Recently I wrote in part about the importance of recognizing the rights of "claimants" in this state when it comes to insurance companies' view and, at times, treatment of "claimants" in property insurance claims. Now, however, California has another unexpected and very surprising problem involving the abuse of the claims process by "bad faith" attorneys who claim to represent the interests of both insureds and other claimants when retained for necessary legal services.
In this light, consider again the definition of "claimant" according to the California Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations ("CA Regulations"):
In this light, consider again the definition of "claimant" according to the California Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations ("CA Regulations"):
The above makes plain the fact that when there is a property insurance claim in California several individuals or entities may be considered "claimants," including the insured, his or her attorney, as well as members of the insured's family and public insurance adjusters who have been "designated by the claimant in the manner specified in subsection 2695.5(c)." This last section of the CA Regulations referenced reads as follows:"Claimant" means a first or third party claimant as defined in these regulations, any person who asserts a right of recovery under a surety bond, an attorney, any person authorized by operation of law to represent the claimant, or any of the following persons properly designated by the claimant in the manner specified in subsection 2695.5(c): an insurance adjuster, a public adjuster, or any member of the claimant's family [CA Regulations, "Definitions," section 2695.2(c); underlining added].
The designation specified in subsection 2695.2(c) shall be in writing, signed and dated by the claimant, and shall indicate that the designated person is authorized to handle the claim. All designations shall be transmitted to the insurer and shall be valid from the date of execution until the claim is settled or the designation is revoked. A designation may be revoked by a writing transmitted to the insurer, signed and dated by the claimant, indicating that the designation is to be revoked and the effective date of the revocation. [CA Regulations, "Definitions," section 2695.2(c); underlining added].
Suppose, however, that the insured hires both a public insurance adjuster who never does 'revoke' his or her designation or contract, as well as an attorney recommended by the public adjuster to also help represent the insured due to the disposition of the insurer. Further suppose that after the proper contract or written notice is provided to the insurance company, advising the carrier of who is "authorized to handle the claim," one or more of the authorized agents for the insured attempts to settle the claim with the insurer's legal counsel in secret, with the intention of keeping the agreement secret from other claimants so that one or more will never know the settlement amounts accepted and paid out by the insurer.
While you may not think that insurance company counsel would stoop to such depths of collusion and deceit with plaintiff counsel, the evidence from recent claims shows they are not only doing it but that plaintiff counsel, or some bad faith attorneys in this state, attorneys who are supposed to be on the side of the public, are also susceptible to such collusion and "bad faith" against other claimants.
Indeed, due to the severe nature of this recently discovered problem, Premier Claim Consultants is going to dedicate a Blog series to the discussion of what needs to be done to protect the rights of claimants, not only from some insurance companies but also, surprisingly, from bad faith attorneys in this state who are themselves operating in bad faith against California claimants, in spite of being retained to assist them in reaching the same goal.
Prior to the beginning of the series which will highlight selections from the claims in question, claims in which some very strange and alarming activities and events have occurred, here I wanted to restate the definition of "claimant" in this state and to also provide an initial introduction to the issue as it pertains to the unexpected abuse of claimants by claimants, namely, in this case or in the cases to follow, by attorneys who were brought in to help the insured and the public adjuster, not to block them or, worse, join up with the other side to the settlement negotiations in order to cause financial and professional harm to public adjusters (or at least to one) in this state.
With this done, I will now provide further insight into the very real and present dangers facing California "claimants," from California "claimants," in order to help protect the interests of California "claimants" as public adjusters are required to do (see CA Regulations, section 15011[d]).
While you may not think that insurance company counsel would stoop to such depths of collusion and deceit with plaintiff counsel, the evidence from recent claims shows they are not only doing it but that plaintiff counsel, or some bad faith attorneys in this state, attorneys who are supposed to be on the side of the public, are also susceptible to such collusion and "bad faith" against other claimants.
Indeed, due to the severe nature of this recently discovered problem, Premier Claim Consultants is going to dedicate a Blog series to the discussion of what needs to be done to protect the rights of claimants, not only from some insurance companies but also, surprisingly, from bad faith attorneys in this state who are themselves operating in bad faith against California claimants, in spite of being retained to assist them in reaching the same goal.
Prior to the beginning of the series which will highlight selections from the claims in question, claims in which some very strange and alarming activities and events have occurred, here I wanted to restate the definition of "claimant" in this state and to also provide an initial introduction to the issue as it pertains to the unexpected abuse of claimants by claimants, namely, in this case or in the cases to follow, by attorneys who were brought in to help the insured and the public adjuster, not to block them or, worse, join up with the other side to the settlement negotiations in order to cause financial and professional harm to public adjusters (or at least to one) in this state.
With this done, I will now provide further insight into the very real and present dangers facing California "claimants," from California "claimants," in order to help protect the interests of California "claimants" as public adjusters are required to do (see CA Regulations, section 15011[d]).
