July 2, 2010

Oil Spill

The oil spill catastrophe caused by BP, Anadarko, Haliburton, Mitsui/MODEC, M-I Swaco and perhaps others is causing damages to shrimpers, boat owners, businesses and to the wildlife, fish, birds and animals. Thornhill Law Firm is pursing class actions in federal district court in New Orleans and in Gulfport. In addition, claims for civil penalties have been asserted in lawsuits filed on behalf of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries through local District Attorneys in four parishes. The State Wildlife and Fisheries claims have recently been removed to federal district court in New Orleans and Lafayette. Motions to remand are being filed on behalf of the State Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. In similar claims for civil penalties after the Exxon Valdez spill, Exxon was cast with and/or settled claims totaling over $1 billion dollars. The scope of the claims in Louisiana may exceed $1 billion dollars.

May 26, 2010

Punitive Damages Against State Farm

The issue of application of Illinois punitive damages laws arises with respect to State Farm in large measure because of the recent decision in the matter styled Campbell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 98-1564 (UT S.Ct. 10/19/01) 2001 UT 89. With respect to State Farm’s adjustment practices, the court in that case considered the claims under the law of the state of Utah, allowing for the award of punitive damages. It considered in particular the following list of issues for the application of Utah’s punitive damage awards:

1) The relative wealth of State Farm;

2) The nature of State Farm’s misconduct;

3) Facts and circumstances surrounding State Farm’s misconduct;

4) The effect of State Farm’s misconduct on the Campbells and others;

5) The probability of future recurrences;

6) The relationship of the parties;

7) The ratio of punitive to compensatory damages;

Of particular importance to our analysis of State Farm’s exposure for punitives in subsequent cases are the findings of the Utah Supreme Court on the nature of State Farm’s misconduct. It is these findings which would apply to State Farm’s adjustment practices in any case in any state.

From the Campbell case the findings are as follows:
“2. The Nature of State Farm’s misconduct.
This factor specifically analyzes the nature of the defendant’s conduct in terms of its maliciousness, reprehensibility, and wrongfulness. It mirrors the “reprehensibility” factor described by the United States Supreme Court in BMW of North American, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). There, the Supreme Court stated that the defendant’s misconduct is “[p]erhaps the most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award.” Id. at 575, 576. Repeated “trickery and deceit” targeted at people who are “financially vulnerable” is especially reprehensible and worthy of greater sanctions. Id. Moreover, “deliberate false statements, acts of affirmative misconduct, or concealment of evidence of improper notice” also warrant larger awards. Id. at 579.

With these standards clearly in mind, the trial court made nearly twenty-eight pages of extensive findings concerning State Farm’s reprehensible conduct. We summarize here three examples from those findings of State Farm’s most egregious and malicious behavior.

Continue reading "Punitive Damages Against State Farm" »

May 25, 2010

Punitive Damages in Louisiana

Louisiana allows punitive damages only in very limited circumstances against insurers. The limited circumstances under which persons can recover are set out at La. R.S. 22:658, which provides as follows:

§658. Payment and adjustment of claims, policies other than life and health and accident; personal vehicle damage claims; penalties; arson-related claims suspension

A. (1) All insurers issuing any type of contract, other than those specified in R.S. 22:656, R.S. 22:657, and Chapter 10 of Title 23 of the Louisiana Revised Status of 1950, shall pay the amount of any claim due any insured within thirty days after receipt of satisfactory proofs of loss from the insured or any party in interest.

(2) All insurers issuing any type of contract, other than those specified in R.S. 22:656, R.S. 22:657, and Chapter 10 of Title 23 of the Louisiana Revised Status of 1950, shall pay the amount of any third party property damage claim and of any reasonable medical expenses claim due any bona fide third party claimant within thirty days after written agreement of settlement of the claim from any third party claimant.

(3) Except in the case of catastrophic loss, the insurer shall initiate loss adjustment of a property damage claim and of a claim for reasonable medical expenses within fourteen days after notification of loss by the claimant. In the case of catastrophic loss, the insurer shall initiate loss adjustment of a property damage claim within thirty days after notification of loss by the claimant. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Paragraph shall subject the insurer to the penalties provided in R.S. 22:1220.

(4) All insurers shall make a written offer to settle any property damage claim within thirty days after receipt of satisfactory proofs of loss of that claim.

B. (1) Failure to make such payment within thirty days after receipt of such satisfactory written proofs and demand therefor, as provided in R.S. 22:658 (A)(1), or within thirty days after written agreement or settlement as provided in R.S. 22:658 (A) (2) when such failure is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause, shall subject the insurer to a penalty, in addition to the amount of the loss, of ten percent damages on the amount found to be due from the insurer to the insured, or one thousand dollars, whichever is greater, payable to the insured, or to any of said employees, together with all reasonable attorney fees for the prosecution and collection of such loss, or in the event a partial payment of tender has been made, ten percent of the difference between the amount paid or tendered and the amount found to be due and all reasonable attorney fees for the prosecution and collection of such amount.

(2) The period set herein for payment of losses resulting from fire and the penalty provisions for nonpayment within the period shall not apply where the loss from fire was arson related and the state fire marshal or other state or local investigative bodies have the loss under active arson investigation. The provisions relative to time of payment and penalties shall commence to run upon certification of the investigating authority that there is no evidence of arson or the there is insufficient evidence to warrant further proceedings.

(3) The provisions relative to suspension of payment due to arson shall not apply to a bona fide lender which holds a valid recorded mortgage on the property in question.

(4) Whenever a property damage claim is on a personal vehicle owned by the third party claimant and as a direct consequence of the inactions of the insurer and the third party claimant’s loss the third party claimant is deprived of use of the personal vehicle for more than five working days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, the insurer responsible for payment of the claim shall pay, to the extent legally responsible, for reasonable expenses incurred by the third party claimant in obtaining alternative transportation for the entire period of time during which the third party claimant is without the use of his personal vehicle. Failure to make such payment within thirty days after receipt of adequate written proof and demand therefor, when such failure is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause shall subject the insurer to, in addition to the amount of such reasonable expenses incurred, a reasonable penalty not to exceed ten percent of such reasonable attorneys’ fees for the collection of such expenses.

C. (1) All claims brought by insureds, worker’s compensation claimants, or third parties against an insurer shall be paid by check or draft of the insurer to the order of the claimant to whom payment of the claim is due pursuant to the policy provisions, or his attorney, or upon direction of such claimant to one specified; provided, however, that the check or draft shall be made jointly to the claimant and the employer when the employer has advanced the claims payment to the claimant. Such check or draft shall be paid jointly until the amount of the advanced claims payment has been recovered by the employer.
(2) no insurer shall intentionally or unreasonably delay, for more than three calendar days, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, after presentation for collection, the processing of any properly executed and endorsed check or draft issued in settlement of an insurance claim.

(3) Any insurer violating this subsection shall pay the insured or claimant a penalty of two hundred dollars or fifteen percent of the face amount of the check or draft, whichever is greater.

D. (1) When making a payment incident to a claim, no insurer shall require that as a condition to such payment, repairs be made to a motor vehicle, including window glass repairs or replacement, in a particular place or shop or by a particular entity. Any insurer violating the provisions of this Subsection shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars for each offense.

(2) A violation of this Subsection shall constitute an additional ground, under R.S. 22:1173 [fn1], for the commissioner to refuse to issue a license or to suspend or revoke a license issued to any agent, broker, or solicitor to sell insurance in this state.

Similarly, the right of recovery against insurers includes claims settlement practices abuses which give rise to punitive damages under the provisions of La. R.S. 22:1220:

§ 1220. Good faith duty; claims settlement practices; cause of action; penalties

A. An insurer, including but not limited to a foreign line and surplus line insurer, owes to his insured a duty of good faith and fair dealing. The insurer has an affirmative duty to adjust claims fairly and promptly and to make a reasonable effort to settle claims with the insured or the claimant, or both. Any insurer who breaches these duties shall be liable for any damages sustained as a result of the breach.

B. Any one of the following acts, if knowingly committed or performed by an insurer, constitutes a breach of the insurer’s duties imposed in Subsection A:

(1) misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to any coverages at issue.

(2) Failing to pay a settlement within thirty days after an agreement is reduced to writing.

(3) Denying coverage or attempting to settle a claim on the basis of an application which the insurer knows was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of, the insured.
(4) Misleading a claimant as to the applicable prescriptive period.

(5) Failing to pay the amount of any claim due any person insured by the contract within sixty days after receipt of satisfactory proof of loss from the claimant when such failure is arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.

C. In addition to any general or special damages to which a claimant is entitled for breach of the imposed duty, the claimant may be awarded penalties assessed against the insurer in an amount not to exceed two times the damages sustained or five thousand dollars, whichever is greater. Such penalties, if awarded, shall not be used by the insurer in computing either past or prospective loss experience for the purpose of setting rates or making rate filings.

D. The provisions of this Section shall not be applicable to claims made under health and accident insurance policies.

E. Repealed by Acts 1997, NO. 949, § 2.

F. The Insurance Guaranty Association Fund, as provided in R.S. 22:1375 et seq., shall not be liable for any special damages awarded under the provision of this draft as Division could have had rights against insurer for reimbursement of medical services furnished to insured. Nelson v. Ardoin, App. 3 Cir. 1979, 367 So. 32d 1233.

Continue reading "Punitive Damages in Louisiana" »

May 11, 2010

Preservation of Evidence

On October 9, 2009, Judge Fallon of the Eastern District of Louisiana issued Pre-Trial Order No. 1(B) - Preservation of Evidence. The Order outlines the requirements for the preservation of all physical evidence, including drywall, HVAC coil material, plumbing components, electrical components and any other personal property items.

Continue reading "Preservation of Evidence" »

May 3, 2010

Hurricane Ike Claims; Galveston/Bolivar Islands in particular

After Hurricane Ike, residents of Galveston and Bolivar Islands discovered they did not have the insurance their agent had told them they purchased. To recover, a claim must be brought against the agent.

Defense – Coverage Not Obtainable

Sometimes, the defendant in an action against an insurance agent or broker for failure to procure insurance coverage will attempt to avoid liability by showing that the client's failure to obtain the desired coverage was not caused by any wrongdoing on the defendant's part because the desired coverage was not obtainable from any source. Where such a claim is made, the defendant generally will bear the burden of proving it as an affirmative defense. Stevens v Wafer. The burden of proof is said to be placed on the defendant because an insurance agent or broker is in a better position than the client or the intended beneficiary to determine the availability of insurance coverage.

Continue reading "Hurricane Ike Claims; Galveston/Bolivar Islands in particular" »

April 30, 2010

Hurricane Ike Claims; Galveston/Bolivar Island in particular

After Hurricane Ike, residents of Galveston and Bolivar Islands discovered they did not have the insurance their agent had told them they purchased. To recover, a claim must be brought against the agent.

Defense - Contributory Negligence; Failure to Examine Policy

The Texas Supreme Court in Colonial Savings Association v. Taylor addressed the law on this point. Colonial involved a suit brought by an insured against a party that was deemed to have essentially assumed the role of an agent for the insured. The court stated that while some jurisdictions have held that an insured has a legal duty to read his policy, the prevailing view--joined by this State--is as follows: "[A]n insured who accepts a policy without dissent, is presumed to know its contents, but the presumption may be overcome by proof that 'he did not know its contents when it was accepted, as by showing that when he received it he put it away without examination, or that he relied upon the knowledge of the insurer and supposed he had correctly drawn it.'

Continue reading "Hurricane Ike Claims; Galveston/Bolivar Island in particular" »

April 28, 2010

Hurricane Ike Claims; Galveston/Bolivar Islands in particular

After Hurricane Ike, residents of Galeveston and Bolivar Islands discovered they did not have the insurance their agent had told them they purchased. To recover, a claim must be brought against the agent.

Causation – Negligence

In an action against an insurance agent or broker for failure to procure insurance coverage brought under a negligence theory the plaintiff must show that the defendant's negligence was the cause of a loss which the plaintiff sustained as a consequence of being without suitable coverage. The means of establishing causation may vary according to the nature of the plaintiff's breach and other circumstances of each case. In many cases, it will be necessary to show that the desired coverage was available and thus would have been obtained if the defendant had been exercising reasonable skill, care, and diligence to procure it.
Otherwise stated, an insurance agent’s or broker's failure to obtain the coverage expected by the client may not be the cause of a loss sustained due to lack of coverage if the coverage in question would not have been issued by any insurer under any relevant circumstances. Establishing causation may also require proof that the person who requested coverage had an insurable interest in the subject matter of the desired insurance. Proof that the plaintiff sustained a loss, or that some other event occurred, so that, under the terms of the policy which the defendant was to have procured, the plaintiff would have been entitled to benefits if the policy had been in effect may also be necessary.

Continue reading "Hurricane Ike Claims; Galveston/Bolivar Islands in particular" »

April 26, 2010

Hurricane Ike Claims; Galveston/Bolivar Islands in particular

After Hurricane Ike, residents of Galveston and Bolivar Island discovered they did not have the insurance their agent had told them they purchased. To recover, a claim must be brought against the agent.

Failure to Procure Coverage as Requested by Client

In an action against an insurance agent or broker for failure to procure insurance coverage, the plaintiff will be able to establish the defendant's breach of duty if it can be shown that the defendant failed to procure coverage as requested by the client. Failure to procure coverage may involve a failure to obtain any policy whatsoever, obtaining a policy which does not cover a particular risk for which the client desired coverage, or obtaining a policy which did not provide a sufficient amount of coverage to fully compensate the client in the event of loss.
Generally, an insurance agent or broker will be able to discharge his or her duties to a client by procuring coverage as requested or, alternatively, by advising the client within a reasonable time that the requested coverage has not been procured. This means that the defendant may not be liable where he or she makes reasonable efforts to procure coverage as requested and fails to do so, unless the plaintiff can also show that the defendant failed to advise the client that coverage had not been procured, or failed to adequately explain the limitations or exceptions contained in any policy which was obtained.

Continue reading "Hurricane Ike Claims; Galveston/Bolivar Islands in particular" »

April 23, 2010

Offshore Oil and Gas Injuries

Thornhill Law Firm has successfully litigated claims by injured workers who engage in the offshore oil and gas industry. Movable rigs, semi-submersible rigs, drilling barges, and other floating facilities which are classified as vessels entitle claimants to relief under the Seaman’s Statutes. General maritime law and Jones Act Seaman’s Statutes created by Congress and the Federal Courts often apply to such claims. The United States Constitution gives special protection to maritime claims under the Savings to Suitors Clause of the Constitution. Maintenance and cure payments are assured injured workers under these statutes and cases. A team of lawyers has been assembled to address recent catastrophic offshore explosions, such as that we have heard reported in the news about the Trans Ocean Limited Semi-submersible Rig. The proven trial skills of Tom W. Thornhill have served well claimants who must through the courts obtain relief from responsible persons.

April 22, 2010

Hurricane Ike Experts Deposed

On April 13-16, 2010, Tom W. Thornhill participated with the other lead members of the slab committee for the multi-district litigation and class action suits against Texas Windstorm Insurance Association (“TWIA”) to depose TWIA experts on causation issues. The defense of TWIA is that the damages to the homes on Galveston and Bolivar Islands are not covered. TWIA statistically calculated damages in the amount of 11.2% of the losses without looking at the homes based on faulty science which when explored in deposition showed fingerprints of mismanagement that will expose TWIA to punitive damages for bad faith conduct. The law in Texas allows recovery under the provisions of Section 541 & 542 in the Insurance Code and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. TWIA insurance policy holders are encouraged to take notice of the statutory time period in which to file suit. Texas allows only two years within which to file suit. Thornhill Law Firm has formed a joint venture in Texas to handle these suits named, Thornhill, Shrader & Burdette, PLLC, and can be reached at 1-800-989-2707.

March 12, 2009

An Introduction to Prescription

After Hurricane Katrina thousands of people along the Gulf Coast filed claims on their insurance policies. The insurance companies responded by paying some claims in full, some claims partially, and not paying some claims. Policy holders with valid claims were forced to resort to litigation to get fairly reimbursed for their loss of property or damage to their property. Thornhill Law Firm filed many of these claims and were able to help their clients recoup some of their losses, but we were forced to turn away those that called us after the period of prescription or peremption had run. Prescription, which exists in both common and civil law, is the idea that if a claim has not been made within a certain time period, then there no longer exists a remedy at law. Peremption, a civil law concept, actually stops the claimant from bringing the claim. Effectively, peremption extinguishes a claim. Prescription and peremption are commonly referred to as statutes of limitations or statutes of repose.

Continue reading "An Introduction to Prescription" »

January 19, 2009

Changes to Family Law in Louisiana

With the new beginning of 2009, family law in Louisiana is changing in two respects. First, a new addition to the Louisiana Civil Code protects the right of children in divorced families to see both parents, helping to fill a gap which did not require parents granted a schedule of visitation or custody to see their children. To illustrate this point, a fictional scenario follows. Mr. and Mrs. Smith are divorced with a child, Amanda. Mrs. Smith has custody, but Mr. Smith has been granted a schedule of visitation.

Continue reading "Changes to Family Law in Louisiana" »