Posted on

Some Insurance Attorneys Forget They Are Held To A Higher Standard

There are plenty of cases in which attorneys fail to keep track of their clients’ actions — and are subsequently rebuked, sanctioned, or even slammed with contempt of court charges for not doing their job. But sometimes the tensions can run so high in important cases that a lawyer will start behaving like a rambunctious teenager. That’s what happened during an insurance litigation case against Allstate.

Attorney Christopher G. Hook wrote Allstate executives: “Pay up f—face.”

That was a somewhat inept attempt at persuasion for a lawyer trying to achieve a whopping nine-figure settlement on behalf of his clients, who may not have known that about his behavior at the time. Hook then wrote: “You are going to get [expletive] tattooed across the face.” Finally, “Tell Allstate I am going to water board each one of their trolls that show up for [depositions] without any mercy whatsoever.”

He then made personal threats to some of the Allstate attorneys, alleging that he knew where they lived.

Hook might have sounded like a shark had he managed to maintain some semblance of a professional attitude during the case. Allstate’s attorneys, not so surprisingly, decided to cut off correspondence when the cursing started.

When a judge decided Hook should stop practicing law, the reply was simple: it was all a part of smart negotiation!

United States District Judge Otis D. Wright II, who was appointed by George W. Bush, said, “Tell you what, slick, this profession does not need you. I am going to do what I can to remove you from this profession.”

Sometimes attorneys forget the far-reaching power of judges to make their lives — and the lives of their clients by association — an absolute nightmare. Hook refused to resign, prompting Wright to take up legal arms against him.

But resigning doesn’t matter if you have no more clients to represent. The homeowners quickly fired Hook when they found out about his backstage business with Allstate.

Hook seems to have pretended it didn’t happen, who wrote The Post: “I will continue to represent the interests of my clients and California consumers against the powerful interests of insurance companies.”

Hook defended his language by suggesting it was on par with what he experienced from insurance executives while defending them earlier in his career.

He said, “It’s a business that profits from risk and fear and human misery.” Having worked for such people a long time ago, he admitted, “I was kind of talking to myself.”

Posted on

Officials Warn To Be Careful Where You Buy Insurance Outside Federal Marketplace

It’s that time of the year again — time to sign up for Obamacare! Those who are currently without access to healthcare can browse through a number of plans on healthcare.gov. But health experts have warned would-be buyers looking for plans outside of the federal marketplace to watch out for the so-called “junk insurance” plans that have popped up due to new laws signed by the Trump administration. 

Those plans don’t meet the standards of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). 

The Supreme Court will soon hear a case that will determine whether or not insurers are reimbursed $12.3 billion to which they believe they are entitled. We should have an answer before the Senate goes on recess in summer next year.

According to insurer Land of Lincoln Health, the company is down over $75 million that it should have been able to recover from the risk corridor program under the ACA. 

Risk Corridors are a provision of the ACA. They “limit the risk borne by qualified health plans on the insurance marketplaces. Risk Corridors are a mechanism to minimize the year-end losses of insurers who covered a disproportionate share of sicker, often older, insured customers. The federal government, through the Department of Health and Human Services, agrees to cover 50% of the excess costs borne to insurers if those costs exceeded premiums by 3-8%.”

Land of Lincoln Health says that their monthly premiums were set low due to the provision. In addition, insurers Moda Health Plan, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, and Maine Community Health Options are all suing as well.

A federal appeals court has already ruled that the Risk Corridor provision of the ACA was non-binding, and that it was more of a description of what an optimal system should look like. The Supreme Court has been asked and subsequently agreed to review the previous rulings.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) CEO Matt Eyles said, “The Supreme’s Court’s decision to hear this case recognizes how important it is for American businesses, including health insurance providers, to be able to rely on the federal government as a fair and reliable partner. Strong, stable and predictable partnerships between the private and the public sector are an essential part of our nation’s economy, and our industry looks forward to having this matter heard before the Court.”

Association for Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP) CEO Margaret Murray said, “We’re pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, as it gets to the heart of the concept of the full faith and credit of the United States government. We asked the appeals court in an amicus brief to affirm that the Federal government should be as good as its word in statute, and urge the Supreme Court to do the same.”

Posted on

Do Undocumented Immigrants Really Get Free Health Insurance? What Does It Cost You And Me?

Many 2020 Democratic contenders for the presidency have endorsed plans to provide healthcare and insurance benefits to all Americans — and all undocumented immigrants who are already living in the country, legally or not. No, they don’t already have free health insurance. But the cost of providing them healthcare on the taxpayers dime would certainly be “expensive” depending on your frame of reference, what plan you’re using, and how many people enroll.

The Republican argument is simple: they’re against nearly all entitlements across the board regardless of whether they’re going to actual United States citizens or undocumented immigrants. According to them, giving out freebies will make people less likely to contribute in the future. They also contend that the free “handouts” will lure immigrants into the country who wouldn’t otherwise want to come.

Many arguments that can only be seen as scare tactics have suggested that our population could double or even triple if such laws were to go into effect, and of course they contend that America can’t possibly pay for it. But that’s not true, either.

For most Americans, the argument holds quite a lot of weight — but it’s never held much truth. There’s an incredibly strong stigma surrounding those who survive on handouts. In general, those who rely on help from the government really do need that help. Few people actually choose to live that way for no reason, and the government severely restricts handouts to further reduce the number of those who do.

But of course increasing the number of people who are entitled to free healthcare (no one is yet), would increase the costs of those programs. According to the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), there are about 4.9 million undocumented immigrants living “below 400 percent of the poverty threshold.” They don’t have access to insurance.

Were they given access to programs, taxpayers would pay at least $10 billion per year according to CIS. At the high end of the spectrum, it could cost $23 billion per year.

To put big numbers we cannot even comprehend into perspective, the 2019 U.S. federal budget requested expenditures of $4.407 trillion. Over $693 billion of that is discretionary spending that goes to the military. Much of all spending is mandatory, but well under half is based on discretion. Over half of that goes to the military (not including veterans’ benefits). Other big pieces of the discretionary pie are government, education, healthcare, housing, and international affairs.

But none of those programs come close to costing as little as what we would pay to expand what Democrats see as universal human rights toward undocumented immigrants. And here’s another aspect to consider: the amount we provide individuals and companies in tax breaks slightly exceeds all discretionary spending. Stop giving out tax breaks — and suddenly the United States would see a budget surplus once again.

Posted on

Health Insurance Rate Drops Among Americans For First Time In A Decade

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the number of uninsured Americans has risen since Obamacare was introduced a decade ago. The number of uninsured went from 7.9 percent to 8.5 percent in 2017 and 2018. That means about 2 million more people are now without health insurance thanks to the Trump administration’s relaxed regulations and gutting of previous Obamacare laws.

Also relevant, this is the first time uninsured rates have increased since the recession hit hardest during 2008 and 2009. It’s important to note because the economy is continuing to grow, while the unemployed and poverty rates continue to fall. In 2018, about 27.5 million people went without health insurance. The number will likely grow during Trump’s presidency. Even with years of inflation, the median household income is staying the same.

Some have attributed the increasing rate of uninsured to the repeal of Obamacare’s health insurance mandate, which penalized those who went without with a stiff fine. Other critics say that the law didn’t really motivate anyone to seek health insurance anyway.

One of the more concerning aspects of this increased rate of uninsured is the children who fall within that statistic. According to Census data points, about a million young people aged 18 and younger are now without insurance compared to the same time two years ago.

Joan Alker, the executive director of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, said: “Prior to the Trump administration assuming office, reducing the number of uninsured children was a national success story. Unless things change immediately, this progress is at risk — and our children and their families will pay the price.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “President Trump’s cruel health care sabotage has left two million more people without health insurance, forced to live in constant fear of an accident or injury that could spell financial ruin for their families.”

Some analysts believe that Trump’s “public charge” rule is also compelling immigrants to stop seeking coverage or drop coverage they already have, rather than risk being deported from the United States because they need help.

The Kaiser Family Foundation’s Rachel Garfield explained, “We’ve heard a lot of anecdotal reports and even started to see some data that either immigrant families are declining to renew their coverage or not enrolling.”

The Trump administration has sought to reduce Obamacare standards by approving Medicaid work requirements in nine states to reduce the number of people who are eligible. 18,000 people in Arkansas lost their Medicaid in 2018 as a result of Trump’s changes. More states will see the new regulations go into effect soon.

Posted on

Latest Insurance Reforms Leaving Motorcyclists Vulnerable

As the four-door sedan struck Dave Ramirez on July 5, 2002, little did he and his wife, driving north to Traverse City know that their journey will be cut short. Their plan to spend the long weekend holiday with their friends ended up being in the hospital after the crash. Dave and his wife were riding in their custom-painted Harley Davidson when this mishap happened. Both of them were admitted to the nearby hospital where they required extensive medical care, not to mention the months of in-home nursing.

All this resulted in a staggering $1 million bill combined, but their medical bills were covered, thanks to their auto insurance policy of the respective driver who was the main culprit. But that was in 2002. Fast forward to 2019, and motorcyclists are worried that the new insurance reforms will not provide such benefits anymore.

According to the new law, there is a significant drive down in the auto insurance rates, which was supposedly one of the highest in the nation. The new policies will allow motorcyclists to buy insurances that come only with limited personal injury protection benefits. Republican-led Legislature pushed for this law, and it was eventually taken up by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer who signed it after considering the possibility of accidents in the city.

This insurance law will revoke the lifetime coverage guarantee for motorists who are involved in car accidents. Instead, their medical coverage decisions will be taken by the auto driver responsible for the crash. As per the reports of the Michigan State Police, there were over 2100 motorists who were injured in 2018 and more than 134 died in such crashes. Sadly, most of these accidents involved more than two vehicles.

According to Steve Sinas, a highly experienced estate planning lawyer, the new law cripples motorcyclists from controlling their destiny while riding. They will not be able to claim their deserved no-fault claims anymore. This will totally depend on the random nature of the accident and if the other vehicles involved in the crash has lifetime no-fault coverage or not.

While the motorists are literally being thrown down under the bus with this reform, supporters acknowledge that although this law is challenging, the main focus here is to cut down the insurance costs of the auto drivers. Since many people complain regarding the rise of auto insurance prices, this law comes as a necessary evil that leaves people divided in their opinions.

Posted on

New Insurance Law in Florida Takes Effect On July 1

Over a hundred new laws made their way through the Florida House of Representatives and were implemented on July 1, 2019. One of those new laws overturned a controversial insurance rule that governed how insurance benefits are allocated to various parties and beneficiaries. The new law, HB 7065, will provide new definitions for several insurance terms like “assignment agreement.”

It will also revise old requirements for how insurance agreements were executed, and may change the validity of agreements already in place. In addition, even the effects of those agreements might change with the new law.

Insurers are now required by the new law to report new data about previously paid claims by January 30, 2022. One of the more controversial aspects of the law will allow insurers to reevaluate the way they assign benefits, or prohibit them altogether depending on the conditions. 

Another controversial measure of the old law was struck down, which will allow attorneys to potentially collect more in fees by implementing a new revenue structure dependent on overall awards after litigation is won. 

Barry Gilway, CEO of Florida’s Citizens Property Insurance Corp had this to say: “This is a consumer protection measure, not just in terms of impacting the overall premium they have to pay, but also giving them some protections they didn’t have before.”

These protections are the result of a battle fought for seven years between insurance companies and those advocating for change because of rising costs of all types of insurance coverage even as that coverage has diminished. 

According to Gilway’s Insurance Corp, customers who have policies already in place will likely see relaxed rates soon enough, as the savings from the new provisions are expected to be passed down. Then again, that sounds a lot like “trickle-down” economics, and we all know how that concept actually plays out when put in practice.

Gilway’s organization experienced a lot of abuse as a result of former policies where AOB lawsuits are particularly popular, the rates of which have risen out of control over the last decade. That led the organization to ask for a shocking 97% increase in its overall rates for 2019. 

If you are in the midst of insurance litigation in North Miami, then you might want to speak to a defense attorney about your situation. 

Posted on

Flood Insurance Rates Rising Under Trumps Plan

The Trump Administration intends to roll out a new way to calculate flood risk in the next comings weeks under the National Flood Insurance Program which could cause flood insurance premiums to rise and property values to fall. Instead of focusing on whether or not a property is inside or outside of the 100-year flood plain, FEMA plans to use private sector data to calculate the “real” flood threat for each home and set the costs of flood insurance based on that data.

The change can be a good and bad thing for homeowners. On one hand, it would be the first real major advancement to improve the understanding of flood risk giving homeowners a proper evaluation of the likelihood of a flood in their home. On the other hand, communities that weren’t in the flood zone or near the flood zone could be facing the need to have flood insurance by the government. An unexpected cost that many families might not be able to handle.

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) currently covers 5 million people as of 2017. Even with the increase in flooding due to climate change, that’s 10% lower than properties covered in 2009. The House Committee on Financial Services will hold a hearing tomorrow on reauthorizing the NIFP. In 2012, the government tried to reform NIFP but failed to do so after a public outcry. The reason for the reform is that claims often outpaced premiums which caused the NIFP to have a debt of $30 billion in 2017. The current model that determines rates do not take into consideration flooding from intense rainfall. The new risk assessment system will take things like that under consideration when determining rates.

The goal is to have more transparent rates so people will get insurance coverage. The impact on what this will have on property values has yet to be seen but it will be interesting once the new premiums roll out.

Posted on

How Much Power Does Robert Mueller Have In The Russian Collusion Investigation?

It seems that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into collusion between the Russian government and the Trump administration to swing the results of the 2016 election is finally drawing to a close, and both Democrats and Republicans are somehow in agreement (on occasion) that things aren’t looking so great for President Trump.

With the possibility of impeachment growing more likely by the day, we’re all wondering: How much power does Special Counsel Robert Mueller have when it comes to the prosecution of crimes he found to have occurred during his investigation?

At the least, Trump will likely be indicted on charges for the violation of campaign finance laws. According to recent documents from the investigation, Michael Cohen was directed by Trump, and with Trump’s complete knowledge, to make payments to at least two women who accused him of sexual misconduct during the campaign. Hush money is a big no-no in the world of politics.

In these documents, Trump was referred to as “Individual-1”.

More telling is that Mueller made a sentencing recommendation in regards to Cohen’s crimes based on his (eventual) willing participation in providing evidence that could eventually be used to burn Trump. Could he do the same when it comes time to feed Trump to the wolves of American judgment?

There are a number of individuals who believe such indictments could might only occur after Trump vacates the Oval Office, but there is always the possibility that our representatives could try to oust him sooner than that with impeachment. Should we find ourselves in front of our televisions on such a day, it will be up to Congress to decide whether or not Trump has committed an impeachable offense. Unfortunately, they get to decide if his law-breaking antics during the 2016 campaign meet the definition of “impeachable offense.”

Because a two-thirds majority is required and the Senate is currently controlled by Republicans, an acquittal seems likely in such a case.

We don’t know how far the Mueller investigation probed into the Russian-Trump affair during the 2016 election, nor do we know how far they intend to press the matter once the investigation is complete. Even if the investigation finds that Trump committed these crimes and others, it doesn’t necessarily mean they will attempt to prosecute him. After all, we already know that our president is a criminal. We already know he has broken laws. We haven’t done anything about it yet. Sadly, we might not ever.

Posted on

What Is Reinsurance Litigation And When Is It Applied?

Whether or not you think that insurance is the devil’s work, it’s a fundamental component of business in the real world. Without it we’d be lost, and some of us would find ourselves in financial turmoil. Insurance provides us with an added layer of security for situations in which we risk liability, such as owning a car or a home, by transferring the greater share of responsibility to the company if something goes terribly wrong.

But what is reinsurance?

Well, it’s the same principle. That’s the short answer. When an insurance company decides to go through with an especially risky venture, it might want more protection for your policy.

The policyholder pays a premium in order to buy insurance, that premium usually representing either a small fraction of the risk, or something that will add up to a large portion of the risk when paid over years and years. Normally the insurer takes 100 percent of the risk outside of that premium. On occasion an insurer will not be comfortable with that level of risk.

It’s on these occasions that an insurance company will opt to “reinsure” the original policy through an outside reinsurer. The reinsurer will be given part of the premium paid by the policyholder in direct proportion to the amount of risk the insurer wants to take, whether it’s 30 percent, 50 percent, 70 percent, etc.

If the worst happens, and the claim costs must be paid to the policyholder, then the insurer pays 100 percent. After the claim is paid, the insurer can follow up by requesting reimbursement in the percentage agreed upon with the reinsurer. Reinsurance is just insurance for your insurer. It’s that simple.

One type of reinsurance is called facultative coverage. This policy is an added layer of protection when an insurance provider covers an individual for a single risk in a single contract. Additional risks require additional contracts.

Another common type is called a reinsurance treaty. This policy covers any number of risks based on a period of elapsed time. An example of this is when life insurance isn’t calculated when someone is estate planning.

An excess-of-loss reinsurance policy is considered non-proportional coverage, and this type of policy is put into place when the reinsurer agrees to cover costs only when they go beyond whatever the original insurance company’s retained limit was set at. This coverage mostly applies to acts of god during substantially costly events.

Posted on

Why Is Having Life Insurance So Important?

As you age, you start to understand the increased importance of having life insurance. No matter how well you have planned for your financial future with Lenzo and Reis, New Jersey Employment Attorneys, you cannot sufficiently prepare for unexpected death without proper life insurance coverage.

1. Protect Your Loved Ones.

The main reason you are going to want to adequately prepare for an unexpected death by getting life insurance for yourself is to properly protect your loved ones. If your loved ones are relying on you for their financial support, it is going to be absolutely necessary to get the right life insurance coverage. This is particularly important if you have young children that rely on your financial support because they will be vulnerable if something were to happen to you and you could no longer provide for them. Additionally, it is equally important for those families that might find it difficult to sustain a certain standard of living if one of the partner’s incomes disappeared overnight.

2. Leave More For Your Children.

Another big reason you would want to consider investing in something like life insurance is to provide a greater inheritance for your children. Being able to leave an inheritance for your children is one of the main reasons you would want to purchase a life insurance policy. By naming your children as beneficiaries, you will be able to help them secure a better future for themselves if something were to happen to you. This alone is going to allow your children to have a much more stable financial future which can really help them in the long run.

3. Avoid Being a Burden.

If you are someone that has a lot of debt, you are going to want to be sure to invest in the proper life insurance coverage to adequately cover them. Otherwise, any debts that you might have are going to be forced on to your family. You don’t want to leave a financial burden on your family if at all possible. By getting adequate coverage that is going to sufficiently cover any and all debts that you might have once you die, you should be able to alleviate the burden of debt. Along with this, your death is going to come with a lot of foreseen and unforeseen expenses including but not limited to burial expenses, funeral costs, and more. Thus, you will want to be sure that you have the proper insurance coverage that can help cover all of the expenses.

Overall, there are plenty of reasons you will want to make the investment in life insurance. Not only is it going to help reduce the financial burden on your family, but it can help you set up your children for a better and much more secure financial future. If you have a family, there is absolutely no reason to go without proper life insurance coverage with the affordable options available to choose from.