Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The attorney hired by the insurance company represents you, not the company, and has to act in your best interest. The attorney will have to get approval for offers and payouts, but they represent you.
I disagree. The person paying the attorney's fees is the client. Hence, the attorney's job is to protect the insurance company, if that's who's paying the fees.
I disagree. The person paying the attorney's fees is the client. Hence, the attorney's job is to protect the insurance company, if that's who's paying the fees.
The attorney may have a duty of care to the insurance company, but cannot act against the interests of the insured. If there is a conflict of interest between the insurance company and the insured, the attorney represents the insured. This may vary between states. The insurance company can control the litigation, and force a settlement the insured disagrees with, but the attorney can't "sell out" the insured just because the insurance company says so.
Significant assets/income and you're getting sued for a large amount and reasonably expect to be liable for more than your policy limit? Third-party. Otherwise it's not necessary. The one time I've been sued they just settled for 20% of my policy limit, which honestly was higher than I thought they would. On the other hand if I had some $30,000 policy limit I'd have looked for my own representation.
If you're suing for personal injury/lost wages, your own attorney always. Property damage only the insurance company will pay out and go after the other insurance if applicable. Outside of a couple chiropractor visits get an attorney.
I disagree. The person paying the attorney's fees is the client. Hence, the attorney's job is to protect the insurance company, if that's who's paying the fees.
You may disagree, but you are wrong. The client is the person whom the attorney represents, it does not matter who is paying the bills. The attorney's fiduciary duty is to the person. If they put the insurance company ahead of the client, they can lose their license, get suspended, sanctioned and personally sued for money. Needless to say attorneys are pretty careful about this. If there is a conflict of interest for them, they are required to tell you to hire your own attorney and the insurance company has to pay for it. Unless there is a reservation of rights, there is rarely a conflict of interest.
The attorney may have a duty of care to the insurance company, but cannot act against the interests of the insured. If there is a conflict of interest between the insurance company and the insured, the attorney represents the insured. This may vary between states. The insurance company can control the litigation, and force a settlement the insured disagrees with, but the attorney can't "sell out" the insured just because the insurance company says so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldjensens
You may disagree, but you are wrong. The client is the person whom the attorney represents, it does not matter who is paying the bills. The attorney's fiduciary duty is to the person. If they put the insurance company ahead of the client, they can lose their license, get suspended, sanctioned and personally sued for money. Needless to say attorneys are pretty careful about this. If there is a conflict of interest for them, they are required to tell you to hire your own attorney and the insurance company has to pay for it. Unless there is a reservation of rights, there is rarely a conflict of interest.
Sorry you guys. If you are paying the attorney, the attorney represents your interests.
If you are an insurance company, and the attorney represents you, the attorney will be protecting your asses. Your ass and your insureds ass aren't necessarily the same thing as far as your (the Insurance Company's) interests.
The insured may be entitled to more than the insurance company thinks it's required to pay. The insurance company may do it's best to get out of even what it's required to pay.
So, it's nuts to assume the insurance company will not only pay for an attorney to represent it's own interests (in other words, try not to pay you any more than possible in order to maximize it's profits), but to then go above and beyond that - out of their own profits - to get the insureds more than is minimally required under the policy.
I have a feeling that anyone with a reasonable brain has already understood my point so far in this thread. So, I'm going to bow out. If anyone wants to believe that any future arguments without rebuttal from me means that their argument wins over mine - so be it. But, don't delude yourselves, is my advice.
Sorry you guys. If you are paying the attorney, the attorney represents your interests.
If you are an insurance company, and the attorney represents you, the attorney will be protecting your asses. Your ass and your insureds ass aren't necessarily the same thing as far as your (the Insurance Company's) interests.
The insured may be entitled to more than the insurance company thinks it's required to pay. The insurance company may do it's best to get out of even what it's required to pay.
So, it's nuts to assume the insurance company will not only pay for an attorney to represent it's own interests (in other words, try not to pay you any more than possible in order to maximize it's profits), but to then go above and beyond that - out of their own profits - to get the insureds more than is minimally required under the policy.
I have a feeling that anyone with a reasonable brain has already understood my point so far in this thread. So, I'm going to bow out. If anyone wants to believe that any future arguments without rebuttal from me means that their argument wins over mine - so be it. But, don't delude yourselves, is my advice.
Your description of the situation is not correct. The insurance company is not going to pay for an attorney for you to get more money. The insurance company pays for an attorney to defend you when you get sued by someone else.
I am not an attorney, but worked part time for a law firm that does only personal injury defense, and all of whose clients are customers of insurance companies.
Sorry you guys. If you are paying the attorney, the attorney represents your interests.
If you are an insurance company, and the attorney represents you, the attorney will be protecting your asses. Your ass and your insureds ass aren't necessarily the same thing as far as your (the Insurance Company's) interests.
The insured may be entitled to more than the insurance company thinks it's required to pay. The insurance company may do it's best to get out of even what it's required to pay.
So, it's nuts to assume the insurance company will not only pay for an attorney to represent it's own interests (in other words, try not to pay you any more than possible in order to maximize it's profits), but to then go above and beyond that - out of their own profits - to get the insureds more than is minimally required under the policy.
I have a feeling that anyone with a reasonable brain has already understood my point so far in this thread. So, I'm going to bow out. If anyone wants to believe that any future arguments without rebuttal from me means that their argument wins over mine - so be it. But, don't delude yourselves, is my advice.
I don't think you understand the context of when an insurance company hires an attorney to represent its insured. It's to defend you. How/why would they get you more money, you're being sued.
The attorney may have a duty of care to the insurance company, but cannot act against the interests of the insured. If there is a conflict of interest between the insurance company and the insured, the attorney represents the insured. This may vary between states. The insurance company can control the litigation, and force a settlement the insured disagrees with, but the attorney can't "sell out" the insured just because the insurance company says so.
No, but the insurance company can "sell out" the insured, while the insured is left with little to nothing legally in his/her warchest to use against his/her insurance company.
I would at least have a personal lawyer looking over your shoulder for good measure and to keep your insurance company within their own boundaries.
No, but the insurance company can "sell out" the insured, while the insured is left with little to nothing legally in his/her warchest to use against his/her insurance company.
I would at least have a personal lawyer looking over your shoulder for good measure and to keep your insurance company within their own boundaries.
But why? This is just a waste of money unless the damages exceed your policy limits.
This is the context:
Plaintiff--Gets injured. Hires own attorney, the attorneys you see on billboards and on TV. This attorney makes demands from Defendant's insurance company and eventually files a lawsuit against the Defendant direclty. To get paid, this attorney takes a percentage of what is collected from Defendant/Defendant's insurance carrier (typically 25%-40% depending on the case and lawyer).
Defendant--At fault. Tells his insurance company. His insurance company hires a lawyer to defend him. The insurance company indemnifies (pays judgments and damage awards) Defendant up to his policy limits (50k, 100k etc.) This lawyer has a duty to settle Plaintiffs' damages within the policy limits so that the Defendant does not actually pay anything, except higher premiums.
There is no realistic way an insurance carrier "sells out" the insured unless they deny coverage, which in a car accident is highly unlikely. In that scenario, in my state at least, the Defendant and Plaintiff stipulate to a large award, but make Plaintiff sue the insurance carrier for it directly.
I don't think you understand the context of when an insurance company hires an attorney to represent its insured. It's to defend you. How/why would they get you more money, you're being sued.
No, they (the insurance company) get an attorney to defend their own interests. Not the insured's.
They're not going to get you "more money" when you get sued. They are only going to defend themselves.
It's unfortunately, really naive for consumers to think their insurance companies are also their advocates beyond their legal responsibilities. And that even then, they may have to sue their insurance companies just to get what's owed to them.
But, it's understandable, because this is what all of the advertising "sells" us.
So, be smart as a consumer. Know that you are paying for only the minimum that's required under your policy. That your insurance company will do everything in it's power to pay you the minimum possible, and may even try to rip you off out of what they should pay you, in order to maximize their profits.
And that they are definitely not an advocate for you, as far as getting you everything owed to you by another party, beyond what the insurance company is minimally required to cover.
Anything else is just naive. If you ever have a claim on a policy, you will probably have to fight with your insurance company even to just get what's owed to you.
The only exceptions I have ever encountered, has been with Geico and auto claims. Geico has been great as far as taking care of someone I hit while trying to parallel park (I know, totally embarrassing ha ha), and I recently had a claim regarding a break-in to my truck and I had comprehensive, and Geico treated me very quickly and fairly regarding damage to my truck.
But, AARP/The Hartford, on the same truck break-in claim for items stolen that were covered under my renter's insurance policy - they tried to deny everything and kept delaying and delaying until I finally filed a small claims lawsuit and then they finally gave me what they should have given me.
But, by and large, people really need to not think of their insurance companies as personal advocates or attorneys with only your best interests at heart. That's just not the case. It's all about the profit margin for the most part.
No doubt Geico has figured out it's more profitable to just be fair than get bad reviews. But, you can bet they aren't being "fair" because it's the right thing to do - if doing that would negatively affect profit margins.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
