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.
Yes, the Federal Reserve is in fact printing Trillions of dollars so I can see how our society has a warped sense of reality. I do not agree with the verdict but our government does not help to reinforce any sense of responsibility (or reality) when they are electronically printing money to put liquidity in the marketplace.
This is the problem with jury-awarded punitive damages.
I have no knowledge of Montana statutes, but I would hope the judge has the ability to limit/reduce the punitive damage award to more acceptable levels.
Now if the judge made that award…it must be an election year.
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.
Debra: I agree that insurance companies can SOMETIMES create their own problem — but to enter a $32mm punitive damage award is beyond trying to right a wrong.
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.
Totally agree with Steve! It seems so many are not in touch with reality! Also, most seem to forget that the attorney will receive a minimum of 30%! I’m sorry, but there is NO WAY the family suffered to any degree, the extent of $32M. Keep in mind that no one from Ability physically harmed the poor old lady, in fact if she was suffering from dementia, she didn’t even know what was going on. The only ones to benefit from this, are the attorney and the old lady’s daughter.
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.
Steve B. hit the nail on the head!
Except he forgot to mention that the judge, in his infinite wisdom, is as much at f ault for failing to get his head out of you know where and make a proper and equitable decision.
If punitive damages are supposed to be a punishment, why are they not given to the state or federal governments instead of unjustly enriching the family or their attorneys?
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.
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.
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.
Yes, the Federal Reserve is in fact printing Trillions of dollars so I can see how our society has a warped sense of reality. I do not agree with the verdict but our government does not help to reinforce any sense of responsibility (or reality) when they are electronically printing money to put liquidity in the marketplace.
This is the problem with jury-awarded punitive damages.
I have no knowledge of Montana statutes, but I would hope the judge has the ability to limit/reduce the punitive damage award to more acceptable levels.
Now if the judge made that award…it must be an election year.
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.
Debra: I agree that insurance companies can SOMETIMES create their own problem — but to enter a $32mm punitive damage award is beyond trying to right a wrong.
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.
I totally agree, Steve. The amount of this award is not only staggering, but is totally ridiculous. Only in America……….
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.
Totally agree with Steve! It seems so many are not in touch with reality! Also, most seem to forget that the attorney will receive a minimum of 30%! I’m sorry, but there is NO WAY the family suffered to any degree, the extent of $32M. Keep in mind that no one from Ability physically harmed the poor old lady, in fact if she was suffering from dementia, she didn’t even know what was going on. The only ones to benefit from this, are the attorney and the old lady’s daughter.
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.
Steve B. hit the nail on the head!
Except he forgot to mention that the judge, in his infinite wisdom, is as much at f ault for failing to get his head out of you know where and make a proper and equitable decision.
If punitive damages are supposed to be a punishment, why are they not given to the state or federal governments instead of unjustly enriching the family or their attorneys?
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!