well, how is it lowball, when in good faith they were solvent for $1 mil…that to me is not bad faith…what is a shame is why did the bar not have a higher limit of liability? $1 mil is not enough…i think it’s the owner of the bar that might be the problem…because, u see where the insurance did pay the $1 mil…bad faith? NO — Bad judgement of the bartender who kept serving — YES. Bad Judgement on the DRIVER — YES! why do we always try to push the issue that it is always someone else’s fault and not our own… the bartender did not force the drinker the drink…did not force him to drive his car…why is society so entrenched in getting after the other person/company – instead of taking the blame…is that because the person does not have money? then why are we not suing for the company whom sold the person the bullet or sold the rifle to the person whom murdered someone? we don’t — again, it’s a matter of principal — taking responsiblity for the actions you do!!!
woodchuck, you miss the point. the issue in the bad faith case was the insurance company’s conduct. In the underlying case, the insurance co put their own interests over and above its insured and lost in a big way in that gamble. They gambled with their insureds money and future instead of doing the right thing and making a policy limit offer before or even after huge verdict.
They lowballed and got stung. Maybe next time, after this 20 million dollar education, they will do right by their insured.
The unfortunate innocent injured worker–who does have my sympathy–was initially awarded $75 million and then argued that the case should have been settled with him for less than $1 million?
The story is about an insurance carrier’s failure to settle the claim for within the policy limits. What makes this notable is during the course of litigation the plaintiff’s esq demanded the policy limits to settle the dram shop claim and the good people at Princeton decided to roll the dice and came up on the short end of a 75 Million verdict. Compounding their mistake they refused to offer their 1 million policy to settle post verdict. This left the bar owner and others exposed to a judgment that could have been settled and resolved if they just did what they were supposed to do.
This is what we call bad faith claims practices – when an insurance carrier puts its own financial interests ahead of its insured. Does anybody think the injuries aren’t worth at least a million?
They are saying that the insurer should have steeled for policy limits because the claimant had a strong case and it was obvious that the case would result in a judgement for more than the limits. Once bad faith is proven the limits no longer apply and teh insurer is on the hook for the total awarded.
Clearly there is more to this story than the summary, I’d have to believe that the insurance company tried to Low-Ball or that they thought there were other carriers responsible. However, on the surface, unless they felt that the PH hadn’t had any drinks at the tavern, the $1Mil pay out should have been an automatic payout from what I can tell.
the facts of the case are available on westlaw, 2004 W.L.4962363. any reasonable adjuster/carrier would have settled for the policy limits quickly. Only Princeton knows why they didn’t. the sad part is the 20 million isnt enough to pay the injured party’s meds/expenses for the rest of his life.
in response to woodchuck—the bartender and the “patron” were one and the same. Michael Pitaccio, the manager of the bar owned by a “family” corporation, SERVED HIMSELF alcohol to the extent that his blood alcohol content was calculated to be .25% at 10:30 in the morning, when the incident happened. He struck the plaintiff, did not stop, went home, struck his house with his car, then drove to New Jersey, where his sister called the police.
Read all the storys about bad faith. Ask yourself what we could do to help people- you see the people in
This county have been harm and look at all the waste, this may be a game to all for your lowballing– it has harm people we pay for a policy – my policy and the game have been in my life for 3 years because of lowballing I have loss 3 family members because of all the games. We need to all wake up PLEASE!!
I think what he is saying is that he blames the misfortunes of three family members upon insurance company misconduct. In addition I think that he is stating that cases of bad faith involving insurers have been largely ignored by the MSM (mainstream media) and they we should open our eyes to them.
I’m just making a guess.
“Read all the storys about bad faith. Ask yourself what we could do to help people- you see the people in
This county have been harm and look at all the waste, this may be a game to all for your lowballing– it has harm people we pay for a policy – my policy and the game have been in my life for 3 years because of lowballing I have loss 3 family members because of all the games. We need to all wake up PLEASE!!”
i did not see that he was the actual owner of the bar/company. even still, the owner of the bar shud be held completely responsible. now, his insur had a $1 million liability.
?? did the insurance company initially offer the bar owner more coverage prior to purchasing the policy? if so, why is it considered bad faith? the insurance company was going to pay the $1 mil. that wud have meant the bar owner had to come up w/the rest — so that is not in bad faith. afterall, he knew (especially in most states), the bar can be responsible for serving a drunk whom is willing to drive. makes matter worse, it was him, the owner who was drinking from his own bar.
Bad Faith comes into play when the insurance company puts its own interests ahead of the interests of the insured. Here there was a 1M policy. The carrier was faced with a clear liability situation and potential damages beyond the 1M policy. The correct course of action would be to offer the 1M policy to protect the insureds interests. If they had done so there would be no bad faith exposure. The plaintiff would have likley settled for the policy limit and there would be no excess exposure. It if was offered, and the verdict was higher than the policy limit and the plaintiff didn’t accept and got a big verdict there would be no bad faith exposure to the carrier because they discharged their obligations. Instead they put in what I call the “hope” defense. They “Hope ” that a jury ,despite the facts, would be stingy and screw the plaintiff by awarding less than 1 M. Here, the jury was astute and awarded the full value of the case (75M) leaving its insured exposed for the excess– it was a good expensive education not to be too arroagant and so cavailer with the insureds interests
i have been saying this for sometime….we are always quick to blame others for the reason for our actions…but in the long run, we are actually responsible for our actions…it was not the bar that was drinking, but the driver…now, what is interesting fm the earlier comments, was that the driver was actually the bar owner…but u are right! why shud we always place the blame – except when u notice that there is a plausibility of making more money (especially lawyers)!…
Wow!! Though I am sorry for the injured party, this award is excessive. Remember this injury was caused by a drunken driver who choose to drink and drive. This is considered a criminal offense. I believe the responsible party is the driver “not the tavern”. Although the travern did have liablity insurance in place, I don’t believe the insurance company should take responsibility in excess of the policy limits. Crafty attorneys who will receive a large percentage of the award settlement will ultimately benefit from this judgement. In addition, now the business owner such as myself will be faced with higher insurance premiums. “The Insurance Doctor”
This thread is very frustrating and has outlined a staple of the comments on this site…personal responsibility.
There are a wealth of people that make comments on this site about personal res. for individuals, but seem not to care when companies do not demonstrate the same. This case has absolutely nothing to do with the pers. respons. of the drunk driver of the car. Of course, he is 100% at fault for the injuries sustained by the victim / plaintiff. That is not in dispute. The problem is that instead of offering a limits settlement, the insurance company decided to play a little game by hoping that under some extraordinary circumstances, they wouldn’t have to pay the limits. They acted in bad faith as it was apparent the limits settlement was appropriate. They did not demonstrate the PERSONAL RESPONSBILITY they should have in being the insurer on the account.
This is not to say that if there is some dispute about coverages that the insurance company does not have every right to challenge. Say, a dispute about whether the policy was in force, or whether there was an exclusion that applied, etc. then Princeton should have challenged. But as this is not the case, they rolled the dice and lost at the expense of virtually all involved.
As a side note, I think many of you are confused about the purpose of punitive damages. Punitive damages are intended to punish / deter the individual or company from doing this practice in the future. That is why you will see heavy penalties. Punitive damages do not necesarily need to be somehow monetarily commensurate with the infraction. They are designed to send a message. If you were personally involved in a case and were penalized 10,000, that might make you think twice before you did it again. However, when dealing with a company, the penalty has to be much higher or it is simply a cost of doing business. The intent is that the next time this happens to Princeton, they will do the right thing and make the offer, and that’s why it is so high. Hopefully, next time they will.
You hit it right on the head. It would have been nice/appropriate for the article to go into exactly what the Claims Department/Adjuster did that was wrong and exactly what behaviour resulted in the punitive award. There is a lesson in their, but they didn’t dwell on that part. Bringing that to the public’s attention may avert another Claim Adjuster/Department from making the same mistake. —-> Tell me more specifics!!!
i understand what ur saying there, but my whole idea is the questioning why the bar itself it taking the blame when in reality, it was the owner of the bar whom served himself the drinks whom had the accident. that wud be like me having a drink at my local park with a keg and got myself drunk. then turn to the park or the keg delivery folks and get their money to cover the claim. it might sound far fetch, but in reality that is basically what we are doing. we forget that it truly is the individual is responsible and not the companies. it goes back to the responsibility of the individual whom is smoking. i smoke and if i get cancer i can just sue the manufacturer. even tho, i know that i can cause health problems. reality check on this one and this is a major sticking point for me: the recipe for the actual cigarette was a guarded secret between the u.s. government and the mfg folks. when it went to court, only the mfg folks were sued. yet, out government denied to have anything to do with it. yet, they knew, that it was a potential hazard. if i owned a cigarette plant now, i wud be advertising just like normal; sponsoring cars, tv ads and the sort. society as a whole, has learned that it is easy to blame everyone else, but ourselves. no personal responsibility and then let companies pay the big bills. yes, there will be occasions where the big guns will be at fault. but is it really more of them at fault or the individual? another reason why we have frivilous lawsuits. if you had read another article about a judge/lawyer whom had sued a dry cleaner for $75 million for a lost set of pants, it was lowered to $54 million and then the appeal judge threw that out as well; society today is so hung up on $$$ they forget the moral value. when is enough – enough?
excuse me!!! BAD FAITH because the insure left them exposed? let’s look at that picture again: 1) in the auto industry, don’t we do that all the time, when we sell a policy a minimum limits knowing full well, that any could have better coverage. if that is the case, where’s the car insurance and what payout did they have? where was the proper coverage for that? um…wud u say they had bad faith as well? i think that bad faith is just something we tend to overlook when it comes to auto insurance…so how much cvg did his auto insurance carry? why do they not have bad faith cvg? if an owner serves himself, is the bar actually responsible for the cvg under his liability? i think, we forget — society nowadays is $$$$ hungry; and yet, it shud not be because the $$$ is going to the lawyers – whom are the real $$$ mongers…
According to the plaintiff’s attorney, Robert Mongeluzzi of Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesk, Princeton Insurance Co. has agreed to the $20 million in mediation of a bad faith claim filed in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
Princeton did not admit liability in the settlement, Mongeluzzi said.
The $20 million is in addition to the $1 million Princeton was previously required to pay under the limits on the tavern’s $1 million insurance policy after it lost its appeals on the dram shop case.
A jury awarded Tuski, who was 31 at the time of the crash, $75 million, an award that a judge later cut in half. But that large award was never paid because the tavern had only $1 million in insurance.
The tavern assigned its rights to Tuski, who sued Princeton Insurance Co. for bad faith, charging that the insurer failed to negotiate a settlement within the policy’s $1 million limits after the verdict.
**************
let’s look at this again, and maybe we can get the full account of the incident in question…first of all, there is no inidication of this article that the owner of the bar was the driver of the vehicle…secondly, if you look, bad faith call is bad call!!! reason – the bar owner, wanted to assume that his claim could have been settled for under the $1 million claim. In fact the jury awarded $75 whereas the judge cut that in 1/2…so the insurance was not in bad faith because it would have paid the $1 mil…bad faith _ is in bad judgement of the drunk driver and the owner of the bar, whom really did not have enough coverage for the settlement. this is why we are so fussy as a society, we are looking for money, in this case, the owner collects $20 mil + $1 mil (how much a lawyer can get) and the remaining balance will go to the quadrapalegic and then probably the owner still has to come up with the difference pending how much is paid by the car insurance…so it was not bad faith of the insurance company because it can only settle for $1 mil…the award was for $75 mil initially — so therefore the owner is in bad faith thinking that all claims can be resolved under an amount…that is like me having a claim where as my bi limit is only 25k and yet the person i hit has 50k of bills…the remaining 25k is out of my personal pocket…same with the bar owner…
BAD FAITH — NO WAY!!
BAD JUDGEMENT — YES WAY on behalf of the jury for the amount of the settlement since there probably was not enough assets by the owner or the bar itself….
Now, wait, I believe coverage should be denied, since the insured is the plaintif in this case.(unbelieable) Shouldn’t coverage be excluded since we can’t sue ourselves? Hummmm, does Princeton make it a practice to deny ligtimate claims? I believe a jury should look at claims paying history before punitive damages are awarded. I wish I was the defense attorney in this case. I understand why Princeton withheld payment or didn’t offer a settlement. apeal, apeal, apeal
you lack an understanding of what bad faith is despite it being fairly well articulated in these posts. Many insurance companies rely on folks just like you to do their dirtywork by deciding on information other than what is presented at trial.
I’m impressed! This board is usually so pro-insurance that its posters most always side with insurance companies regardless of actions they take. But that doesn’t seem to be the case as of late. A few of you actually seem frustrated to hear that companies you work for and respect put their own interests ahead of customer’s interests at claim time. This PA case is just another example.
I hear the stories and see honest hard-working consumers who have been victimized by insurance company claims adjusters nearly everyday. After an auto accident many of them get steered into network direct repair shops against their will by careless use of crafty word tracks and bogus guarantees. Once a car is at the DRP it often gets butchered with aftermarket parts that fit poorly and unnecessarily compromise the safety of occupants in a subsequent crash. Quality of workmanship is in the toilet, but the DRP’s CSI is so manipulated that the poor consumer never finds out until it’s too late. Completed, repaired cars on average are devalued to the tune of about 30% of their retail values. But, collecting for diminished value is out of the question insurers tell them, unless, of course, they want to go further in the hole by paying an attorney to represent them in a case that will be hard-fought by the insurer.
It’s been my experience that insurance companies size up the ability of the claimant to buy a defense. If they find them affluent or influential they get paid everything they request and more (Dickie Scruggs excluded). If they are not financially secure, they get lied to, chased in circles, and eventually worn down to the point they will accept any amount to get a settlement behind them.
What’s worse, is the push by insurers to limit judgments in torts and bad faith cases. Convincingly, insurance companies bully the states with threats of pulling out if insurance climates are not made more favorable. When they get their way and tort reform is passed and bad-faith limits capped, unethical companies have no fear of adverse judgments that could harm them, and they push the boundaries more than ever.
Kudos to those of you who see through the smoke screens put up by advertising agencies and spin wizards in the home offices. And to those of you who put your jobs in jeopardy to get consumers all they are entitled to receive at claim time, I applaud you.
Treating others the way you would have others treat you is the right thing to do. A bonus is that every once in a while you might save 20Mil on a claim.
David Williams / OH
Auto Repair and Valuation Expert
Some of us out there are sick and tired that the pendulum has swung too far. The arroagance of the companies and abuses of policy holders has gotten out of hand.
Its time for some checks and balances.
so — if we need checks and balances, think about all those frivilous lawsuits — like the example of the judge/lawyer whom sued the dry cleaners for a lost pair of pants for $54 million even when the owner of the cleaners even paid $150 for the lost pair of pants….they still serve him as a customer in the store despite the lawsuit…
If you traveled with me each day, you would see more crimes committed BY insurers than against them. Checks and balances are good for everybody. The only ones who wouldn’t agree they are necessary are those with something to hide.
Does anyone know anything about the Host Liquor Liability coverage? Host or just Liquor Liability?
It may just be that the form excludes the owner over-serving himself. If this is the case, the company may not be responsible for anything and it was an unfair judgement (the 75M).
I haven’t seen any posts from someone familiar with the form. Been a long time since I worked with these forms too, so I am not sure.
While I agree that both liab and damages in excess of policy limits were pretty clear, I’m not sure it’s bad faith simply to take a case to court. I’m wondering since the article has the language re: assigning rights and failing to settle w/in policy limits if what actually happened here is that the insured had a stowers claim against the carrier which they assigned to the plaintiff. It might then be called “bad faith” because it was being brought by a 3rd party???
Isn’t Princeton the same carrier that went bust on Med Mal?
I too question the form including the owner as a “patron”. Did he pay the price for each of his drinks? Is it company policy to include alcoholic beverages as an “employee benefit”?
If I worked in a deli and I helped myself to a sandwich, it is questionnable whether that could be construed as employee theft.
More questions than this article gives answers. What we do know is that Tuski’s attorneys made out better than Tuski. Whether Tuski sees any of THAT money, after paying the attorneys, hospital, rehab, therapists, pharmacies – I’m sure there’s nothing left for Tuski of that $1,000,000. I just hope Princeton can raise the funds.
I think most of you are missing the point about the “Bad Faith” award…the key to “Bad Faith” is not whether the insurance company offered their policy limits. The key is that they failed to offer up their policy limits when such an offer would have settled the claim. In other words, if the insurance company had an opportunity to settle the claim in its entirety against their insured by payment of its policy limits and did not do so when the claim’s value clearly exceeds their policy limit, then they acted in “Bad Faith” by exposing their insured to a judgment in excess of his policy limits.
The underlying plaintiff was involved in an auto accident with a patron of the tavern who was oversold alcohol. Straightforward dram shop claim. While we don’t know why Princeton did not settle for the $1MM demand (was the patron an alchololic who did not display any signs of intoxication to the bartender?), they clearly made the wrong decision.
i agree, because if u look at earlier comments, it was said that the driver was the actual owner of the bar…so query is was the driver and the owner of the bar one and the same? if so, why shud the bar be held liable or its insurance be liable? the story lacks any verifiable points that could help resolve our validity…
We finally got a little relief,” Denton said. “We’re pleased that we were able to get our current State Farm cases resolved. What it indicates to me is that we have finally reached some middle ground with State Farm that has created a basis on which we can settle our State Farm cases.”
More than 200 lawsuits are pending against the insurer in U.S. District Court. Evidence unearthed so far indicates State Farm denied payments for wind damage in coastal areas also subjected to storm surge. State Farm relied on a clause in its policies that purports to say wind damage is not covered when water contributes.
Under pressure from state officials, and with an unfavorable court ruling early in the year, the insurer is now re-evaluating claims and offering wind-damage payments to policyholders whose property the storm swept away, leaving only slabs or pilings. The insurer also will review the claims of other Coast policyholders who request it.
State Farm, the state and nation’s largest property insurer, has about 35,000 customers in the three Coast counties. The company has paid more than $1.2 billion for hurricane damage statewide.
Its claims re-evaluation process is being overseen by Insurance Commissioner George Dale, whose office, because of consumer complaints, is investigating how the insurer handled Katrina claims.
well, how is it lowball, when in good faith they were solvent for $1 mil…that to me is not bad faith…what is a shame is why did the bar not have a higher limit of liability? $1 mil is not enough…i think it’s the owner of the bar that might be the problem…because, u see where the insurance did pay the $1 mil…bad faith? NO — Bad judgement of the bartender who kept serving — YES. Bad Judgement on the DRIVER — YES! why do we always try to push the issue that it is always someone else’s fault and not our own… the bartender did not force the drinker the drink…did not force him to drive his car…why is society so entrenched in getting after the other person/company – instead of taking the blame…is that because the person does not have money? then why are we not suing for the company whom sold the person the bullet or sold the rifle to the person whom murdered someone? we don’t — again, it’s a matter of principal — taking responsiblity for the actions you do!!!
woodchuck, you miss the point. the issue in the bad faith case was the insurance company’s conduct. In the underlying case, the insurance co put their own interests over and above its insured and lost in a big way in that gamble. They gambled with their insureds money and future instead of doing the right thing and making a policy limit offer before or even after huge verdict.
They lowballed and got stung. Maybe next time, after this 20 million dollar education, they will do right by their insured.
Thank God that some states have bad faith laws to protect policy holders from this sort of abuse. Too bad it wasn’t more.
The unfortunate innocent injured worker–who does have my sympathy–was initially awarded $75 million and then argued that the case should have been settled with him for less than $1 million?
The story is about an insurance carrier’s failure to settle the claim for within the policy limits. What makes this notable is during the course of litigation the plaintiff’s esq demanded the policy limits to settle the dram shop claim and the good people at Princeton decided to roll the dice and came up on the short end of a 75 Million verdict. Compounding their mistake they refused to offer their 1 million policy to settle post verdict. This left the bar owner and others exposed to a judgment that could have been settled and resolved if they just did what they were supposed to do.
This is what we call bad faith claims practices – when an insurance carrier puts its own financial interests ahead of its insured. Does anybody think the injuries aren’t worth at least a million?
They are saying that the insurer should have steeled for policy limits because the claimant had a strong case and it was obvious that the case would result in a judgement for more than the limits. Once bad faith is proven the limits no longer apply and teh insurer is on the hook for the total awarded.
Clearly there is more to this story than the summary, I’d have to believe that the insurance company tried to Low-Ball or that they thought there were other carriers responsible. However, on the surface, unless they felt that the PH hadn’t had any drinks at the tavern, the $1Mil pay out should have been an automatic payout from what I can tell.
the facts of the case are available on westlaw, 2004 W.L.4962363. any reasonable adjuster/carrier would have settled for the policy limits quickly. Only Princeton knows why they didn’t. the sad part is the 20 million isnt enough to pay the injured party’s meds/expenses for the rest of his life.
ANYONE SEE THE HISTORY THE COURTS TRYING TO STOP THE INS BOYS FROM ALL THE BS. ITS WAKE UP TIME. YOU CAN HAVE FAITH IN THAT.
Clearly there is more to this story than the summary, I’d have to believe that the insurance company tried to Low-Ball
in response to woodchuck—the bartender and the “patron” were one and the same. Michael Pitaccio, the manager of the bar owned by a “family” corporation, SERVED HIMSELF alcohol to the extent that his blood alcohol content was calculated to be .25% at 10:30 in the morning, when the incident happened. He struck the plaintiff, did not stop, went home, struck his house with his car, then drove to New Jersey, where his sister called the police.
ok
Read all the storys about bad faith. Ask yourself what we could do to help people- you see the people in
This county have been harm and look at all the waste, this may be a game to all for your lowballing– it has harm people we pay for a policy – my policy and the game have been in my life for 3 years because of lowballing I have loss 3 family members because of all the games. We need to all wake up PLEASE!!
You might garner some empathy and support if your comments made some sense.
I think what he is saying is that he blames the misfortunes of three family members upon insurance company misconduct. In addition I think that he is stating that cases of bad faith involving insurers have been largely ignored by the MSM (mainstream media) and they we should open our eyes to them.
I’m just making a guess.
“Read all the storys about bad faith. Ask yourself what we could do to help people- you see the people in
This county have been harm and look at all the waste, this may be a game to all for your lowballing– it has harm people we pay for a policy – my policy and the game have been in my life for 3 years because of lowballing I have loss 3 family members because of all the games. We need to all wake up PLEASE!!”
Seems to me that Princeton got what they deserved for not dealing fairly in this case..
i did not see that he was the actual owner of the bar/company. even still, the owner of the bar shud be held completely responsible. now, his insur had a $1 million liability.
?? did the insurance company initially offer the bar owner more coverage prior to purchasing the policy? if so, why is it considered bad faith? the insurance company was going to pay the $1 mil. that wud have meant the bar owner had to come up w/the rest — so that is not in bad faith. afterall, he knew (especially in most states), the bar can be responsible for serving a drunk whom is willing to drive. makes matter worse, it was him, the owner who was drinking from his own bar.
Woodchuk,
Bad Faith comes into play when the insurance company puts its own interests ahead of the interests of the insured. Here there was a 1M policy. The carrier was faced with a clear liability situation and potential damages beyond the 1M policy. The correct course of action would be to offer the 1M policy to protect the insureds interests. If they had done so there would be no bad faith exposure. The plaintiff would have likley settled for the policy limit and there would be no excess exposure. It if was offered, and the verdict was higher than the policy limit and the plaintiff didn’t accept and got a big verdict there would be no bad faith exposure to the carrier because they discharged their obligations. Instead they put in what I call the “hope” defense. They “Hope ” that a jury ,despite the facts, would be stingy and screw the plaintiff by awarding less than 1 M. Here, the jury was astute and awarded the full value of the case (75M) leaving its insured exposed for the excess– it was a good expensive education not to be too arroagant and so cavailer with the insureds interests
i have been saying this for sometime….we are always quick to blame others for the reason for our actions…but in the long run, we are actually responsible for our actions…it was not the bar that was drinking, but the driver…now, what is interesting fm the earlier comments, was that the driver was actually the bar owner…but u are right! why shud we always place the blame – except when u notice that there is a plausibility of making more money (especially lawyers)!…
Wow!! Though I am sorry for the injured party, this award is excessive. Remember this injury was caused by a drunken driver who choose to drink and drive. This is considered a criminal offense. I believe the responsible party is the driver “not the tavern”. Although the travern did have liablity insurance in place, I don’t believe the insurance company should take responsibility in excess of the policy limits. Crafty attorneys who will receive a large percentage of the award settlement will ultimately benefit from this judgement. In addition, now the business owner such as myself will be faced with higher insurance premiums. “The Insurance Doctor”
This thread is very frustrating and has outlined a staple of the comments on this site…personal responsibility.
There are a wealth of people that make comments on this site about personal res. for individuals, but seem not to care when companies do not demonstrate the same. This case has absolutely nothing to do with the pers. respons. of the drunk driver of the car. Of course, he is 100% at fault for the injuries sustained by the victim / plaintiff. That is not in dispute. The problem is that instead of offering a limits settlement, the insurance company decided to play a little game by hoping that under some extraordinary circumstances, they wouldn’t have to pay the limits. They acted in bad faith as it was apparent the limits settlement was appropriate. They did not demonstrate the PERSONAL RESPONSBILITY they should have in being the insurer on the account.
This is not to say that if there is some dispute about coverages that the insurance company does not have every right to challenge. Say, a dispute about whether the policy was in force, or whether there was an exclusion that applied, etc. then Princeton should have challenged. But as this is not the case, they rolled the dice and lost at the expense of virtually all involved.
As a side note, I think many of you are confused about the purpose of punitive damages. Punitive damages are intended to punish / deter the individual or company from doing this practice in the future. That is why you will see heavy penalties. Punitive damages do not necesarily need to be somehow monetarily commensurate with the infraction. They are designed to send a message. If you were personally involved in a case and were penalized 10,000, that might make you think twice before you did it again. However, when dealing with a company, the penalty has to be much higher or it is simply a cost of doing business. The intent is that the next time this happens to Princeton, they will do the right thing and make the offer, and that’s why it is so high. Hopefully, next time they will.
You hit it right on the head. It would have been nice/appropriate for the article to go into exactly what the Claims Department/Adjuster did that was wrong and exactly what behaviour resulted in the punitive award. There is a lesson in their, but they didn’t dwell on that part. Bringing that to the public’s attention may avert another Claim Adjuster/Department from making the same mistake. —-> Tell me more specifics!!!
i understand what ur saying there, but my whole idea is the questioning why the bar itself it taking the blame when in reality, it was the owner of the bar whom served himself the drinks whom had the accident. that wud be like me having a drink at my local park with a keg and got myself drunk. then turn to the park or the keg delivery folks and get their money to cover the claim. it might sound far fetch, but in reality that is basically what we are doing. we forget that it truly is the individual is responsible and not the companies. it goes back to the responsibility of the individual whom is smoking. i smoke and if i get cancer i can just sue the manufacturer. even tho, i know that i can cause health problems. reality check on this one and this is a major sticking point for me: the recipe for the actual cigarette was a guarded secret between the u.s. government and the mfg folks. when it went to court, only the mfg folks were sued. yet, out government denied to have anything to do with it. yet, they knew, that it was a potential hazard. if i owned a cigarette plant now, i wud be advertising just like normal; sponsoring cars, tv ads and the sort. society as a whole, has learned that it is easy to blame everyone else, but ourselves. no personal responsibility and then let companies pay the big bills. yes, there will be occasions where the big guns will be at fault. but is it really more of them at fault or the individual? another reason why we have frivilous lawsuits. if you had read another article about a judge/lawyer whom had sued a dry cleaner for $75 million for a lost set of pants, it was lowered to $54 million and then the appeal judge threw that out as well; society today is so hung up on $$$ they forget the moral value. when is enough – enough?
excuse me!!! BAD FAITH because the insure left them exposed? let’s look at that picture again: 1) in the auto industry, don’t we do that all the time, when we sell a policy a minimum limits knowing full well, that any could have better coverage. if that is the case, where’s the car insurance and what payout did they have? where was the proper coverage for that? um…wud u say they had bad faith as well? i think that bad faith is just something we tend to overlook when it comes to auto insurance…so how much cvg did his auto insurance carry? why do they not have bad faith cvg? if an owner serves himself, is the bar actually responsible for the cvg under his liability? i think, we forget — society nowadays is $$$$ hungry; and yet, it shud not be because the $$$ is going to the lawyers – whom are the real $$$ mongers…
wudchuch….the read the previous post again, then read it again. It is very clear what bad faith is. Just read the post again till you understand it……
According to the plaintiff’s attorney, Robert Mongeluzzi of Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesk, Princeton Insurance Co. has agreed to the $20 million in mediation of a bad faith claim filed in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
Princeton did not admit liability in the settlement, Mongeluzzi said.
The $20 million is in addition to the $1 million Princeton was previously required to pay under the limits on the tavern’s $1 million insurance policy after it lost its appeals on the dram shop case.
A jury awarded Tuski, who was 31 at the time of the crash, $75 million, an award that a judge later cut in half. But that large award was never paid because the tavern had only $1 million in insurance.
The tavern assigned its rights to Tuski, who sued Princeton Insurance Co. for bad faith, charging that the insurer failed to negotiate a settlement within the policy’s $1 million limits after the verdict.
**************
let’s look at this again, and maybe we can get the full account of the incident in question…first of all, there is no inidication of this article that the owner of the bar was the driver of the vehicle…secondly, if you look, bad faith call is bad call!!! reason – the bar owner, wanted to assume that his claim could have been settled for under the $1 million claim. In fact the jury awarded $75 whereas the judge cut that in 1/2…so the insurance was not in bad faith because it would have paid the $1 mil…bad faith _ is in bad judgement of the drunk driver and the owner of the bar, whom really did not have enough coverage for the settlement. this is why we are so fussy as a society, we are looking for money, in this case, the owner collects $20 mil + $1 mil (how much a lawyer can get) and the remaining balance will go to the quadrapalegic and then probably the owner still has to come up with the difference pending how much is paid by the car insurance…so it was not bad faith of the insurance company because it can only settle for $1 mil…the award was for $75 mil initially — so therefore the owner is in bad faith thinking that all claims can be resolved under an amount…that is like me having a claim where as my bi limit is only 25k and yet the person i hit has 50k of bills…the remaining 25k is out of my personal pocket…same with the bar owner…
BAD FAITH — NO WAY!!
BAD JUDGEMENT — YES WAY on behalf of the jury for the amount of the settlement since there probably was not enough assets by the owner or the bar itself….
Now, wait, I believe coverage should be denied, since the insured is the plaintif in this case.(unbelieable) Shouldn’t coverage be excluded since we can’t sue ourselves? Hummmm, does Princeton make it a practice to deny ligtimate claims? I believe a jury should look at claims paying history before punitive damages are awarded. I wish I was the defense attorney in this case. I understand why Princeton withheld payment or didn’t offer a settlement. apeal, apeal, apeal
Wudchuck,
you lack an understanding of what bad faith is despite it being fairly well articulated in these posts. Many insurance companies rely on folks just like you to do their dirtywork by deciding on information other than what is presented at trial.
I’m impressed! This board is usually so pro-insurance that its posters most always side with insurance companies regardless of actions they take. But that doesn’t seem to be the case as of late. A few of you actually seem frustrated to hear that companies you work for and respect put their own interests ahead of customer’s interests at claim time. This PA case is just another example.
I hear the stories and see honest hard-working consumers who have been victimized by insurance company claims adjusters nearly everyday. After an auto accident many of them get steered into network direct repair shops against their will by careless use of crafty word tracks and bogus guarantees. Once a car is at the DRP it often gets butchered with aftermarket parts that fit poorly and unnecessarily compromise the safety of occupants in a subsequent crash. Quality of workmanship is in the toilet, but the DRP’s CSI is so manipulated that the poor consumer never finds out until it’s too late. Completed, repaired cars on average are devalued to the tune of about 30% of their retail values. But, collecting for diminished value is out of the question insurers tell them, unless, of course, they want to go further in the hole by paying an attorney to represent them in a case that will be hard-fought by the insurer.
It’s been my experience that insurance companies size up the ability of the claimant to buy a defense. If they find them affluent or influential they get paid everything they request and more (Dickie Scruggs excluded). If they are not financially secure, they get lied to, chased in circles, and eventually worn down to the point they will accept any amount to get a settlement behind them.
What’s worse, is the push by insurers to limit judgments in torts and bad faith cases. Convincingly, insurance companies bully the states with threats of pulling out if insurance climates are not made more favorable. When they get their way and tort reform is passed and bad-faith limits capped, unethical companies have no fear of adverse judgments that could harm them, and they push the boundaries more than ever.
Kudos to those of you who see through the smoke screens put up by advertising agencies and spin wizards in the home offices. And to those of you who put your jobs in jeopardy to get consumers all they are entitled to receive at claim time, I applaud you.
Treating others the way you would have others treat you is the right thing to do. A bonus is that every once in a while you might save 20Mil on a claim.
David Williams / OH
Auto Repair and Valuation Expert
David,
Some of us out there are sick and tired that the pendulum has swung too far. The arroagance of the companies and abuses of policy holders has gotten out of hand.
Its time for some checks and balances.
so — if we need checks and balances, think about all those frivilous lawsuits — like the example of the judge/lawyer whom sued the dry cleaners for a lost pair of pants for $54 million even when the owner of the cleaners even paid $150 for the lost pair of pants….they still serve him as a customer in the store despite the lawsuit…
If you traveled with me each day, you would see more crimes committed BY insurers than against them. Checks and balances are good for everybody. The only ones who wouldn’t agree they are necessary are those with something to hide.
Does anyone know anything about the Host Liquor Liability coverage? Host or just Liquor Liability?
It may just be that the form excludes the owner over-serving himself. If this is the case, the company may not be responsible for anything and it was an unfair judgement (the 75M).
I haven’t seen any posts from someone familiar with the form. Been a long time since I worked with these forms too, so I am not sure.
While I agree that both liab and damages in excess of policy limits were pretty clear, I’m not sure it’s bad faith simply to take a case to court. I’m wondering since the article has the language re: assigning rights and failing to settle w/in policy limits if what actually happened here is that the insured had a stowers claim against the carrier which they assigned to the plaintiff. It might then be called “bad faith” because it was being brought by a 3rd party???
Isn’t Princeton the same carrier that went bust on Med Mal?
I too question the form including the owner as a “patron”. Did he pay the price for each of his drinks? Is it company policy to include alcoholic beverages as an “employee benefit”?
If I worked in a deli and I helped myself to a sandwich, it is questionnable whether that could be construed as employee theft.
More questions than this article gives answers. What we do know is that Tuski’s attorneys made out better than Tuski. Whether Tuski sees any of THAT money, after paying the attorneys, hospital, rehab, therapists, pharmacies – I’m sure there’s nothing left for Tuski of that $1,000,000. I just hope Princeton can raise the funds.
I think most of you are missing the point about the “Bad Faith” award…the key to “Bad Faith” is not whether the insurance company offered their policy limits. The key is that they failed to offer up their policy limits when such an offer would have settled the claim. In other words, if the insurance company had an opportunity to settle the claim in its entirety against their insured by payment of its policy limits and did not do so when the claim’s value clearly exceeds their policy limit, then they acted in “Bad Faith” by exposing their insured to a judgment in excess of his policy limits.
The underlying plaintiff was involved in an auto accident with a patron of the tavern who was oversold alcohol. Straightforward dram shop claim. While we don’t know why Princeton did not settle for the $1MM demand (was the patron an alchololic who did not display any signs of intoxication to the bartender?), they clearly made the wrong decision.
i agree, because if u look at earlier comments, it was said that the driver was the actual owner of the bar…so query is was the driver and the owner of the bar one and the same? if so, why shud the bar be held liable or its insurance be liable? the story lacks any verifiable points that could help resolve our validity…
We finally got a little relief,” Denton said. “We’re pleased that we were able to get our current State Farm cases resolved. What it indicates to me is that we have finally reached some middle ground with State Farm that has created a basis on which we can settle our State Farm cases.”
More than 200 lawsuits are pending against the insurer in U.S. District Court. Evidence unearthed so far indicates State Farm denied payments for wind damage in coastal areas also subjected to storm surge. State Farm relied on a clause in its policies that purports to say wind damage is not covered when water contributes.
Under pressure from state officials, and with an unfavorable court ruling early in the year, the insurer is now re-evaluating claims and offering wind-damage payments to policyholders whose property the storm swept away, leaving only slabs or pilings. The insurer also will review the claims of other Coast policyholders who request it.
State Farm, the state and nation’s largest property insurer, has about 35,000 customers in the three Coast counties. The company has paid more than $1.2 billion for hurricane damage statewide.
Its claims re-evaluation process is being overseen by Insurance Commissioner George Dale, whose office, because of consumer complaints, is investigating how the insurer handled Katrina claims.