1 / 43

VOIR DIRE

ABCs of Bad Faith Trials Ricardo Echeverria, Esq. SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA, LLP 600 South Indian Hill Blvd. Claremont, CA 91711 recheverria@shernoff.com. VOIR DIRE. PURPOSE OF INSURANCE CLAIMS EXPERIENCE DAMAGES PUNITIVE DAMAGES. Trial themes. Betrayal of Trust Corporate Greed

davidgrover
Download Presentation

VOIR DIRE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ABCs of Bad Faith TrialsRicardo Echeverria, Esq.SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA, LLP600 South Indian Hill Blvd.Claremont, CA 91711recheverria@shernoff.com

  2. VOIR DIRE • PURPOSE OF INSURANCE • CLAIMS EXPERIENCE • DAMAGES • PUNITIVE DAMAGES

  3. Trial themes • Betrayal of Trust • Corporate Greed • Profits over Customers • Profits over Patients

  4. OPENING STATEMENT • ESTABLISH YOUR THEME • ESTABLISH THE “RULES OF THE ROAD” • CREATE A TIMELINE • SHOW ONLY KEY DOCUMENTS

  5. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF INSURANCE ADJUSTER • ESTABLISH THE INDUSTRY STANDARDS • CONTRAST THE STANDARDS WITH THE CONDUCT • KEEP IT FOCUSED • GAUGE YOUR DEMEANOR

  6. CASE EXAMPLE:GEO. M. MARTIN CO.V.ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY

  7. GARY FORDE v. MARTIN COMPANY • $1 MILLION PRIMARY (CHUBB) • $15 MILLION UMBRELLA (ROYAL) • 2/8/02 MEDIATION • DEMAND $6 MILLION • CHUBB OFFERS $1 MILLION • ROYAL OFFERS ZERO • 9/3/02 TRIAL BEGINS • 9/9/02 ROYAL OFFERS $6 MILLION • 9/12/02 $15 MILLION POLICY LIMIT DEMAND • 9/30/02 VERDICT • ROYAL OFFERS $15 MILLION • CASE SETTLED FOR $20 MILLION

  8. FORDE’S INJURIES • PERMANENT TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY • PERMANENT PARALYSIS ON LEFT SIDE • PERMANENTCRAINAL NERVE DAMAGE • PERMANENT LOSS OF LEFT EYE SIGHT • PERMANENT PROBLEMS WITH RIGHT EYE • PERMANENT SEVERE BALANCE PROBLEMS • PERMANENT LOSS OF LEFT EAR HEARING • PERMANENT CHRONIC CONSTIPATION • PERMANENT CHRONIC URINARY URGENCY • PERMANENT IMPOTENCY • PERMANENT INABILITY TO WORK • 32 YEARS OLD

  9. ROYAL’S CLAIMS MANUAL • “CATASTROPHIC INJURIES” DEFINED: • BRAIN INJURY • PARALYSIS • LOSS OF SIGHT • LOSS OF HEARING

  10. THE 2/8/02 MEDIATION • KNEW FORDE HAD MULTIPLE CATASTROPHIC INJURIES • KNEW PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMED ECONOMIC DAMAGES ALONE WERE $8 MILLION • KNEW MARTIN’S LIABILITY WAS REASONABLY CLEAR • KNEW FORDE’S POTENTIAL FAULT WAS LOW • KNEW MINIMUM ECONOMIC DAMAGES WERE $4 MILLION • KNEW CHUBB WAS OFFERING ITS $1 MILLION • KNEW PAST MEDICAL BILLS WERE $1 MILLION • KNEW PLAINTIFF WOULD SETTLE FOR $6 MILLION

  11. PHASE I ARGUING BAD FAITH

  12. SUMMARY OF ROYAL’S BAD FAITH CONDUCT 1.) UNREASONABLY FAILED TO GIVE MARTIN’S INTERESTS EQUAL CONSIDERATION AS IT GAVE ITS OWN INTERESTS 2.) UNREASONABLY FAILED TO ATTEMPT TO SETTLE AT THE FEBRUARY 8, 2002 MEDIATION 3.) UNREASONABLYINGNORED DEFENSE COUNSEL WAGNER 4.) UNREASONABLY PUT ITS OWN INTERESTS OVER MARTIN’S BY OBJECTING TO LOY-TEIGEN AGREEMENT

  13. 5.) UNREASONABLY CONCEALED FROM MARTIN THAT THE BOLLINGER LAWYERS WERE GIVING ADVICE TO PROTECT ROYAL’S INTERESTS REGARDING THE LOY-TIEGEN 6.) UNREASONABLY MADE LOW-BALL SETTLEMENT OFFERS PRIOR TO TRIAL 7.) UNREASONABLY FAILED TO SETTLE WITHIN POLICY LIMITS DURING TRIAL WHEN IT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO 8.) UNREASONABLY IGNORED EVIDENCE THAT THE FORDE CASE HAD A LIKELY POTENTIAL TO EXCEED POLICY LIMITS

  14. 9.) UNREASONABLY IGNORED MARTIN’S INTERESTS AND REPEATED REQUESTS DURING TRIAL THAT THE CASE BE SETTLED WITHIN POLICY LIMITS 10.) UNREASONABLY REFUSED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXCESS VERDICT TO PROTECT MARTIN 11.) UNREASONABLY REFUSED TO POST A BOND FOR AN APPEAL 12.) UNREASONABLY REFUSED TO PAY THE FULL $20 MILLION TO SETTLE POST VERDICT THEREBY COERCING MARTIN TO CONTRIBUTE $5 MILLION OUT OF ITS OWN POCKET

  15. CASE EXAMPLE:Van ZeeV.Homesite Insurance Co.

  16. Van Zee v. Homesite Ins. • June 1, 2007 Policy Issued ($248K) • July 10, 2007 request for increase in policy limit • July 14, 2007 H0411 End. Added • October 22, 2007 Fire Loss

  17. INSURANCE TERMS • GUARANTEED REPLACEMENT COST • EXTENDED REPLACEMENT COST • REPLACEMENT COST (UP TO POLICY LIMIT)

  18. November 14, 2007 Homesite sends Insureds the policy (without HO411 End.)

  19. February 11, 2008Homesite Internal emails

  20. May 18, 2008Van Zees believe they are “under-insured”

  21. May 28-30, 2008Internal Homesite Notes

  22. June 4, 2008Homesite to Van Zees

  23. ARGUING PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN PHASE II

  24. PURPOSE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES

  25. JURY INSTRUCTION “A corporation, ABC Insurance Company, is a party in this lawsuit. ABC Insurance Company is entitled to the same fair and impartial treatment that you would give to an individual. You must decide this case with the same fairness that you would use if you were deciding the case between individuals.”

More Related