Sacramento Personal Injury Lawyer - Insurance

At-Fault Drivers from Out of Town To Be Billed for Collisions

Amber Wheat — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:11:55 GMT

Some cities and counties in California are thinking about trying a new way to recoup their funds after a collision. If the at-fault driver is from outside the area, they will be billed for the services provided.

There are many different arguments against the new policies. Insurers say they oppose the charges because they will ultimately foot the bill. Of course, we know that is not true, especially in a policy limits situation. The insured will receive less compensation if the bill is paid by the insurance company.

Many local government agencies defend the idea by saying that only people from out of town will be charged. The idea is that people who live within the district have already paid for the public services through taxes. My response is that the people who live outside the city pay taxes too. Just because they haven't had to use them in their city, doesn't mean that they don't pay for them.

Many are worried that these fees will become an "accident tax" and they liken this policy to a speed trap. Speed traps in California are illegal based on the possibility of human error. This fee for collisions could have greater implications. Will law enforcement skew events or misinterpret statements to put out-of-town drivers at fault if it means they are allowed to assauge some of their costs? They may not do so on purpose, but it could be a factor in their decision.

If cities and counties decide to go through with this, they risk a decrease in tourism and an increase in hit-and-runs. Proponents say that it is not a revenue generator, but it kind of is. The police and fire department are given funds to operate. They spend those funds when they get called out to collision scenes. That is the way it is supposed to be. If they need more money to do their jobs then it needs to come from taxes and the funds dispersed by the local governments, not from individuals.

Another system they are considering is to "just bill insurance companies." But that is a mistake as it will only make the insurance premiums go up and it will be subtracted from what the parties recover. It is not fair to anyone.

What do you think? Florida already has this in place, but there is current legislation to repeal it. Does it work? Is it fair? Would you avoid areas if you knew they had this policy? Tell me what you think.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Operation Cover Me Fighting Back Against Auto Insurance Fraud

Amber Wheat — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:30:12 GMT

During tough economic times it is hard to make ends meet. With all the monthly bills that pile up, one of the hardest ones to swallow is auto insurance. It’s betting on losing and most people out there don’t like to pay it. A while ago my boss wrote about the spree of hit-and-runs and uninsured motorists. Many people are tempted to lower their coverage or just drop it when the choice is between making a house payment and making an insurance payment.

But then what happens when you get in an accident and actually need insurance? Well a recent trend in California is buying the policy after it has happened and then lying about the circumstances to receive the benefits. Apparently the fraud has gotten so bad that the Department of Insurance and the District Attorneys from multiple counties have teamed up to combat the increasing instances of fraud.

On Wednesday, they announced that twenty-eight arrests have been made so far. Others are being sought with warrants and were issued orders to appear at arraignment. People got their families and friends involved to perpetrate this fraud and all will have to answer for their actions. The counties participating are El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Yolo. The Suspects defrauded 21st Century, CSAA, Esurance, Progressive, and Geico, among many others.

Fraud is a very serious offense and the people who are caught will learn quickly that it is just not worth it. Get insurance, even a minimum policy is better than nothing. It’s safer for you and it’s the law.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Transparency in Health Insurance is On the Way

Amber Wheat — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:40:57 GMT

The investigation by the New York Attorney General’s Office has revealed a serious flaw in the way “usual and customary fees” for out-of-network providers are determined. It turns out that there is a database (I love databases, they make everything so easy). It includes charges from all kinds of procedures and separates them into localities (because everyone knows an MRI in San Francisco will cost you more than an MRI in Bakersfield). It seems like a fair system, right, based on where you live and what you get done, your insurance will pay the average of what all the medical groups charge? There’s just one problem. The lovely database is populated with charges that they get from... insurance companies. So they don’t call up the doctor’s office and say “What do you charge?” they call up their friends the other insurance companies and say “What do you say they charge?”

It is unfairness to an nth degree. The investigation by the New York Attorney General’s office found that the numbers were lowered on purpose so that they would get out of paying their true share of the costs. Remember from my last post that balance billing was the problem that started this investigation, but this effects everyone who has health insurance. Many times, the patients themselves are responsible for the difference between what the doctor charges and what the insurance pays (I am most of the time). The health insurance companies are cheating EVERYONE. And every insurance company does it.

There is one fact that people need to understand, and it’s true for auto insurance companies as well. Insurance companies exist for one purpose and one purpose only... to make money. That is the beginning and the end of it. They want to turn a profit just like every other red-blooded American. Their profit is what they collect minus what they payout. And as good business men (and women) they are taking every opportunity to pay out as little as possible. They deny claims, they cook the numbers, and they make great use of the “fine print.”

But things will change. It is the beginning of the end for the corrupt insurance companies. UnitedHealth Group and Aetna are providing money to fund a new database. One that will be run by a nonprofit group with no interest in the outcomes. I don’t have much hope for that program either. Is the work going to be done on a volunteer basis? Are they going to make just enough money to only pay expenses and not turn a profit? If so, who is paying this group? Will this group be anonymous, or will they come home to “gifts” from insurance companies? I don’t trust nonprofit groups to be an uninterested third party. If you are not interested, if you don’t care about the cause, then why would you devote time, energy, and money into it, with nothing to gain. But at least we are trying something new, the old system certainly doesn’t work. Transparency could be a very good thing in this country.

We will see how this new system works out. Only time will tell, right? In the mean time, the New York Attorney General’s office is continuing their investigation into other insurance companies and UnitedHealth has agreed to pay $350 million to settle a lawsuit over out-of-network medical claims. I wonder who gets that money? Patients? Doctors?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Are You Really in Good Hands with Allstate?

David Rosenthal — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:35:33 GMT

Allstate Insurance is easily the most prolific advertiser of auto and casualty insurance lines. It runs a series of television commercials starring Dennis Haysbert (of Major League fame) that cleverly portray real life situations, such as rear end auto collisions, and some not so real life situations, like wayward college football fans running their car into a statue of renowned coach Bobby Bowden, to illustrate the need for insurance. The pithy theme of each ad is driven home with the statement "that's Allstate's stand", and with the suggestion that you are not in good hands unless your insurance is through Allstate.

However, experienced consumer attorneys know that Allstate's advertising claims are in stark contrast to its every day claims handling practices. Trial lawyers are in a unique position to judge the overall approach of insurance companies because they deal with a broad cross-section of insurance companies in a wide variety of factual scenarios. During the handling of thousands of claims, the true corporate color of an insurance company shines through. And after reviewing a high volume of claims documents recently, the American Association for Justice unequivocally rated Allstate as the worst insurance company for consumers.

Allstate policy holders might feel that the wrap on Allstate is the result of sour grapes on the part of attorneys who are resentful that their outrageous claims were not paid by the company. However, Allstate's rating was not solely the result of a "boxing glove" corporate policy of lowballing legitimate claims made against its policy holders, although that was certainly part of it. Allstate has also made clear it was willing to get into the ring and duke it out with its own policy holders in the name of increasing profits. In addition, its low rating was based on paying high executive salaries as a reward for successful lowball tactics and charging higher premiums, in part to pay for its expensive advertising.

One recent Allstate commercial illustrates another goal of the Allstate advertising campaign. The ad shows a court room scene where the judge imposes a judgment on a young man (the defendant) in the amount of $100,000 after an auto collision. The defendant's attorney turns to the injured person's (plaintiff) attorney to explain that the defendant has only $50,000 in insurance. The plaintiff's attorney replies that the defendant has a college fund that can be used to pay the balance of the judgment, and concerned parents ask their attorney - "can they do that?" The defendants attorney replies that they can.

The ad is designed to mislead the viewer into believing that the defendant is an innocent victim (it was just an "accident"), and that both the court system and a greedy plaintiff's attorney are the victimizers. This promotes the belief that trial lawyers and frivolous lawsuits are the cause of high insurance premiums.

In real life, such a scenario would likely be the result of an auto collision caused by a speeding driver who was distracted by his cell phone and ran a red light, sending the other driver to the hospital with serious, possibly permanent injuries. The other driver incurs medical expenses of $25,000, loses income from work of $10,000, and has ongoing pain and limitations. Although the value of the pain, suffering and inconvenience is well in excess of $15,000, the other driver is willing to settle out of court for the responsible driver's $50,000 policy limit to avoid going to trial, and probably out of a moral feeling that he does not want to collect against the responsible driver's personal assets.

Even though the other driver is without fault, the insurance company for the responsible driver puts on its boxing gloves and offers only $40,000, which is less than the policy limit of $50,000. The attorney for the injured person has no choice but to spend thousands of dollars to take the case to trial to seek the full value of the injured person's damages. A jury of reasonable people taken from the general population (rather than a judge as portrayed in the ad) determines that the total value of the injured person's loss is $100,000. Now, because of the insurance company's lowball at all cost mentality, there is a judgment against the responsible party for more than his insurance coverage.

Allstate Insurance has engaged in a successful marketing campaign. But this expensive advertising comes at a cost. The consumer warning caveat emptor is especially appropriate when you consider purchasing insurance from Allstate. Purchasers of insurance from Allstate may find that the "good hands" have boxing gloves on, and making a claim is like ringing the fight bell.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Rosenthal