Replies

Actually, I was about to sell some pty to this fellow who expected the windfall, but watching the lesson in greed was entertaining enough to make up for losing a sale. The facts are as I stated, but I'd like to add that the offer of $150K was made before he engaged a lawyer. But, you know those ads on TV--"Don't accept any settlement without seeing a lawyer!! We at Jarndice and Jarndice are the Little Guy's Lawyer. " You see, he wouldn't have had to come across with a fee with that settlement. As soon as the lawyer had him, the lawyer knew that he'd get *something* and the lawyer would get a share of that something. It also became more worthwhile for the insurance company to put up a fight, because they had to deal with the plaintiff's lawyer. That's another little thing the--Don't just sit there, sue somebody!-- ads don't mention. Works both ways.

At least he had his day in court, as did State Farm. I believe a defendant is entitled to the same day in court as a plaintiff would be. And just because a settlement is within policy limits does not mean that it automatically is issued.

Just exactly how much increase in premiums is justified because someone **worried**? Every defendant has the same worries--every defendant knows that the plaintiffs have the advantage, and a defendant always loses. I need to sue somebody because I'm **worried** about my insurance premiums.

And why the heck did Campbell have such a low coverage?

The insurer does not have a right to gamble with its insured's money when a demand is made within the policy limits unless it elects to proceed and pay any excess. Doing it to fulfill a quota compounded it, and lying about the existence of the quota and destroying documents relating to that made it reprehensible.

As to why the customer had such a low limit policy, I can tell you that State Farm is the king of selling crap policies without recommending upping the limits. My company sends me things about this all the time, and as a result, I'm the most insured SOB on earth.