PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 08/12/2007 8:29 AM by  01Snake
Fishing???
 11 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
01Snake
Member
Member
Posts:85


--
08/05/2007 8:32 PM

    Nice ad in the Classifieds! I'd love to know how "my expertise is needed to assit ongoing claims".

     

    In other related news, Its Shark Week on the Discovery Channel.

     

    FORMER STATE FARM KATRINA ADJUSTORS

     
    Adjustors with experience working Hurricane Katrina for State Farm Insurance needed.
    If you were an adjustor who handled claims for State Farm Insurance for Hurricane Katrina residential losses please contact us immediately.  Your expertise is needed to assist ongoing claims.
     
    Contact The Law Offices of ***********, toll-free at (800) 555-5555 and speak with our claims assistant *****.
    Or email *********************.  You may also contact us by fax at (800) 555-5555.
    katadj
    Founding Member
    Member
    Member
    Posts:256


    --
    08/05/2007 8:56 PM

    Called "chumming the waters" as in Blue fishing. Another ambulance chasing lawyer that thinks they can become another Dickie Scruggs.

    "Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new... Albert Einstein"
    Tom Rongstad
    Member
    Member
    Posts:76


    --
    08/07/2007 2:05 PM

    Deleted

    Bobabooey
    Member
    Member
    Posts:140


    --
    08/08/2007 1:04 AM

    Lawyers are ruining this country.  It is now officially legal to blackmail someone.  I am going to sue you and I know you will settle out of court for at least 20k because it will cost you more than that to defend yourself. 

    The united states should pass a law that if you sue someone and lose then you HAVE to pay their court costs and for their lost time.  (It will never happen though because half of the politicians are lawyers and one political party gets most of its money from these scum bags)

    HuskerCat
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:762


    --
    08/08/2007 6:08 AM


    Don't bash the lawyers too much...you & I might need one someday!  Actually, if you have handled claims for any length of time and haven't consulted or needed one yet, something is wrong. 

    sbeau4014
    Founding Member
    Member
    Member
    Posts:427


    --
    08/08/2007 11:58 AM
    Bobabooey, I agree that in a perfect world the prevailing party in a lawsuit should be able to collect 100% of their costs from the losing party in the suit. That would cut down on the frivilous suits. There are numerous jurisdictions that have some recourse to collect part or all of your costs if you prevail, although some must prove up that the suit was frivilous in the 1st place and without merit. Not an easy standard at times to meet. Some can even make the attorney who pursues the frivilous suit on the hook for damages, but unfortunately those statutes are too few and far between.
    Ray Hall
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:2443


    --
    08/09/2007 12:32 PM

    Do not get to upset about plaintiff's and their lawyers. When I started working auto liability claims in the middle 50's many practices were very unfair to the common working man. The following are examples.

    A very drunk insured would be returning to his home after an evening of drinking and driving and wipe out the left sides of four to five cars properly parked on the street of asleep working people. The hard nose insurance adjuster (me) would not pay for a rental car, OR assume liability for the damage and pay the PD straight foward, as no injuries were involved. The plaintiff bar changed this abuse.

    A powerful white mans son and a poor blacks mans son in a red light swearing match crash, with the old PU was the only way of producing income  for the tenant farmers family was destroyed. I investigated and had to make the wrong call.

    When 1% of contributory negligence could bar the plaintiff from ANY recovery, not changed in Texas until the 1960's.

    Just remember if it was not for good plaintiff lawyers, you would not even have a job. The insurance company's would have a very small claim department in the home office and make you send in your proof of loss by mail to be accepted or rejected. Who got the unfair claims practice law's inacted in each state? One guess.

     

    Ray Hall
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:2443


    --
    08/09/2007 12:38 PM

    In reguards blackmail not to try cases, this practice has almost stopped. When that comes up in liabilty claims I have worked it does not work too well as their cost to prepair a case that can be won in a courtroom cost about twice as much as our cost. Just the way it is.

    Bobabooey
    Member
    Member
    Posts:140


    --
    08/10/2007 12:20 AM

    My wife dented the bumper of a car a couple of years ago.  It barely scratched the paint off.  We found out later that our insurance company paid her $8000 bucks after she hired a notorius ambulance chaser.   No one was hurt, the cops did not even show up.  If you turn the t.v. on during the day you are swamped with filthy lawyers asking you to call them if you got into an accident.  Who pays for all of this nonsense?  You do with higher insurance premiums.  My new favorite rat lawyer commercials are the ones where they proclaim that they are "christian lawyers" stealing money from people in the name of god.  They are the lowest of the low.

    SteveZ
    Member
    Member
    Posts:66


    --
    08/11/2007 9:54 AM
    I guess it's a case of "swallow hard, this medicine will help you..."
    Ray Hall
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:2443


    --
    08/11/2007 1:28 PM

    Yep thats the way it works on liability claims. The company has the right to settle any claim they choose to settle for any amount they choose to pay. Buy, keep this in mind they also agree to defend you in any lawsuit and pay any judgement even if the case has no merit up to the policy limit. Thats the deal.

    You can speak up and write the president of your auto insurance company of go to the stock holders or the members annual meetings and speak out and tell the higher up that the claim department that worked your claim had their thinking/reasonating cap flushed down the comode on your accident.

    All they had to do on this dog case was to make one offer to settle and stand by it. This case would never see a jury trial. The only reason ambulance chasers take these dog cases is: They know how insurance claim department,s like to settle ALL cases. These type cases should be tried and they will stop.

    Look at the escalator industry. The will not pay one cent on a bare footed person cutting their foot. The lawyers know this and will write one letter or refuse the case. Simple they have to front the money and not recover their time and expense and no big awards. Simple economics.

    01Snake
    Member
    Member
    Posts:85


    --
    08/12/2007 8:29 AM
    Gotta love them Lawyers! Always looking out for the little guy.....

    Man says hold the cheese, claims McDonald's didn't, sues for $10 million
    by Justin D. Anderson
    Daily Mail Staff
    Print Story
    Email Story
    A Morgantown man, his mother and his friend are suing McDonald's for $10 million.

    The man says he bit into a hamburger and had a severe allergic reaction to the cheese melted on it.

    Jeromy Jackson, who is in his early 20s, says he clearly ordered two Quarter Pounders without cheese at the McDonald's restaurant in Star City before heading to Clarksburg.

    His mother Trela Jackson and friend Andrew Ellifritz are parties to the lawsuit because they say they risked their lives rushing Jeromy to United Hospital Center in Clarksburg.

    The lawsuit alleges Jeromy "was only moments from death" or serious injury by the time he reached the hospital.

    "We're interested in seeing McDonald's take responsibility and change a systemic quality control problem that endangers the lives of up to 12 million Americans with allergies," said Timothy Houston, the Morgantown lawyer representing the plaintiffs.

    Houston said his clients were in Morgantown in October 2005 and stopped at the Star City McDonald's on the way home to Clarksburg. Jeromy Jackson was living with his mother at the time.

    Jeromy did his part to make it known he didn't want cheese on the hamburgers because he is allergic, Houston said.

    He told a worker through the ordering speaker and then two workers face-to-face at the pay and pick-up windows that he couldn't eat cheese, Houston said.

    "By my count, he took at least five independent steps to make sure that thing had no cheese on it," Houston said. "And it did and almost cost him his life."

    After getting the food, the three drove to Clarksburg and started to eat the food in a darkened room where they were going to watch a movie, Houston said.

    Jeromy took one bite and started having the reaction, Houston said. One of the three immediately called the McDonald's to let restaurant employees know they had messed up the order, but had to cut the call short when Jeromy started having a bad reaction, Houston said.

    At least two managers at the McDonald's called the Jacksons afterward to apologize for what happened, Houston said.

    McDonald's representatives offered to pay half of Jeromy's medical bills -- which totaled about $700. When Houston became involved, he said the company offered to pay all the medical costs.

    The plaintiffs weren't interested, and McDonald's wasn't offering anything more than medical costs.

    The Jacksons and Ellifritz filed the lawsuit on July 18 in Monongalia Circuit Court.

    Houston didn't know if McDonald's had yet been served with the complaint.

    The lawsuit seeks damages on two counts of negligence, one count of intentional infliction of emotional distress and one count of punitive damages.

    The fast-food giant has been sued before.

    In one notorious instance in 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, N.M., sued McDonald's after she suffered third-degree burns from spilling a hot cup of coffee in her lap.

    A jury later awarded Liebeck $2.9 million.
    You are not authorized to post a reply.


    These Forums are dedicated to discussion of Claims Adjusting.

    For the benefit of the community and to protect the integrity of the ecosystem, please observe the following posting guidelines: 
    • No Advertising. 
    • No vendor trolling / poaching. If someone posts about a vendor issue, allow the vendor or others to respond. Any post that looks like trolling / poaching will be removed.
    • No Flaming or Trolling.
    • No Profanity, Racism, or Prejudice.
    • Terms of Use Apply

      Site Moderators have the final word on approving / removing a thread or post or comment.