If you might get hurricane damage . . .

Obviously, I'm hoping and praying that nobody here gets harmed by the hurricane, but if you do get harmed, there's something you all should know.

The insurance lobby called their rim-job homies in the Legislature and the Governor's Mansion into action this session (2017) to make it harder for you to compel your insurance carrier to pay for your losses in the event that they delay payment, underpay, or deny payment altogether.

The changes go into effect SEPTEMBER 1, 2017. To have your claim processed under the old law that is more favorable to policyholders, you should send a written message or email directly to your insurance company that (1) specifically references their claim; AND (2) is dated BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1, 2017. A PHONECALL IS NOT ENOUGH. KEEP A HARD COPY OF WHAT IS SENT.

Once August 31 passes, you will be in a much weaker position to recover.

Disclaimer - This post is not legal advice and does not imply nor create an attorney-client relationship. I'm just a guy posting something in the internet. (In fact my license is in "inactive status" because I don't practice in Texas.) If you need details or need legal representation, you should contact someone who is in your area.

 

Oh, they don't need to worry. Haven't you seen all the celebs making huge donations, or arranging a concert for funds, or actually going to the scene to help?
Oh, wait. That was Katrina. Not much of a peep for Texas. I guess we are too "red" for them to care about when there are Nazis, and Russian spies, and whatever this week's outrage will be. And, of course, no one is rioting, looting, burning, or destroying the convention center. (although my Facebook friends assure me that will happen)
There are many celebrities from Houston with loads of cash. Beyonce, to name just one.
Where are all these voices?

 

This is another reason I stopped calling myself a Republican. They are only slightly better than the Dems. And that's not good enough anymore.

 

The difference between Katrina and Harvey is that everyone is more mentally prepared for this hurricane. Katrina was a shock in many ways for all agencies (federal and local) and the citizens. For all the consternation about government entities, they are all better prepared now.

 

Slow it down for a second. If there is still not a benefit, etc in a week then perhaps you may have a valid point but it seems like expectations have gotten way out of hand. The government got way too much flack for timeliness last time and, IMO, you are too quick to lob accusations like this. Just give it a second.

 

If majority of Houston lost power and no supplies could get into Houston due to flooding, it would be a veritable shitshow.

For Ike, we had wind damage that knocked out power but no flooding. Here we have the opposite.

 

On this particular issue and issues that are similar, they're much worse than the Dems, because the insurance lobby is a huge financial backer of Republicans (and some Democrats), while plaintiff's attorneys (who are the only people on the other side of the issue who have any money and can therefore donate to politicians) almost exclusively back Democrats. On this bill, it was pretty much a straight party line vote. Rs were in favor, and Ds were opposed (with one or two exceptions by the Ds). House vote. Senate vote.

What I think is remarkable is that Sen. Larry Taylor (R-Galveston) represents one of the areas hardest hit and most susceptible to flooding and hurricanes, and he might be the biggest ***** for the insurance industry in Texas politics. The guy is awful.

 

Dems favor attorneys, which is generally worse. Insurance companies are one of the few private sector companies I favor less than attorneys. Insurance companies may be the only entity I favor less than attorneys.

Larry Taylor actually owns an insurance brokerage in Friendswood, which makes it even more slimey. When he was in the House, he supported the current corrupt Speaker, who helped him get to the Senate. Larry Taylor may be my least favorite Republican State Senator.

 

It's pretty telling that the former president Obama has already been to Houston while the racist, incompetent, idiot, Trump is nowhere to be found.

 

This is a moment where I wish there was a "dislike" button. I'm the biggest critic of Trump on this board and criticizing him at this point in the disaster is over-the-top.

 

Lawyers are good advocates in the courtroom, but they're terrible at PR and politics. If you really focus on the specifics of their policy agenda, it's pretty fair. Basically, they favor letting people take their disputes in front of judges and juries like the Constitution requires as a general rule and oppose efforts to restrict that. However, instead of framing the issues in those terms, they tend to frame them in anti-business or worse, social justice terms. It's very dumb to polarize an issue that way in conservative states like Texas. They also do a terrible job at countering the phony narratives that the insurance lobby puts out there about that suggests that civil lawsuits are easy money.

Furthermore, they're terrible at policing their own, and that looks awful. Lawyers often engage in case running. It's usually not "ambulance chasing" in the literal sense, but it's using illegal means to solicit cases (such as paying somebody money under the table to find crash reports and solicit the injured person). Do most lawyers do this? No, but enough of them do, and those who do it, do so on a large scale. And most plaintiff's lawyers (even those who don't do it) don't report those who do it or do enough to distance themselves from them.

I don't have a problem with attorney advertising in principle. After all, if you can't directly solicit clients, how else are you supposed to attract them? However, the content of the ads is often ridiculous and makes the entire profession look bad.

 

Criticizing the President for not being in Houston when the former president is already there is over-the-top? It's just the facts.

 

Obummer has NOT been in Houston or even in any other storm-ridden area of the State. Amazing that Taps got sucked in by a tweet from serving at Thanksgiving...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/28/us/obama-houston-photo-debunk-trnd/index.html

Now we get to see him whine about a link from the Commie News Network.

As if it was not already stupid enough to not realize how much of a distraction a POTUS on the ground in day two of a disaster would be in the first place...

 

Now that your line of bull excrement has been debunked, are you going to apologize or just go away?

 

Kevin Hart has already been getting a fund going.

As far as others, JJ Watt pledged a chunk with both the Cowboys and Texans as well as the owner of the Patriots also pledging better than a million to relief efforts.

But on top of that, it is disingenuous to jump too quick when you don't even know for sure what will be required. This is not something where resolution comes by indiscriminately throwing cash at a situation, and concerts don't do anyone any good when you can't get TO the concert. I'm not going to fault celebrities for not being on the ground in Houston given that there is no easy way for them to get INTO the area in the first place...both major airports are closed, with runways completely under water.

Even if I COULD get out of my subdivision, I damned sure would not be wanting to drive anywhere that a concert might be held given the rains that are still ongoing plus the potential downstream issues with dam and reservoir releases.

 

I don't want celebrities on the ground, ala Sean Penn or Harry Connick during Katrina. (don't make fun of me if I misspelled ala)
However, I do think by now some of them should be making promos for organizations, such as the Salvation Army or other agencies with a good record of actually giving the money to the people who need it, not their executives. It is evident that this storm will have huge and long term ramifications, and recovery will take millions of dollars. It's been 4-5 days since we have known how devastating this would be. If my memory serves, there was already lots of phone banks, TV specials, etc. for Katrina at least scheduled by this time.

 

My problem with lawyers is not about PR, politics, or even the slimeball individuals who appear to be quite prevalent in the legal profession. My problem is that the profession is counter productive to production and creativity. Lawyers don't create any wealth. The lawyer's job is to stop you from creating wealth and to take any wealth you have. Of course, I need lawyers to protect me from other lawyers. Even my lawyers are counter productive in that they keep me in a tight box and limit what I can make and how I make it.

The argument that we need lawyers to protect us from unethical and incompetent people is a valid one. But the way the legal profession works these days is that anything that happens or could happen must be blamed on someone somewhere. No one just dies, they were killed by a bad product or a product that didn't do what it should have done. So let's find deep pockets and get paid. And of course, the lawyers are always paid first.

I know lawyers are necessary. I know lawyers who are really good people and I have a lawyer in my family who is a really good person. But bad apples in the profession and bad judges make society worse.

My lawyer hate rant is now over.

 

It's "à la." However, it's French, so does anybody really care if it's misspelled?

 

If this is so bad for everyone but insurance companies, why did business support the legislation?

 

Who is "business?" Some businesses supported it, but plenty didn't. Link. It depends on what kind of business you're in and who your political alliances are. Also, "business" supports illegal immigration and opposes getting rid of the "tranny ordinances," so they're not always right.

There's also a massive partisan angle on this. These bills that target property insurance are designed to screw not only with a particular type of claim but with a particular guy - Steve Mostyn. He's a Houston lawyer who has made a ton of money litigating property claims. (I've been told that he's also a bit sleazy.) But none of that is why he's a target. He's a target because he bankrolls the Texas Democratic Party like nobody else does. He's the cash cow - not unions, not other plaintiff's lawyers, not ideological liberals. If you take money away from Mostyn, you take money away from the Democratic Party.

However, if you're a property owner who just got his house, church, or small business destroyed, that's all petty ********. You just want your claim handled fairly and quickly, and the bill weakened the carriers' incentives to do that. That's why I posted this. If you wait until after August 31, you're going to be in a worse position than if you don't, and that's the bottom line.

Same thing happened back in 2003 with med mal though to a much greater extent. I didn't do med mal work (I advised on a med mal case once, and that pretty much soured me on the whole area of practice.), but if I had at the time, I would have filed suit on every case I had before the effective date regardless of the limitations period. It would have been "leg mal" not to.

 

Two points on this. First, is it the lawyer who puts you in a box and limits what you can make, or is it the law itself (meaning politicians and regulators? His job is to inform you of the legal consequences of the decisions you're considering. I doubt he's wanting to be a killjoy. In fact, if he is, then he's breaching his ethical duties.

Second, the lawyer doesn't have real power. The client does. The client doesn't have to obey his lawyer. If you think your lawyer is overly restrictive in his recommendations, then don't follow those recommendations. And if you think he's routinely overly restrictive, then fire him. You're in charge, not him.

That's a common narrative, and it's a false one. Most people do "just die." But that doesn't become a news story. In reality, tort and personal injury filings are down in the last 20 years. We're actually less litigious than we used to be.

And nevertheless, if a dangerous product causes someone's death or injuries, shouldn't the company have to account? Suppose you parked your car in the garage one day, and a few hours later, your house burned down destroying everything you own. The fire marshal investigates and finds out that the cruise control switch in your car caused the fire. Well, that happened to my parents back in 2005. They did sue. They didn't demand a bunch of money because nobody got hurt. However, they wanted to get paid for what they lost. Do you think they did something wrong? If so, why? Cruise control switches aren't supposed to start fires. Furthermore, that's not a risk that is disclosed to a consumer and isn't one that even a reasonably intelligent consumer is even going to consider. However, the company knew this was a problem and simply took their chances. Well, if you take away people's rights to bring such suits, it's going to make companies more willing to take those kinds of chances. Call me crazy, but I think that's a bad thing. I'd rather be able to park my car in the garage without fear of it starting a fire and possibly killing me and my family if it chooses to do it in the middle of night.

 

If I might borrow and paraphrase, in the poker game of business, lawyers are the rake.

 

First, the bill doesn't weaken the law very much as it relates to how much a claimant can recover. In fact, it only reduces the amount of interest that can be charged on the unpaid claim (it looks like the interest rate is reduced from 18% to 10%). It does not reduce the amount of the claim in any way. Second, your link is from a news organization supported by the Texas Trial Lawyers Association. Third, the article names 5 or 6 businesses, but never discusses the specifics of the law. Fourth, all criticism of the law I have seen is from lawyers.

In addition, the law does not apply to most flood damage claims, or many wind damage claims. Flood insurance is primarily written through a federal program (NFIP) and not subject to state law. Coastal wind coverage is mostly written by TWIA and governed by a different statute.

One Business group that supported the legislation is the NFIB, which has 325,000 business members. There are other groups as well. Those for the law dwarf those against the law.

Why are lawyers against the law? Because it limits the amount of their compensation. When you get down to brass tacks, the lawyers don't want their compensation limited. The law has nothing to do with putting claimants in a weaker position.

 

Hopefully the one enduring image from Hurricane Harvey will be the generosity of the American people. I'm amazed not just neighbors helping neighbors but the assistance from those in other parts of the community. My next door neighbor, an EMT, headed down to Houston yesterday as part of a national response organization. The local fire dept. gave him leave to help out. The empathy shown by everyone is impressive. F*ck politics in a moment like this.

 

It doesn't reduce your compensatory damages, but it's not always about money. It's also about time. A cut in the penalty rate from 18 to 10 percent is substantial. It makes it much cheaper for the insurer to dispute and delay a claim. If you're desperate for money (as most claimants are after a disaster), that matters a lot.

And supported by Texans for Lawsuit Reform and a whole host of groups connected to Texas politics. What part of the story is wrong?

The business lobbyists favored it. I don't dispute that. It's individual businesses that weren't as unified. Wonder why that might be the case.

OK, let's discuss the specifics. It cuts the penalty rate, so it's cheaper to delay payment. That's obviously pro-insurer. It makes it more difficult to recover attorney's fees and reduces the amount recoverable Also pro-insurer. It allows the insurer to fully assume the liability of its agent or adjuster and dismiss claims against them, which means it'll be easier to remove the cases to federal court. That means less favorable rules of procedure, usually a more defense-friendly venue and jury pool, and a slower docket. All pro-insurer and diminishing the settlement value of the claim.

People can disagree about how pro-insurer the bill is, but it's solidly in favor of the industry and hostile to the claimant all the way around. No, it's not like the med mal law in the sense that it's going to completely slam the courthouse doors in the face of a huge number of people with merited claims, but it's going to make a difference. If you choose to pursue your claim under the new law law, you're remedies and leverage will be weaker. That is indisputable.

For what it's worth, under the terms of the law, it applies to any "first-party claim that: (A)is made by an insured under an insurance policy providing coverage for real property or improvements to real property; (B)must be paid by the insurer directly to the insured; and(C)arises from damage to or loss of covered property caused, wholly or partly, by forces of nature, including an earthquake or earth tremor, a wildfire, a flood, a tornado, lightning, a hurricane, hail, wind, a snowstorm, or a rainstorm." See Tex. Ins. Code 542A.001(2). You are correct that it does not apply to TWIA claims.

Of course they don't want their compensation limited. Who the hell does? But to say it has nothing to do with putting claimants in a weaker position is nonsense. The bill has several substantial provisions, and they all work to the benefit of the insurer - less money to pay out and easier to delay.

And by making it harder to recover attorney's fees or limiting them, you do harm the claimant. Here's why. The lawyer doesn't receive the attorney's fees amount recovered in court. The fee he actually collects is contingent and calculated according to the total recovery. If the court awards $100,000 in damages plus $15,000 in attorney's fees, I'm not walking out of there with $15,000. I'm walking out of there with my percentage of the total recovery. Accordingly, if you cut the amount awarded in attorney's fees, it will hurt the claimant's bottom line.

I'm sure that's true. The business lobby tends to support reducing litigation. Not surprised, and the lobby itself doesn't care. They don't stand to lose anything. Its members do. It's a bit like teachers' unions. They stand for one thing, but their members don't necessarily have the same interests and don't always agree with them. If you're an actual small business owner, there's no question that this bill is bad for you.

 

It doesn't apply to NFIP flood policies, which is probably 99% of the flood coverage in the U.S., nor to the TWIA program which probably writes 95% or more of the insurance coverage in coastal counties. That is what is wrong with the story. It presents a biased, baseless view of how the law will affect claimants, and it ignores the true reason lawyers are telling half the story - which is that lawyers like Mostyn are getting a haircut and they are pissed.

If the NFIB members thought they would lose by supporting the legislation, they wouldn't have supported it. Members tell the lobbyists what to do. If you are a small business owner, this bill doesn't hurt you one bit. It will keep your insurance premiums lower, however. That's the point- get the scumbag lawyers out of the equation and lower the cost of doing business.

The only amount of recovery that is reduced is recovery by the lawyers, not the claimants. If 10% interest is not good enough in the current climate of 0.25% bank interest, too bad.

 

Lawyers at my company will not allow ANY liability for products made by us. Terms are so ridiculous that we lose business every year and enter into months long negotiations with each client haggling over what should be a standard contract. In my opinion, the layoff last year could have been avoided if our attorneys were reasonable.

Most of my previous experience with attorneys has been reasonable - with the exception of my divorce. But it is reasonable only because I understand that unscrupulous attorneys on the other side are looking for any possible reason that the company should have known that whatever product is defective under whatever conditions.

What ticks me off is record retention. In most of my jobs, I've had to get rid of records after some arbitrary deadline to prevent future legal fishing expeditions from becoming successful. So, information about how a particular situation is handled is often lost. And we continue to reinvent the wheel.

You are right on this point.

I claim torts are down because companies won't allow ANYTHING that is not proven to the nth degree. Improvements in products are delayed or denied because we are all so damned scared of lawsuits. So many life improving products are never created or are created years later than they should have been.

And there are still many, many frivolous lawsuits out there. For example, the McDonalds coffee lawsuit. Coffee is very hot - who knew? Now we get warnings on our cups and the coffee is cooler - which makes it less enjoyable for me. Those stupid warnings you see on ladders, electric appliances, and other items are likely the result of some frivolous lawsuit.

Yes, many lawsuits are merited and necessary. There are bad people out there who would sacrifice lives for profit. But, there are so many bad lawsuits out there. The industries I've worked in - chemicals, medical-devices, and engineering - have all been sued multiple times over totally bogus claims. Yes, there were probably a few meritorious claims over the years. But the majority seem to be ridiculous and not linked to life and death or even quality of life.

I recognize attorneys are necessary - just like homeowners insurance. But both rig the system in their favor.

My lawyer hate session is really over now. Back to regular programming.

 

4th Floor- Are you in sales? I've had similar run-ins with legal departments in trying to purchase Enterprise software applications. The deals always come down to warranties and indemnification. We always want more than the vendor, particularly SaaS vendors, are willing to agree to.

 

I quoted to you from the bill about its applicability. No, it won't cover NFIP claimants or TWIA claimants. However, some in the area (especially in Harris County) will have private insurance, and it will impact them.

Again, teacher unions say the same thing. The members generally take their cues from the organization, not the other way around. Small business owners don't have time to sit down and read the bill.

It hurts you if you need to file a claim that's covered under it.

Sorta like how medical care got cheaper when the goal was to take lawyers out of the equation. Oh yeah, they didn't. Large numbers of claimants just got hosed.

Wrong. You're pretending that the cases aren't being handled on a contingent fee. People and small businesses who just lost everything can't afford to pay a retainer, get hourly bills, and finance litigation costs. Reduce what people can recover for attorney's fees, and it will hurt the claimant. For example, suppose the court orders $100K plust $10K in attorney's fees. The lawyer isn't taking $10K. He's taking a percentage of $110K. If you cut the recovery for fees to $5K, the lawyer will take the same percentage of $105K. The claimant ends up with less. It's simple math.

And the interest rate isn't about being high enough for inflation or to account for interest rates. It's supposed to be a penalty to discourage the carrier from dicking people around. The lower the rate, the more willing they'll be to dick people around.

 

Until someone other than attorneys start bitching about the law, we will have to consider it a wonderful idea. If the pendulum swings, the law will change.