The "Farmers Insurance News-Alert" website is dedicated to providing the consumer and general public with detailed information concerning the Farmers Insurance Group. This includes fraud reports, consumer complaints, lawsuit's and other legal actions taken against this company. All information contained herein is for educational purposes only. Original sources, when known are sited.
This story first appeared on May 04, 1998
Trial Lawyers Throw Election-Year Bomb
By Liz Harman
The ugliest bill since Royal Globe. Thats how Personal Insurance Federation spokesman Jerry Davies described the unfair claims practices bill sponsored by Assemblyman Wally Knox, D-Santa Monica, that comes up before the Assembly Insurance Committee this week.
Among AB 2322s provisions are a requirement that every insurer, upon a claimants request, supply a copy of all materials contained in the claims file, underwriting file and agents file concerning the claimants file, prompting fears that it would make it easier to gather evidence and sue insurers.
The bill would also amend the standard fire insurance policy form to require insurers to demand an appraisal within 60 days after a residential property loss claim or lose their right to demand an appraisal. If the insurer demands appraisal, the insurer would be required to pay any award within 30 days.
The bill creates a lot of onerous disclosure requirements on the part of insurers, said Phyllis Marshal, PIFs senior legislative counsel. It basically takes a simple claim and turns it into a lawsuit from day one.
A political bomb thrown in the arena by trial lawyers and their allies in an election year is how Barry Carmody, president of the Association of California Insurance Companies, described the bill.
Officials from the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) couldnt be reached for comment.
Despite the trial bars strong support for the bill, some think its too extreme to win passage in the Assembly and Senate. Insurers can make a compelling argument against it that will not be lost on moderate Democrats, said Elizabeth Story, spokeswoman for the Western region of the American Insurance Association.
But as crunch time in the Legislature approaches, opposition by the trial attorneys may help doom prospects for several other bills supported by insurance groups.
While theres a lot of activity, as the May 8 deadline for passing legislation out of the policy committees in the Assembly and Senate nears, the end result may be little more than stalemate, said the ACICs Carmody. History tells us not to look to an election year for productive changes in public policy.
One measure, AB 1869, which also comes up this week, would improve the response time in disasters and emergencies by setting up insurer disaster teams that would be allowed immediate access to the scene and prepare a report for the public and the insurance commissioner.
While supporters, including the National Emergency Management Association, say it would enhance cooperation between state insurance departments, disaster response agencies and the like, trial lawyers argue the bill would allow insurers to appear to be acting as public officials. They also say the teams would not be balanced with consumer or CDI representatives.
Another measure, SB 1670, would make it easier to fight insurance fraud by consolidating the fraud reporting and immunity provisions into a single article within the California Insurance Code. While the National Insurance Crime Bureau and the California District Attorneys Association support it, the CAOC opposes it.
Insurers, however, arent in complete agreement over bills soon to come up for votes. PIF and the AIA find themselves on opposite sides over a bill designed to improve the settlement process for construction defect claims before a suit is filed. Under AB 1950, the pre-litigation settlement process could be extended from the current 90 days to a maximum of 180 days. Contrary to its intended purpose, current law has led to lengthy pre-litigation processes, as critics say the 90-day timeline can be endlessly extended. AB 1950 would also include subcontractors in the settlement process.
PIF argues that the measure will only increase the obligations and cost to insurers in defending policyholders, while AIA says the bills language has been amended to limit insurers duties to their present form. The bill has cleared the Assembly Judiciary Committee and has now made it to the Assembly floor.
Numerous other measures are already making their way through the legislative process. Some of note include:
|Attention! All information contained herein is for educational purposes only. No copyright infringement is intended by any material on these pages. The copyrights of the whole multimedia content on these pages are belonging to their originators, authors, creators... etc. All original content is the property of it's originators. Copyrighted material has been used for non-commercial purposes only. This website is best viewed with your monitor resolution set to 800x600 and your video mode set to true color.|