Our Consumer Advocate would be better served if she could actually present a solution to remedy the Industry’s well-documented woes. Does she actually believe no solution is better than any of the solutions proposed? Insurers going under are certainly not in the best interest of consumers. Would be fantastic if she could present a solution of her own vs. categorically railing against any Industry-proposed solution to the issues.
The attorney fee statute was enacted to even the playing field between consumers and the insurance companies who are better positioned to absorb the costs of litigation. Despite the perception, multipliers are the exception and not the rule. The law is very clear on that. In arbitration, the consumer would be forced to incur the rate of their attorney, the rate of their arbitrator and half of the umpire’s rate. At market rates, it could easily reach or exceed $1,000 an hour. Very few policyholders could afford to seek a fair resolution of their claim in this situation.
It’s almost as if the market rate is grossly inflated by the statutes. What are the market rates outside of Florida since it appears that the rest of the country is doing just fine?
If the law is so clear on how the multipliers should explicitly only be used as the exception, then why are multipliers so common? Just because a law is written with a certain intent, does not mean it doesn’t create unintended consequences & loopholes that cannot be subjected to abuse.
The same old arguments the plaintiff side made when employer/employee arbitration was first coming out in the 1980’s. The real opposition from the plaintiff attorneys is based on the fact that they cannot run up the litigation costs and force a settlement. Arbitration works. I’ve seen numerous situations where the employee did as well, or better, in arbitration than they would have in court. And the attorney got a smaller fee.
it’s so honorable that trial lawyers are concerned about people having their day in court. And it’s so insincere.
the consumer advocate position should be more appropriately titled the Attorney Compensation Advocate. Until the Florida legislature is held accountable by the consuming public who understands the incentives Florida law provides for trial lawyers to plunder the collective surplus held to protect insureds, this spiral to the heavens insurance costs will continue. Sink hole, chinese wallboard, mold, assignment of benefits,…the struggle goes on until its tamped down for the moment then because there is never a direct fix implemented on the real incentives to file suits, the Florida Bar will always be finding the next peril to plunder.
If insurance claims were paid fairly to begin with there would be little need for litigation. When an insurance company underpays a claim or improperly denies a claim, the policyholder needs someone to advocate on their behalf. The last thing homeowners and policyholders want is a long drawn out legal proceeding. They just want to be able to make repairs to their homes/property. They do have “Skin in the game”. It’s called a deductible
Our Consumer Advocate would be better served if she could actually present a solution to remedy the Industry’s well-documented woes. Does she actually believe no solution is better than any of the solutions proposed? Insurers going under are certainly not in the best interest of consumers. Would be fantastic if she could present a solution of her own vs. categorically railing against any Industry-proposed solution to the issues.
You mean the client would have some skin in the game and attorneys wouldn’t get one way fees and multipliers? Boo hoo!
The attorney fee statute was enacted to even the playing field between consumers and the insurance companies who are better positioned to absorb the costs of litigation. Despite the perception, multipliers are the exception and not the rule. The law is very clear on that. In arbitration, the consumer would be forced to incur the rate of their attorney, the rate of their arbitrator and half of the umpire’s rate. At market rates, it could easily reach or exceed $1,000 an hour. Very few policyholders could afford to seek a fair resolution of their claim in this situation.
It’s almost as if the market rate is grossly inflated by the statutes. What are the market rates outside of Florida since it appears that the rest of the country is doing just fine?
If the law is so clear on how the multipliers should explicitly only be used as the exception, then why are multipliers so common? Just because a law is written with a certain intent, does not mean it doesn’t create unintended consequences & loopholes that cannot be subjected to abuse.
The same old arguments the plaintiff side made when employer/employee arbitration was first coming out in the 1980’s. The real opposition from the plaintiff attorneys is based on the fact that they cannot run up the litigation costs and force a settlement. Arbitration works. I’ve seen numerous situations where the employee did as well, or better, in arbitration than they would have in court. And the attorney got a smaller fee.
it’s so honorable that trial lawyers are concerned about people having their day in court. And it’s so insincere.
the consumer advocate position should be more appropriately titled the Attorney Compensation Advocate. Until the Florida legislature is held accountable by the consuming public who understands the incentives Florida law provides for trial lawyers to plunder the collective surplus held to protect insureds, this spiral to the heavens insurance costs will continue. Sink hole, chinese wallboard, mold, assignment of benefits,…the struggle goes on until its tamped down for the moment then because there is never a direct fix implemented on the real incentives to file suits, the Florida Bar will always be finding the next peril to plunder.
If insurance claims were paid fairly to begin with there would be little need for litigation. When an insurance company underpays a claim or improperly denies a claim, the policyholder needs someone to advocate on their behalf. The last thing homeowners and policyholders want is a long drawn out legal proceeding. They just want to be able to make repairs to their homes/property. They do have “Skin in the game”. It’s called a deductible