INSURANCE IS THE KEY TO MOST LAWSUITS

INSURANCE IS THE KEY TO MOST LAWSUITS

It is a pathetic demonstration of leadership advanced by the Connecticut Business and Industry Association when it appears to testify before legislative committees to prevent progress in the system of civil justice. I have written about the CBIA’s policy previously and how that policy is calculated to retard any progress that might be made toward improving the efficiency of the judicial system when there is a perceived but fictitious belief that its members will somehow be harmed, usually from a financial standpoint.

Last Friday, the CBIA issued its Government Affairs Report and it issued its propaganda about two bills that its members testified against the previous week. Here is what was said about SB-1244 and SB-1268. I only have time to address the former today.

Judiciary bills encourage lawsuits and higher damages Two proposals in the Judiciary Committee would open the door to more lawsuits, higher damages and a judicial playing field tilted in favor of plaintiffs and trial attorneys.
The actual proposed legislation relating to disclosure of insurance has been offered for years as an efficient and effective way to expedite the resolution of bodily injury claims. The CBIA is in fantasyland about how the civil justice system in general and lawyers specifically address the issue of liability insurance coverage. There is an important role insurance plays in virtually every lawsuit and the Connecticut Business and Industry Association is like an ostrich with her head in the sand when it comes to properly addressing improvements in the civil justice system.
The CBIA falsely hypothesizes that by mandating the pre-suit disclosure of insurance policy limits, the injured victims will look for deep pockets and the playing field will be tilted in favor of the victim. This is hyperbole at best and outright falsehood at its worst.
Here are just some of the reasons that CBIA has a warped sense of how the civil justice system works when it comes to pre-suit disclosure of policy limits:
1. Mandatory disclosure of insurance coverage is already required once suit is filed. So by stonewalling disclosure of insurance coverage, in any case perceived to involve significant damages, the CBIA approach would virtually assure a lawsuit would be filed to obtain information that is deemed important when it might be possible to avoid a lawsuit altogether if there is a limited amount of insurance coverage.
2. The CBIA theorizes that the “playing field” will be tipped in favor of the victim by disclosure of this information. In reality, the proposed legislation is calculated to level the playing field. Any victim who desires to move a claim toward resolution must already provide the opposing side (the insurance company) with plenty of information at the pre-suit stage of the claim process. The information includes personal data such as full name, date of birth, residence, social security number, and copies of personal medical records, job information and in many cases, information about family members. In this context, it hardly seems intrusive or unfair to have a potential defendant disclose the applicable insurance information. The greatest irony is that the insurance industry maintains a huge database that contains personal information on vast segments of the population. It is referred to as The Index Bureau. If the government isn’t watching what you do then rest assured, the insurance industry has a file on you if you have ever made any type of insurance claim and any insurance company that is a member of The Index Bureau simply has to request your file and pay a small fee.
3. The CBIA is delusional in believing that disclosure of insurance coverage will assist in the search for deep pockets. First, in most situations, the CBIA’s members are large commercial establishments, big corporations, insurance companies, trucking companies, HMOs and the like. Everyone knows that those outfits have deep pockets. Even small business members of CBIA are likely to have adequate levels of insurance coverage for most accidents. The greatest desire to have disclosure of insurance limits exists for the operators of private passenger motor vehicles where the present law in Connecticut permits operation with limits of insurance coverage that are ridiculously low. Further, lawyers have access to investigators and other services that will give them some idea about the financial stability of a company. That information will create at least a strong suspicion that there will be adequate coverage. But that type of investigation wastes time and money that can better be used to pay bona fide claims. And finally, when I look at a police report and see the information about the offending party, I can make some assumptions about the level of insurance coverage that will be encountered. Certain insurance companies are notorious for writing minimum limits policies, often because the driver is in the “assigned risk pool”. The police report will tell me about the driver’s address, the make, model and year of the vehicle and the driver’s age; that will suggest whether I should expect minimum or perhaps greater insurance coverage. Yet there are many more decisions that will be made depending upon the amount of available coverage including but not limited to the scope of an investigation, experts to hire and whether I should be thinking about other potential remedies. It is interesting that the CBIA makes much ado about this legislation. As a Plaintiff’s trial lawyer handling truck crashes, motor vehicle accidents, pedestrian accidents, injuries caused by defective products, medical malpractice claims – it is my experience that this legislation will benefit my clients the most in those cases that don’t involve CBIA’s members.
4. Finally, most other states permit this type of disclosure.