Anderson Cooper on the Insurance Industry

I don't have cable, so missed this interesting segment Wednesday from the CNN show Anderson Cooper 360. It details the ways State Farm and Allstate, on advice from the consulting firm McKinsey & Company (the same outfit that produced the study for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg calling for more restrictions on shareholder's suits) are using scorched-earth litigation tactics against people who were injured in relatively minor auto accidents to avoid paying relatively small claims. The transcript isn't online but you can read a shorter version on Anderson's blog here...

Comments

[Nate]

The CNN piece was weak. A year long expose and the reporter can't make the distinction between a policyholder and a claimant? Anderson should be embarrassed that this was included in his program. I think his viewers have come to expect better.

CNN isn't shy about their support for the trial bar. It's no surprise that Allstate nor State Farm provided anyone on camera.

Anyone who watched the show and is insured with State Farm should be happy they have a company that will defend them against these type of claims. What the story doesn't make clear is that this woman wasn't insured by State Farm. She was hit by a State Farm insured and saw dollar signs flash before her eyes.

State Farm recognized the value of the case and the jury agreed.

Her attorney whining after the fact on CNN is pitiful. If he had such a strong case he should have presented it. The fact that State Farm didn't have to put "experts" on the stand to tear her case apart is telling in itself.

And anyone familiar with the attorney that wrote the book on Allstate's claim practices needs to do a little internet research on him...want to read the book? Then find a trial attorney that will buy one on your behalf because that's all he's selling to...and be ready to put out over $200.

[Jack]

I think that most of us want our insurance companies to treat us fairly. That is not likely to happen these days and I believe that the CNN piece did a good job of demonstrating this. This should give you a better link with more information: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/09/insurance.hardball/index.html
>

[BRADLEY]

SO YOUR SAYING THE INSURNACE COMPANY SHOULD'NT PAY CLAIMS TO PEOPLE INJURED IN AUTO ACCIDENTS THAT APPEARS TO HAVE LITTLE DAMAGE WHEN IN FACT THE DAMAGE IS BEHIND THE BUMPER. THE BUMPERS ACCORDING TO FEDERAL STANDARDS ARE TO PROTECT VEHICLES NOT THE OCCUPANT. WHETHER IT IS THE CLAIMENT OR THE INSURED CONSUMERS AND INSURED SHOULD BE TREATED WITH RESPECT AS THAT IS WHAT INSURNACE IS FOR. THE REAL VICTIMS OF INJURIES, REAL INJURIES THAT DRIVERS CAUSED LIKE NOT PAYING ATTENTION OR JUST RECKLESS DRIVING MAKE THE INSURENACE COMPANY HOLD THE DRIVER RESPONSILBLE. THE FACT IS, THE IDIOT WHO HIT THE WOMAN THAT WAS IN A STATE FARM VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE HAVE MORE REGARD FOR THE WOMAN HE OR SHE HIT. "THESE TYPE OF CLAIMS" >SHAME ON YOU!!!

[bradley]

and also the woman who got broad sided or side swiped had injuries that she has to live with now because someone miscalculated or wasn't paying attention. ever see those signs on the buses that say"don't zone out" "because it could be your rear end"

this does not only apply to the work zones this applies to all roadways any road way with vehicles. there are legitimate claims. read the book BY SAL FARRIELLO "WHIPLASH INJURY MANUAL" mr these type of claims!!! come up with a better car like the volvo s80 that helps protect occupants, then come back on here and try to throw your weight around...

[bradley]

And it's not dollar signs that flashes before there eyes... it's what the hell just happened? and the pain from bodily injuries and the aggravation from the damges done to a car that insurance compainies like to rip off consumers by not fixing the car back to the way it was. like not spending the money to allow the repair shop to check the frame with a jig. and the injuries that could affect a person life as far as quality of life...and keeping a person from maximizing earning potential by having a disability from the accident......

[Ann Davis]

I was injured in just such an accident, a rear-end collision on the freeway with a woman who was on her cell phone. My car's bumper and underlying brackets had to be replaced. I don't know the repairs done to her vehicle but both cars looked like they were in good shape following the collision. It felt like a severe impact to me and I had immediate sharp pain on the right side of my neck. I also felt fuzzy headed and things seemed to be happening in a bit of a fog. I am now almost at the 2 year statute of limitations mark and am at least $2,000 out of pocket having tried to pursue a conservative let's see if time will take care of the crepitus, stiffness, tightness and aching that has plagued me EVERY SINGLE DAY SINCE THE ACCIDENT. They are now laughing in my face saying that "Too much time has passed," with the insinuation that I am lying. I have seen two physicians (spinal injury and rehab/pain management and have been paying out of pocket for manual therapy to the soft tissues.) They agree that in spite of an inability to see anything on MRI or X-Ray that I am having problems as a result of the whiplash injury. Shouldn't the focus be that I am still having problems 2 years after the fact and am trying to come to terms that this will likely be something I will have to deal with every day for the rest of my life. Without something to show on an MRI my recent efforts to secure an attorney have been futile. Early on I was naive to think that I would be treated fairly and with respect. Now I know better...and feel worse.