The Liability Issue For Insurance Companies Regarding Bad Faith and Other Consequences
We offer litigation support, counseling and expert report review before these cases go to litigation.
Many people in the insurance industry do not understand the potential liability for bad faith they are putting their company in. Much of the hiring on vendors is done through emotion. They have a personal like for the expert. Allstate has a firm Axiom that supposedly is a third party that checks out the vendors. They check for licenses, and sometimes background. The problem here is that they do not ask the right questions to qualify the expert if in fact he is truly qualified to render certain opinions based on his training, background and experience. They don't ask how many cases he has represented the insured, the insurance company, the prosecution or defense. They didn't ask how many times he was on the prevailing side and they don't ask if the expert's side prevailed. They don't ask why the expert's opinions are so commonly questioned when working for a carrier. If the expert's conclusions are questioned quite often when working for the insurance company; one needs to ask; what did he leave out of the report? Was his methodology flawed?
Outside legal firms enjoy this and calculate it into billable hours to defend the case even though there is no defense for sloppy work.
When one can not defend the facts, he argues the law. If arguing the law does no good, do personal attacks on the opposing expert not matter how miniscule they may be. Take something minor in a word that was said by the expert ten years ago out of context and turn it into a big issue by obfuscating the truth and supplying this information as fact to a judge.
I have been accused of keeping a scorecard for court cases from my opposition, even though they do as well. They just admit it in different ways like being "Court certified" 60 times. Sounds impressive but in reality, there are no such certificates to my knowledge and just means the expert qualified in court. No big deal because generally if the expert knows more about a particular subject that the average man, he is qualified. If unopposed, there is no balance and all that is left is the expert's word which may be true or untrue.
It has been common that when insurance companies find their expert opinions flawed, they will just say "We thought he was good" and throw the expert under the train. The problem is that more and more throughout the country, insurance companies are being hit with due diligence which turns into bad faith. They have no problem inferring the insured had something to do with the theft of their car. They require everything from the insured including phone records, tax records etc, otherwise the claim is denied for non-cooperation. The funny thing is that they don't request such stringent requirements from their experts.
I am putting up a couple pages of a deposition to illustrate my point. This is not to personally attack or single out one firm because this problem is rampant and is like a cancer. For 28 years this firm has been around examining reported stolen cars for insurance companies. Gross sales are $2.3 million dollars. The words in the deposition are this expert's words, not mine. If he denies stating this, then someone may want to go after this expert for perjury. I know of at least one case in Michigan in which because of this firm's opinion, an insured was convicted of a felony and there may be many more!
The reports generated by this firm that I have reviewed are based only on speculation and not fact. Unfortunately, this is common with many firms across the US determining how a reported stolen vehicle was last operated and the origin and cause of a vehicle fire.
Some may look at me as the problem, but I in fact am the solution. I offer review of these reports before they go to court and give you the merits and the problems in the reports. Having worked all sides of these issues gives me the perspective needed to opine on these reports.
The first requirement in my industry is that the expert cannot float on his experience in law enforcement if he has no automotive knowledge. Worse yet, as I said, this is a cancer. Someone that knows nothing about ignition locks and transponders and is teaching about this subject to others.
Here is an excerpt from a deposition illustrating why this firm or any other firm treating this specialized field strictly as a business, should not be allowed to opine on the last operation of a reported stolen vehicle unless of course, he is assisting with the denial of a theft claim based on his suspicions and not fact.
Look at page 6 items 16-22 and you will see a definite problem here because this expert in Michigan has no automotive experience whatsoever and he considers himself an expert in locks, theft, transponders etc.
Here is a New Jersey expert. This is kind of ironic because here you have a convicted drug dealer (felon) that testifies against insureds in felony trials.
He is also a board member of the Coalition: http://www.forensicauto.net/id61.html
He claims to be an expert in auto theft and vehicle fires. Here is your chance to make your own opinion being as he has no documented training or certifications in the field.
He is also in non-compliance with ethics rule #1 for IAIL: http://www.iail.org in which as a member he cannot be a convicted felon.
Also included here is the Allstate vendor list that is supposed to do background checks. Maybe they did, maybe they did not. I do not know. Mr. Paluski does plenty of Allstate assignments though.
Here is the point: These are not personal attacks on these people. They pose a severe liability risk for Bad Faith with the insurance companies when examining vehicles and writing reports.
Many of the reports and deposition transcripts from these experts will be up on the site shortly revealing the problems. I am the solution!
