|
Most lawsuits settle. Settlements are a positive good because they relieve both sides of the uncertainty, risk and cost of trial. But settlements can also be used to hide the truth from public view.
When insurance companies settle coverage cases, they routinely demand secrecy as a condition for settling. Less secrecy would serve the public interest by exposing insurance company practices to public scrutiny. It would also make it easier for me to market my services -- since many of my biggest wins are subject to confidentiality agreements, and so can't be shared with the public.
So why do my clients enter into these "secrecy agreements" with the settling insurance companies? Because they have bills to pay -- hospital bills, rent bills, mortgage payments -- and it's the only practical way to get what they're owed from the insurer.
As you review the summaries and documents that follow, bear in mind that for every success story I'm permitted to share, there are others I can't make public.
- McDowell v. Harleysville Mutual. On February 26, 2001 Myeare Shonts was rear-ended at high speed while driving in Sussex County, Delaware. Her injuries were catastrophic: she suffered a burst fracture of the C5 vertebral body with fragments entering the spinal canal and causing incomplete spinal cord injury; a nondisplaced fracture of the C6 vertebral body; and a compression fracture of the T4 vertebral body. Her physicians diagnosed her with "incomplete quadriplegia," meaning that she would likely suffer dramatically reduced motor function in all four extremities for the rest of her life. The other driver's auto insurer, Harleysville Mutual, refused to pay the claim.
To learn how I recovered the full $1 million policy limits from Harleysville, click here.
- Thomas v. Harford Mutual. In this case we charged Harford Mutual, a workers compensation insurer, with unfairly delaying and denying coverage for medical care for our client's neurological disorder. The disorder ultimately left our 24-year-old client wheelchair-bound.
To read our summary of the case, click here.
- Crowhorn v. Nationwide. This case arose from our claim that Nationwide routinely violated statutory claims-handling standards for auto claims. It was the rare class action in which consumers actually recovered real money -- a minimum of $100 per consumer, with some recovering $1,200, $1,500 or more. It was also the first successful consumer class action in the history of the Delaware Superior Court.
To read the Court's decision approving the class settlement, click here.
|
