Replies

Lets see - your insurer receives an offer to settle within policy limits, but decides to roll the dice with yourassets, since it won't cost them any more. Yep, sounds like fraudulent conduct to me, since they didn't protect you, and since there were major gyrations which had to be endured to salvage the situation.

They did protect...they forked over the $136K after making a snotty remark. Snotty remarks aren't tortious, at last review.

And how is going for a trial *fraud*? As it worked out, they hurt for doing so, but fraud has a criminal intent. Or so I seem to recall in my reading...and if it was fraud, what's it doing in a civil court? Oh, yeah...lower standard of evidence. Lower standard of everything.

By that reasoning, I know of a plaintiff who was offered a handsome settlement ($150K) for an injury. He got greedy, got millions on the brain, and a tort lawyer encouraged his fantasy. He rec'd $70K for his pains, and the lawyer took half, leaving him with 35K instead of 150. Now, did that plaintiff's lawyer commit *fraud*--he should have left well enough alone. He certainly intended to take a piece of the action, and letting the plaintiff accept the original offer would have left the lawyer out of the equation...more intent to defraud in my case than with State Farm. Barring the snotty remark, of course.