Comments on: When Self-Reliance is not a good thing…. http://www.pltidbits.com/2009/06/when-self-reliance-is-not-a-good-thing/ For the Insurance Professional in the Know Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:07:44 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: DR http://www.pltidbits.com/2009/06/when-self-reliance-is-not-a-good-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-243 DR Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:28:22 +0000 http://www.pltidbits.com/?p=231#comment-243 Thanks for your comment, Michael. The insured did get the attorney approved, but I believe their risk-financing leaves something to be desired. I was contemplating that perhaps the attorney charges the insured his "normal" rates, which are no doubt higher than what the carrier will agree to pay, and if that's where the motivation for this approach derives. I suspect the attorney could garner himself a malpractice claim, too, if this was his idea, or if he's the one who makes the decision about when to submit to the carrier and he does indeed jeopardize coverage, especially to enrich himself. Interesting situation. Probably not as unusual as I would hope. Thanks for your comment, Michael.

The insured did get the attorney approved, but I believe their risk-financing leaves something to be desired.

I was contemplating that perhaps the attorney charges the insured his “normal” rates, which are no doubt higher than what the carrier will agree to pay, and if that’s where the motivation for this approach derives. I suspect the attorney could garner himself a malpractice claim, too, if this was his idea, or if he’s the one who makes the decision about when to submit to the carrier and he does indeed jeopardize coverage, especially to enrich himself. Interesting situation. Probably not as unusual as I would hope.

]]> By: Chris Christian http://www.pltidbits.com/2009/06/when-self-reliance-is-not-a-good-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-157 Chris Christian Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:45:36 +0000 http://www.pltidbits.com/?p=231#comment-157 Thanks for your comment, Michael. The insured did get the attorney approved, but I believe their risk-financing leaves something to be desired. I was contemplating that perhaps the attorney charges the insured his "normal" rates, which are no doubt higher than what the carrier will agree to pay, and if that's where the motivation for this approach derives. I suspect the attorney could garner himself a malpractice claim, too, if this was his idea, or if he's the one who makes the decision about when to submit to the carrier and he does indeed jeopardize coverage, especially to enrich himself. Interesting situation. Probably not as unusual as I would hope. Thanks for your comment, Michael.

The insured did get the attorney approved, but I believe their risk-financing leaves something to be desired.

I was contemplating that perhaps the attorney charges the insured his “normal” rates, which are no doubt higher than what the carrier will agree to pay, and if that’s where the motivation for this approach derives. I suspect the attorney could garner himself a malpractice claim, too, if this was his idea, or if he’s the one who makes the decision about when to submit to the carrier and he does indeed jeopardize coverage, especially to enrich himself. Interesting situation. Probably not as unusual as I would hope.

]]> By: Michael Ferreira http://www.pltidbits.com/2009/06/when-self-reliance-is-not-a-good-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-150 Michael Ferreira Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:13:38 +0000 http://www.pltidbits.com/?p=231#comment-150 An interesting post. I am curious if the insured through its agent approached their carrier to get the EPL attorney on the carrier's approved counsel list? Also, if they want to handle the EPL claims, does their risk-financing plan mirror their claim handling tactic? An interesting post. I am curious if the insured through its agent approached their carrier to get the EPL attorney on the carrier’s approved counsel list?
Also, if they want to handle the EPL claims, does their risk-financing plan mirror their claim handling tactic?

]]>