Articles Posted in Insurance Issues

by

An article published a few days ago in The Oregonian offers a good opportunity for us to examine the problems with Oregon’s systems for dealing with uninsured and underinsured motorists.

The newspaper reports that “a 29-year-old driver who lost control of his car and hit several parked vehicles, causing traumatic injuries to one of his passengers” fled the scene of the accident on foot and was arrested several days later. The accident took place on 92ndAvenue near the intersection with Powell Boulevard in Southeast Portland. The newspaper quotes police saying a 34-year-old woman was hospitalized with life threatening injuries after the incident. The woman’s fiancé was also injured.

The driver “is accused of two counts of felony failure to perform duties of a driver to injured persons” according to The Oregonian. We do not know for certain, but the driver’s decision to flee strongly implies that he was either uninsured or underinsured. As most readers of this blog are probably aware, Oregon and Washington both require every driver to purchase insurance with a minimum of $25,000 in liability coverage.  Those insurance policies almost always provide coverage against being hit by an uninsured and underinsured motorist for the same $25,000.

Continue reading

by

A recent article in The Oregonian outlined what has become a depressingly common story: the abrupt disappearance of Saudi Arabian students facing criminal charges here in Oregon. The newspaper reports that it “has found criminal cases involving at least five Saudi nationals who vanished before they faced trial or completed their jail sentence in Oregon.”

The suspects “include two accused rapists, a pair of hit-and-run drivers and one man with child porn on his computer.” A 2014 case detailed by the newspaper fits the pattern: shortly after the man’s arrest a Saudi diplomat appeared at the local district attorney’s office to post bail for the accused student. Having made bail and been released the defendant later failed to appear for his trial. As the newspaper puts it, the “cases raise new questions about the role the Saudi government may have played in assisting its citizens fleeing prosecution in Oregon – or possibly elsewhere in the United States.”

Any conduct along those lines would be a serious violation of diplomatic norms. Questions like that lie outside the scope of this blog, but there are other issues raised by these cases that are of immediate concern to us here.

Continue reading

by

This summer saw some of the largest and most dangerous wildfires ever recorded here in the West. The fall has brought two of the most destructive hurricanes in modern US history to South Carolina and Florida. So, it is with a kind of grim resignation that I return to the subject of insurance companies.

As I have written in the past – most recently in this post from last February – it is essential to look past the insurance industry’s warm and soothing slogans about how they’re always there when you need them. Insurance companies are businesses and their profitability is inversely related to the number and size of the claims they actually pay. That shouldn’t need to be said but, sadly, it does.

This goes well beyond a simple case of ‘always read the fine print.’ Insurance policies are contracts like any other. But it is one thing for a company to inform a policyholder that they are not covered for something and quite another thing for companies to actively seek ways to get out of paying claims that any reasonable policyholder should expect to be paid.

Continue reading

by

A recent article in the Los Angeles Times (see link below) details the struggles that many people in northern California have faced in the wake of devastating fires that swept through the area late last year. Thousands of homes were destroyed in counties across the state. As the newspaper reports, 44 people died. Sadly, in the wake of this tragedy has come the inevitable reminder: in the words of the LA Times headline ‘your insurance company is not your friend.’

I wrote about this issue six months ago after hurricanes hit Florida and Texas. In the wake of the California wildfires the core issues are similar: an industry that will use the fine print to its advantage whenever possible, blithely ignore rules and regulations and do everything it can to do as little as possible for its customers, all while assuring them that it is there to ‘help’.

According to the LA Times the specific issue in California has been an influx of “adjusters who poured in from other states to help companies process claims” and who then “misinformed policyholders about their rights.” The paper reports that many of the out-of-state adjusters came from the South and were clearly unfamiliar with California law, which provides far stronger consumer protections than are in effect in many other parts of the country. Many of the out-of-state adjusters also appear not to have been properly registered to work in California, the paper reports. In the wake of lawsuits filed by victims, the paper quotes a spokesperson for the California Department of Insurance saying that “the agency is already investigating whether unregistered and unsupervised adjusters worked the Northern California fires.”

Continue reading

by

People throughout the Southeast are struggling to put their lives back together after the damage caused by hurricanes Harvey and Irma over the last few weeks. More trouble, however, is on the way. Most immediately this takes the form of Hurricane Maria. This latest storm is already hitting a number of Caribbean islands hard (some of which were also hit by the earlier storms) and may also strike the US mainland in the coming days.

Some of the trouble, however, will be completely man-made. Over the coming weeks and months many homeowners struggling to rebuild are likely to discover that the policies they counted on are written more with a mind to protecting insurers than helping the insured.

Most media attention concerning hurricanes and insurance focuses on flood insurance. Few private companies are willing to underwrite flood insurance for anyone living in a flood-prone area so it is offered by the federal government instead. At times like these we see many newspaper and television stories about people who should have bought flood insurance but didn’t or, in the wake of massive storms like Harvey and Irma, people who didn’t think they needed flood insurance in the first place and are now discovering that their policies do not cover the damage to their property.

Continue reading

by

On Wednesday the US House of Representatives passed the misleadingly-named “Protecting Access to Care Act” on a largely party-line vote of 218-210 (all of the ‘yes’ votes came from Republicans; the noes included 191 Democrats and 19 Republicans). There is no indication yet whether the Senate will take up this little-noticed piece of legislation, but it is worth keeping an eye on, because the provisions of the bill could dramatically curtail patients’ rights. Earlier this month the Trump administration issued a statement of support for the bill – signaling that the President will sign the legislation if it ever reaches his desk.

Earlier this week the website HuffPost published a detailed analysis of the bill by a law professor from New York University. According to that article, the legislation would severely limit the “non-economic” damages that could be awarded in medical malpractice suits involving “injuries like permanent disability, mutilation, trauma, loss of a limb, blindness, sexual or reproductive harm, and other types of suffering and pain. HR 1215 would federally-mandate that if you suffer the most severe non-economic injuries, they are worth exactly $250,000 (no matter what the local jury finds).” In addition, the bill would impose an arbitrary time limit of three years on healthcare lawsuits, making it impossible for injured people to claim compensation for problems that emerged only slowly over a longer period of time.

The measure, in other words, would override state law to protect the economic interests of doctors, hospitals, the drug industry, medical device manufacturers and the insurers who cover all of them.

Continue reading

by

In banking and insurance – businesses that people need but often hate – few companies have as stellar a reputation as the United Services Automobile Association, commonly known by its initials: USAA. The company is a membership organization, functioning in much the same way as a credit union. Many of the services it provides are offered at a lower cost than comparable commercial competitors, with membership open only to people who have served in the military and their extended families.

Because its core market consists of active duty military, veterans and their families the organization is often surrounded by a kind of patriotic halo. Yet USAA, like any other company, is ultimately in business to make money. Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that USAA has spent years fighting lawsuits that claim it frequently puts profits ahead of people in one of its core businesses: insurance.

According to the company’s Hometown newspaper, the San Antonio News-Express, “USAA continues to be dogged by lawsuits that allege it uses a ‘cost containment scheme’ to delay, deny or reduce medical payouts to customers injured in auto accidents.”

Continue reading

by

It is an election year, so between now and November we can expect to hear many politicians at the national, state and local levels complain about trial lawyers and call for “tort reform.” As an article published this week in Slate outlines, however, an often disingenuous campaign designed to ‘protect’ big business frequently has an even more shocking effect – protecting child abusers and other people who injure children.

The article begins with the story of an Ohio pastor who was convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl in 2008. In addition to his criminal trial the man was sued by the girl and her family in civil court. As I have written in this space on many occasions, this right alone is important and worth defending. Access to courts for victims and their families is essential if justice is going to be served. As the article notes, quoting a legal scholar at New York University, often “the civil justice system is the only way for a perpetrator to be held directly accountable to the victim.”

A court awarded the victim $3.6 million in damages, but because of award caps required under Ohio’s tort reform laws she was only able to collect $350,000 – less than one-tenth of what the jury decided was her due. The girl and her family are now suing to have those caps declared unconstitutional on the grounds that they are “arbitrary and unreasonable, and thus a denial of due process.” Specifically, there is a strong argument to be made that damage caps violate the US Constitution’s guarantee of a trial by jury. An inherent part of that right is letting the jury decide what is fair – something that the tort reform movement seeks to stifle.

Continue reading

by

As 2015 winds down we can look forward to many things in the New Year. Among them: a new law that will be an enormous boon to ordinary Oregonians. SB 411, which Governor Kate Brown signed last March, is slated to take effect on January 1. As that day approaches it is useful to pause and remind ourselves why this measure is so important. I wrote about this law last spring when the governor was considering whether or not to sign it and am pleased to offer this follow-up on the eve of its coming into force.

As summarized by the healthcare newsletter “The Lund Report”, SB 411 “takes two actions to bring Oregon auto insurance law in line with other states – it allows an injured person to receive the full benefit both of their own policy and the injury protection of the driver who caused the accident. It also requires the at-fault motorists’ insurance to pay the injured party’s claims first, before paying back money the other motorist’s insurance paid out for personal injury protection.”

That may sound like a fairly common-sense decision, but as Lund outlines, right now Oregon, unlike many other states, operates under a quite different system. “Current law requires the liable motorists’ injury coverage to be deducted from the non-liable party’s coverage for underinsurance, so that if each party is insured against injuries for $25,000, only $25,000 will be available for the injured person.” This bill, in other words, replaces a system designed to protect the bottom lines of insurance companies with one focused on helping injured Oregonians get the help they deserve.

Continue reading

by

With the return of baseball there is also renewed interest this week in “subrogation” – a term that most non-lawyers aren’t familiar with, but one which could ruin the lives of many accident victims here in Oregon and elsewhere even as it enriches their insurance companies.

As outlined in a recent Bloomberg Business story, subrogation, a concept whose origins lie in the American Revolution, is a legal doctrine that allows insurance companies to claim damages from third parties in cases where they must pay claims. “An insurer, for instance, might seek to be repaid by the maker of a faulty furnace that caused a fire in a building the company covered,” the news agency writes. Few would argue with a straightforward example like that, but as is so often the case in modern America big business has turned a well-intentioned legal doctrine on its head in the service of its own bottom lines.

What has brought subrogation into sudden focus is the case of Bryan Stow, the San Francisco Giants fan who was beaten nearly to death in the parking lot of Dodger Stadium on Opening Day four years ago. Last year, Bloomberg reports, Stow won an $18 million judgment against the Dodgers and his two assailants (both of whom are now in prison) but “he has yet to receive any money” because his insurance company is aggressively using the legal system to try to claim millions from the settlement. This is happening even as his medical bills continue to mount, and as the 46-year-old faces a life of hospital visits, physical therapy and expensive ongoing medical care – not to mention decades of lost wages and the long-term emotional effect on him and his family.

Continue reading

50 SW Pine St 3rd Floor Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 226-3844 Fax: (503) 943-6670 Email: matthew@mdkaplanlaw.com
map image