dear Insurance Company,
Please abuse me. Pretty please!