NAIC Looks at Disability Insurance Best Practices

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners ("NAIC") is considering the adoption of disability claims best practices guidelines to augment its Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Model Act. The Consumer Protections & Innovations Working Group held a public hearing at the NAIC Winter National Meeting.  Consumers groups, lawyers representing insureds and the industry, the ACLI, various disability insurers and several states have offered their views and proposals.  Not unexpectedly, a split has emerged over the proposed disability claims best practices list.  At a recent meeting sponsored by the NAIC, plaintiffs attorneys, such as Mark DeBofsky, advocated for the creation of formal claims guidelines because “a substantial number of claimants … are not having positive experiences,” while representatives of the insurance industry point out that a variety of legislated claims guidelines already exist (e.g., the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act) and therefore a national “best practices list” is unnecessary.  Industry representatives further warn that a best practices list would create de facto regulation and act as a “template for trial lawyers.”

Should a best practices list be adopted by the NAIC, Maine Insurance Director Mila Kofman said she would give insurers about a year to implement the best practices list before attempting to codify the list into law.  As a carrot to the insurers, Kofman noted that adoption of the list could act as a “shield against lawsuits.”  

The latest version of the best practices guidlines were developed late last year and will continue to be developed this year.  

 

 

When Compensatory Damages Are "Substantial," Third Circuit Adopts a 1:1 Punitive Damages Ratio

Jurinko v. The Medical Protective Company, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 26263 (3d Cir. December 24, 2008)

The Third Circuit, in a non-precedential (but citable under FRAP 32-1) opinion, recently reduced a punitive damages award in an insurance bad faith case from a compensatory damages to punitive damages ratio of 3:1 to a 1:1 ratio. 

 

Continue Reading...

Has The Age Of Billion-Dollar Verdicts Passed?

After studying the largest jury verdicts awarded in 2008, a Bloomberg.com article declared that “[t]he billion-dollar verdict has disappeared from U.S. courtrooms.”  While the fourteen years between 1991 and 2005 yielded about two billion-dollar verdicts a year, between 2006 and 2008, only one such award was issued, a 2007 verdict for $1.5 billion.

The article offered a variety of possible explanations for this trend, including State and Federal limits on damages and claims, the campaign financing of some conservative judges by business interests and United States Supreme Court decisions limiting the amount of money that can be awarded in certain instances.  Additionally, there is anecdotal evidence that plaintiffs’ counsel, wary of having excess awards eventually overturned, are not asking that juries award their clients huge punitive damages awards.  One corporate-defense attorney speculated that juries are now so cynical towards plaintiffs that even “insurance companies want juries.” 

Full Article