Liberty Mutual Claims Documents Ordered Produced
Vivian Persand is making headway against Safeco and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Sharing information and networking with similarly situated policyholders who are litigating issues involving the companies’ claims management practices and underpayment of claims is important. Attorneys who do share information reduce the cost of litigation for their clients, show that the insurance defense attorneys generally are not truthful in their disclosures of incriminating information, and generally win more cases. As a result of a Hurricane Ike insurance dispute involving a medical complex insured by Safeco and problems involved with opposing counsel and Safeco in that matter, I have become involved in organizing the policyholder's bar so that we can more effectively litigate the claims practices of Safeco and Liberty Mutual.
An example of how networking and sharing of information helps policyholder litigants is found in a West Virginia discovery Order in Ebbert v. Liberty Mutual Insurance. There, the Court appointed a special Master to aid in the discovery and specifically noted:
The Court is quite concerned about Liberty Mutual's answers and responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests.
...
The Court is not precluding the possibility of fines.
Some insurance defense counsel and insurers provide little or no useful information in response to discovery requests. They hope that the policyholder's counsel will be lazy and not compel the production of good faith answers or that overworked Courts will not get around to ordering responses. A book I noted in The Value of Networking and Sharing Insurance Claims Information Between Policyholders, "Full Disclosure," explains these tactics and what to do about those insurance defense attorneys and insurers that operate in less than good faith during the discovery process.
The Order in Ebbert v. Liberty Mutual also required the production of specifically named internal claims management documents which alert the rest of the policyholder's bar to what they should specifically demand from Liberty Mutual. This includes:
documents regarding the CFR program, Claims Outcome Advisor ("COA"), as well as documents that deal with bonuses, incentives and the processes for claims settlements.
Vivian Persand will be following up with West Virginia attorney David Jividen, who obtained this order. I strongly encourage any policyholder attorney with litigation involving Safeco or Liberty Mutual to contact Vivian Persand at 305-448-4800. I also encourage policyholder counsel to join the American Association for Justice Bad Faith Litigation Group, which David Pettinato, of our firm, chairs. The Bad Faith Litigation Group will meet at the AAJ's Annual Convention July 10-14 in Vancouver. We plan to hold a networking meeting among the attorneys with Safeco and Liberty Mutual claims practice cases.
David
It sounds like Bad Faith when Liberty Mutual sends to a long time Insured, a simple letter actually stating that they will non-renew the HO policy, because they are concerned that I live in an area that may get hit with a Hurricane. Now that forces me to subscribe to the aweful aweful incompetent hands of CPIC, What a Deal!!!
Best Regards
Ed Rega
I have been a consumer of SafeCo insurance "products" for more than twenty years. After my retirement from the USMC I started work at the Bureau of the Public Debt, US Treasury Department as a GS-4 clerk. I was promoted very quickly based on my work and active involvemnt in looking around the office for simple changes to work flow and tracking. I was well recognized for my success in achieving adoption of my suggestions and using my experience as the USMC data analyst during the introduction of the AV8B Harrier. The analytical training for this MOS has served me well. THIS IMPORTANT BUT ACCIDENT LADEN contract taught me to look beyond the facts for the "reality" in cause and accident recreation. One obstacle that analysts must prevent, an error in the decision process of management, can be costly carrer wise. Thus we now have the "No Fear Act".
By nature and bottomline "cost accounting" pressure glancing directly to the numbers and totals Insurers are working backwards to achieve an acceptable presentation of "corporate reality" to then prevent the insured and their counsel from discovery in getting down to the basics for the good of all. The tide is turning and a major reverse in the caselaw concerning the very visible practice of Insurers hindering rather than assisting their "contracted" clients from the promised benefits of the contract for which they have paid for years.
I began the program which is now in place at Public Debt (US Treasury & US Justice) to educate, brief and provide expert testimony concerning US Government Securities and Savings Bonds. I had the benefit of working all cases, whether domestic or foreign, because of a few basic skills and a strongly held analogy for measuring a stakeholders trustworthiness. "Don't sell your soul." This single 4 word sentence, emphasis added, should and can never be circumvented if you are in the position of being the sole source for determining a third parties "intent" to commit fraud of any type. I was involved in a program that soon resulted in the pursuit of financial transactions to document the obvious facts of fraud or "bad faith" in the financial industries (intentionally vague, can't give it all up here).
.
Many institutions continued to dodge the "discovery" by answering the US Attorney's statement about a sudden and large increase in a financial transaction "participant's" (definition open for the future use of Congress)income with an absurd defense.
"Since the job of a "bank" is to hold and protect their depositors funds" how could a move to accepting a risky financial transaction allowing a citizen the opportunity of "achieving the American Dream" be bad!"? Certainly the appropriate management reviews were being conducted to insure that depositors funds were not at risk because of the "changing of the lending environment to a more open, favorable, and affordable" could lead to massive default.
It is time to pull the rug from under the long time advantage that Insurer's have held through deception, fear, and manipulation of the law. The Judiciary in the local and Federal courts have already begun their own actions to force conformance by insurers to their "customer service commitments" used in their sales of policy. Do you EVER encounter that attitude? Not anymore because insurance is no longer a fact based numbers reality. Insurers user the claims process to completely void a value added contract must stop. Since insurance is required on almost all property of value a reality without any factual basis has become an explainable, accceptable, and yes...ultimately fraudelaunt promise by a salesperson.
Attorneys in private practice have fought for the discovery of the training goals for insurance companies, their employees, and their assigns. NOW through the time the Judiciary has spent to insure that your Homeowner's policy isn't a disposable document in determining the payment of a claim. The TIME HAS COME for full disclosure even the compensation plans of insurers, when an insurer has violated their own privacy statements for use of an insured's personal information against them, the sneak attacks on "missed deadline" policy holders that have previously been held "within the policy guidelines" and the inherent right of the insurer to protect their interests by actually re-assuring the insured all is well.
I am preparing to propel a stake through the heart of the myth of the "poor insurer who is always been defrauded". The facts aren't their now that the law is being evenly applied and more liberally intrepted in relationship to the fact that a "hide and seek" approach to claim settlement is JUST NOT AN ALLOWABLE PRACTICE. Why ? The fraud is now on the other side.
A permanent function for years in the US the acceptance by a court of a person as an "expert" witness can be a treachorous path for your witness to tranverse. They must be able to be calm and competent, knowledgable but also capable of impromptu speaking for those lobs from centerfield.
Most importantly the fact that reality is reality, that a Hurricane destroyed a home, that HO insurance was in force, and the HO is not attempting fraud nor hiding anything the insurers continue to walk away.
Being a person capable of performance of providing meaningful first hand testimony of intent and bad faith takes the knowledge that you must always track the details, The dates, the numbers, and then recognize the facts as the TRUTH.
If someone wants to eliminate these issues I am again going to proceed against SafeCo (pro se) on July 12, 2010 on two bad faith suits. I've got the proof, I've have the evidence of "writings", we have sufficient case law, and yes it seems a bad apple.
Send me an e-mail and maybe we can discuss how the ability to properly present the truth while testifying matters. We can also document that I CAN DO IT and am willing to for one last good deed.
I am proceeding pro se for a good reason. Based in law and sure to cause confusion on the defendant's part!