Cincinnati Personal Injury Lawyer - Insurance Company

Insurance Companies Will Be There? For whom?

Brett Goodson — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:17:42 GMT

It was impossible to turn on the radio, a television or go online this weekend and not see the news. Michael Jackson, the king of pop himself, died at the age of 50. The headlines were everywhere, but so it seems, was something else. A commercial (see below) appeared on all the major news networks during what seemed to be every commercial break. It features a young Michael Jackson, during his Jackson 5 days, singing “I’ll Be There” and it’s doubtful the relation to the major story of the day was purely coincidental. If you haven’t seen it yet, the commercial is for a major insurance provider and features images of people who appear to have just suffered a devastating loss and the insurance company coming to the rescue. It also includes images of candle light vigils, soldiers returning home presumably from Iraq or Afghanistan, and cancer benefits, among other things.

Commercial

Perhaps I’m too cynical, but being familiar with the insurance industry’s unwritten policy of, “Deny, Delay, Refuse & Confuse,” I’d like to take this opportunity to suggest some new lyrics that may be a bit more appropriate for an insurance company commercial:

I’ll be there (to instruct contractors to alter damage reports and undervalue claims in Oklahoma following a tornado and in Mississippi following Hurricane Katrina so the company can refuse coverage to policy holders).

I’ll be there (to suddenly refuse coverage, after providing it for 8 years, to a boy with a crippling neurological condition that forces him to function at the level of an infant based on a report by a obstetrician/gynecologist).

Just call my name, and I’ll be there (to initially deny a claim for a liver transplant, stating it was not “appropriate,” only to approve the transplant mere hours before the teenage patient died from her illness).

Granted, the Jackson 5 version is catchier, but as far as insurance companies go, the above version may be more accurate. Insurance companies have their "good hands" out to collect your premium but put on the boxing gloves if you ever need to make a claim.

Don't allow yourself to be cheated by insurance company claims practices. You have rights which can be enforced in a court of law.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Goodson

Ohio Judicial Campaign Contribution Conundrum

Brett Goodson — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:00:02 GMT

The recent Supreme Court decision in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company may have elected judges checking lists of their major campaign contributors against upcoming cases on the docket, but what will be the lasting impact? (Click Here for more information) Caperton concerned Justice Brent D. Benjamin of the West Virginia Supreme Court and his refusal to withdrawal from a case in which one of the parties, A.T. Massey, had been a major contributor in his campaign for a spot on the West Virginia Supreme Court. A.T. Massey had contributed close to $3 million in an effort to unseat the incumbent that then candidate Benjamin was opposing. After winning the election, Justice Benjamin refused to remove himself from a case involving A.T. Massey. He sided with A.T. Massey (resulting in 3-2 decisions) on two separate occasions, each time throwing out a $50 million jury verdict. Writing for the majority, US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy called the facts “extreme” and that the situation reflected poorly on the West Virginia judicial system.

Like West Virginia, Ohio conducts elections to fill the seats of its Supreme Court. And like West Virginia (as well as every other state that fills its Supreme Court via election), Ohio has its fair share of campaign contributors. Of the 7 current members of the Ohio Supreme Court, 5 count insurance companies as their top organizational contributor. These contributions ranged from $29,000 to $124,000 during the 2008 election. Perhaps more disturbing is a 2006 New York Times article which found Ohio judges rarely removed themselves from cases involving campaign contributors and on average decide in their favor 70% of the time.

A great fictional novel to read this summer is John Grisham’s, The Appeal. The book describes how easy it is for business and insurance companies to influence judicial elections which can in turn help them increase profits and obtain favorable rulings from the judges they helped elect. While this subject matter is disturbing, the book is a great read.

The Caperton case should not be read as a broad sweeping indictment on the practice of electing state Supreme Court justices. Even Justice Kennedy made sure to point that not every contribution to a campaign should be viewed as a potential source of bias. However this decision should be used as a starting point for a larger discussion on the place of elections and campaign contributions in the judicial system. In an encouraging sign, Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Moyer is calling for a new judicial ethics policy at the state's highest court in response to the US Supreme Court’s holding in Capterton.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Goodson

Full Coverage? Not For Your Family.

Brett Goodson — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:56:00 GMT

You’ve done the responsible thing and purchased full coverage automobile insurance. You want to protect your family should the unthinkable occur. Relying on the insurance companies promise of safety, security and peace of mind, you can count on their promise of full coverage in your time of need right? Unfortunately for you, the answer is likely no.

It may shock you to learn that the “full coverage” for which you are paying may not fully cover your family in the event of an accident. This insurance company loophole is called the “family exclusion” and allows an insurance company to deny all coverage to family members injured in an accident. An organization that is truly on your side, The Ohio Association for Justice, has released a detailed report explaining the history of the family exclusion, its modern day application, and how many insurance companies include it in their policies to exploit their customers. In short, the family exclusion (which can usually be found in small print buried within your policy) allows an insurance company to avoid its responsibilities to you, the customer. For example, if an insured individual with so called “full coverage” negligently causes an accident which seriously injures his or her family, those injured family members will not find themselves in the good hands of the insurance company, but rather left to fend for themselves. However, if there happens to be an unrelated party in the car when the accident occurs, that party will be fully covered by the insured’s policy. Same car, same circumstances, same accident, and yet the unrelated passenger is fully covered while the family members get no assistance from the policy they paid for. Even a caveman could see the absurdity and unfair nature of the family exclusion policy.

Acting as a good neighbor to his community, a Toledo attorney wrote an opinion piece for the local paper detailing his thoughts on the unfair family exclusion loophole. What can you do to inform yourself and stop the insurance company’s progressively bolder attempts to deny you the full coverage for which you are paying? First, you can contact your insurance agent and as them to explain the exception and if it is in your policy. If the exclusion is in your policy, shop for another insurance company. In addition, you can contact your local state representative and request they close the intra family exception insurance loophole.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Goodson