Comments on: Johnson v. Allstate Insurance Co.: drunk driving for profit

By: Ed

Ed — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:57:44 +0000

I think many of the comments miss a couple of the observations to be made in this case. With all due respect to Amanda, the legal maneuvering that led to the award had very little to do with the injuries her parents sustained at the hands of Mr. Davis. One observation to be made is that but for Allstate’s alleged “bad faith” he parents would likely have only been able to recover the limits of $50,000. Assuming Allstate did act in bad faith in doing what it did, it was the best thing (financially) that it could have done for the plaintiffs. The fact is that in Missouri, a bad faith claim only belongs to the insured tortfeasor (although the law is a little fuzzy on whether such a claim can be assigned). The insured (Davis) is the one who actually made the recovery. The second observation is that you learn when reading the case that Davis agreed to a big punitive damage award being entered in the underlying “trial.” That pune award became part of his bad faith claim, for which he recovered. As part of the settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, he got to KEEP part of the punes, which means that he profited by being able to cash a check for the portion of the underlying verdict, that by definition was designed to punish him for driving drunk. THAT’S where the travesty is. I’m sure even Amanda would agree that something is terribly wrong with a system that allows a drunk driver to profit as a result of causing injury to another. The irony is that if Davis had been sober, there likely wouldn’t have been a punitive damage award in the underlying case and there would not have been a windfall above and beyond the plaintiffs’ actual damages for him to collect.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 03:04:48 +0000

Almost 9 years after the accident. They finally received a settlement. These aren’t just people, they are my parents. They weren’t out to screw anybody. I was 16 years old. I watched everyday as they fought for their lives. Yes, Mr. Davis caused the accident, but Allstate chose to insure a person with 2 prior DWI. My parents worked hard everyday to care for us kids. Allstate didn’t lose much for one, and two what price do you put on (Dad) fractures sternum, punctured lungs, broken femur, shattered pelvis, dislocated hip, ruptured bladder, broken arm, severed thumb; (Mom) cut eye, deep laceration in the pelvis / leg joining area, two compound fractured ankles, shattered knee, broken femur both had to learn to walk all over again @ 44 and 46 years old. All the many surgeries that have followed, and many still to come. Not to mention, never being able to work. If you haven’t lived through this, you have no right to comment negatively. Allstate didn’t do their job, and so you think my parents won. Well, money can’t give them back what’s been taken away from them. They deserve what they have fought for, which will only get them through the rest of the years of hellacious pain they have to go through. I personally Thank God I still have them.

By: Paul Smith

Paul Smith — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:52:22 +0000

I have worked in the insurance industry for over 20 years. I have a BBA and a MBA in Risk Management and Insurance. I used to be a commercial p & C underwriter and now how my own agency. The majority of my dealings with Allstate ( for my customers, friends etc) have been hostile. They try to low ball, delay, not return phone calls, rude etc. I eventually win by wearing them down. I now am dealing with two claims agents at Allstate that I dealt with two years ago. They finally remember me and now have a different attitude. The way that Allstate values 3rd party claimants cars is a good example of thier abusive tatics. In the end I end up making them pay for the gas in tank as well as the true value of the car. And I am not an attorney nor do I charge a fee – I do it for fun.

By: John David Galt

John David Galt — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:31:05 +0000

How much of that settlement will Davis and the Johnsons get after the lawyers have gobbled the lion’s share?

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:29:06 +0000

“Allstate failing to follow its own procedures” at best shows good-faith error, not bad-faith; so it hardly twists the facts to leave it out. It’s also entirely irrelevant to the collusion I was criticizing. If I was trying to “twist the facts,” why would I seek out the opinion and link to it?

I have no idea what it means for the insurer to “fail to notify its insurder.” And you affirmatively misrepresent the facts when you falsely claim that Allstate “simply [sat] on the file for 8 months.” Even if it were true (and the facts show otherwise), the harm in an 8-month delay of $50,000 policy limits is (1) the interest on $50,000 (which we’ll be generous and call $10,000 for a 30% annual return) and (2) any additional time spent by the attorney working up the case–but even that falls by the wayside, given that the attorney didn’t even respond to a simple request for documents by Allstate until eight months later, in a successful effort to sandbag that was rewarded by the court.

By: Cone

Cone — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:35:07 +0000

Wow. You twisted the facts in that post. I took the time to actually read the case. Apparently, the evidence was that Allstate failed to follow its own procedures regarding the demand, and failed to notify its insurder, that a demand was even made.

You see nothing wrong with an insurance company faced with a drunk insured with a minimum limit policy (25-50) who strikes another car head on, resulting in (Allstate knew) in a helicopter flight to the hospital and a long hospital staty, simply sitting on the file for 8 months and not even responding to the demand for policy limits b/c it was not provided with medical records? really? maybe if you actually practiced law at the trial level, instead of reading cases and then twisting the facts to give them a pro tort reform spin, you would realize that the conduct of Allstate, as stated in the opinion, is textbook evidecne of deny and delay. A competent adjuster would have offered limits within a week of the wreck. this happens all the time in wrecks involving drunks and minimum limits policies.

By: Christoph

Christoph — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:58:21 +0000

As a German attorney who regularly represents plaintiffs and defendants in litigations resulting from traffic accidents, I can only shake my head in disbelief. I am not sure if the jury system in general is a problem or if it’s the fact that punitive damages and the like are possible – anyway, in Germany we have a court and legal system with lots of weaknesses, but I doubt that verdicts like this would be possible; hard to decide whether you should be laughing or crying about cases like this. I do not want to offend the U.S. legal system, I just seem to be completely unable to understand the justice of these cases – as obviously is overlawyered.com, too. Luckily.

By: E-Bell

E-Bell — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:04:30 +0000

Sadly, this kind of claim is becoming more and more common, and they are actively being manufactured by PI lawyers.

A PI lawyer will make a claim on behalf of his client, set an arbitrary date by which the insurer has to makes policy-limits offer and if the insurer doesn’t abide by the attorney’s timetable, it suddenly finds itself in a bad faith suit.

It’s despicable, especially in a situation like this – where the tortfeasor colludes with the injured parties before ever being harmed by an excess verdict.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:48:43 +0000

Commentor insurance world:

1. Accident occurs.
2. Insurance company hires teams of individuals to…comb through articles looking for info on injuries to other partie(s)??? “Where’s that Readers Digest?” 🙂

Wouldn’t it just be easier for the Big Insurance Company, Inc. to make a phone call requesting docs?
Not if you’re trying to set them up for a big payday and the deck is stacked in your favor.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:46:22 +0000

Commentor,

How about, “They wanted to know that the Johnsons had been hospitalized at all.”

The lawyer made a claim of injury – the insurere asked for PROOF of the injury. The lawyer refused to give them proof for 8 months. When given proof, the insurer responded in less than 1 month.

I fail to see how this is a fault of the insurer.