Many of the pundits (me included) have made a play on Allstate's slogan "Good hands" in response to the allegations made against its claims handling procedures. Most of the remarks have been something to the effect of "good hands" to "boxing gloves".
Well, the verdict is in and should the next round of remarks include "sleight of hand" or "thumbs up" or "out of hand" or just simply jury gives Allstate a "clap of hands" in finding no improprieties in claims HANDling procedures? See, story at Herald Leader by Brandon Ortiz entitled Jury finds in favor of Allstate.
In light of the remarks made by at least one juror, asking for big numbers can cause some big problems for a jury. This, of couse, is an enigma since the only remedy a jury can provide and make a person whole for their injuries and potentially punish a wrongdoer is to award money, then where is the line drawn? Where is that tipping point where the amount is too much?
To put it another way - all jury trials are about money since noone can turn back the clock and give someone a good back after it has been broken.
Interestingly enough, I submit to you that if you ask those lawyers familiar with the companies claims handling practices (insurance defense lawyers, claimants' lawyers, and judges), the answers might have been contrary to this jury's determination.
Here's the story:
Jury finds in favor of Allstate
Allstate Insurance Co., under siege by trial lawyers who say it drags out insurance claims, won a major legal victory yesterday after a Fayette County jury unanimously found it was not responsible for a two-year delay in settling a Richmond woman's claim.Trial lawyer J. Dale Golden had alleged that Geneva Hager, 60, was the victim of an illegal, systematic scheme by Allstate to bully car accident victims into accepting lowball offers for their pain and suffering. He had sought $1.425 billion in the seven-day trial in Fayette Circuit Court because, he said, it was the only way of ending a corporate culture of greed.
But two jurors said Golden's arguments rang hollow with jurors, who voted 11-1 just minutes after beginning their deliberations. After only 35 minutes of discussion, another juror changed her mind and the verdict became unanimous, juror Betty Sherwood said.
"I thought the figure that Mrs. Hager was asking for was outrageous," said Sherwood, who is retired and lives in Lexington. "I thought that when I first went into the trial two weeks ago. But I didn't make a decision, I didn't read anything and I just made up my own mind that it was so obnoxious of her to ask for so much money -- for any money."
The verdict calls into question whether the so-called McKinsey documents are the dynamite evidence of systematic bad faith that trial lawyers across the country have claimed them to be. The documents, which are actually 12,500 pages of PowerPoint slides, were produced by consulting firm McKinsey & Co. as it overhauled Allstate's claims-handling in the 1990s.
Comments