Florida Insurance Blog

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation prepares for trial against Corless Asociates and the Wells Law Group

2012-05-10T14:43:37Z

On June 11, 2012, Citizens is set to try the case of Gulf View Village Condo Association v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, pending in Pasco County, Florida. The case relates to a 2009 claim for damages due to settlement at a property occupied primarily by retirees and their families.

]]> This case illustrates the lengths Citizens believes it can go to delay and stall paying on its legal obligations. Although Citizens was told as early at November 2009 there was sinkhole activity at the property in one building and as early as August 2010 in the other 4, Citizens did not even attempt to resolve the claim until April 2012.

Citizens decision to delay the claim was likely driven by their ongoing efforts to place the blame on any other carrier they can find to pay their losses. As to get Citizens to pay the loss, it was certainly not from a lack of trying by the Association and by the Associations lawyers, Corless and Kim Wells. Despite multiple letters to Citizens representatives in 2011 regarding the egregious delay in the paying the loss, Citizens waited an additional year into the litigation to pay the Association, and only paid a portion of the undisputed amount owed. Although partial payment was made, it is unclear at this stage weather Citizens intends to abandon its other defenses.

Citizens retained BCI Engineers to conduct their investigations, and are being assisted by the Marone Law Group. The Association is represented by Ted Corless from Corless Associates, and by Kim Wells of the Wells Law Group, who teamed up to handle the matter.

Check out this video.

Corless Barfield Trial Group Headed to Battle with Tower Hill Select Insurance Company

2012-04-25T14:24:32Z

Following more than two years of protracted litigation, Ted Corless and Morgan Barfield head to trial against Tower Hill Select Insurance Company in Marion County, Florida. The Ocala residents Matt and Cindy Villella filed a sinkhole claim on their policy for damage to their home and garage in 2008. Although Tower Hill's engineering firm BCI Engineering confirmed the presence of sinkhole activity at the home as the cause of the damage in June 2009, Tower Hill spent nearly 2 years deciding whether to pay the claim. After retaining Corless and Barfield, Tower Hill elected to pay the claim, but refused to pay the costs to stabilize the home consistent with the Insureds professional engineer. Later, after months of delays, Tower Hill agreed to pay a portion of the amount due, but only if the Insureds agreed to a cut down version of the repairs by an engineering firm who works almost exclusively for insurance companies on such claims.

]]> The primary issue at trial will be the proper method of repairs necessary to stabilize the land and the building, according to Section 627.707(5)(a), Florida Statutes. Tower Hill seeks to limit its payments by refusing to provide underpinning for the stabilization of the building, despite the fact that two independent engineering firms agree it is necessary. "Tower Hill wants to make these people work to get the coverage they paid for during the time they insured this home," says Corless. "We are happy to make them explain this to a jury, especially when it's in Ocala, where so many people are suffering from these issues."

Tower Hill must feel strongly in their position, given that if the Insureds prevail, Tower Hill would likely be responsible for a mountain of the Insureds' attorneys' fees. "Tower Hill made it clear to everyone in the legal community some time ago that they want to put more of these cases before juries, and Barfield and I are happy to oblige them," said Corless.

Both Corless and his former associate-now partner Morgan Barfield are presenting the Insureds case June 11, 2012, before Judge Jack Singbush.

Corless Barfield defeats Tower Hill on Attempt to Force Repairs

2012-04-10T16:02:54Z

Today, in Marion County, Florida, in a case styled Glenn and Kimberly Trabing v. Tower Hill Select Insurance Company, Circuit Judge Frances King denied the most recent attempts by Tower Hill Select Insurance Company to force an insured to enter into a contract before payment for subsurface repairs will be paid. Although the Insurance Policy indicates Tower Hill may withhold coverage for subsurface repairs (e.g. grouting and underpinning) until these repairs are commenced, Ted Corless argued the language did not apply to the facts of the subject claim. The Court agreed with Corless and granted his motion for entry of final judgment. A comprehensive "bad faith" suit is now underway and will be filed by the end of this week.

]]> "Tower Hill Preferred forced my clients to participate in more than 2 years of litigation, only for them to lose, yet still refuse to make payment," Corless said. In its original investigation of the claim, Tower Hill argued the loss had occurred before they insured the property, despite the fact the very experts it hired did not agree. Instead, the testimony was, Greg Nelson, a high-ranking Tower Hill representative decided on his own the claim should be denied. After suit was filed and the Tower Hill expert deposed, the Court threw out Tower Hill's defense and ordered it to provide coverage. Later, after Tower Hill again sought refuge behind the "neutral evaluation" program, even the neutral evaluator rejected Tower Hill's position on the claim.

Instead, after reviewing the data of the claim, the neutral evaluator found the damages to be in excess of the policy limits. This occurred in September 2011, but Tower Hill still had not paid. Today's hearing took away their last chance to avoid payment, unless it intends to appeal the ruling. Giving the fact the appellate court for Marion County has already ruled in a manner against Tower Hill's position, this move would not appear wise. Nonetheless, as it is their right to continue to defend and seek an appellate review, the insureds in this case may have to wait even longer. Regardless, when the smoke clears, Tower Hill is going to find themselves responsible for years of delay, interest, costs, and a mountain of attorneys' fees. "The next time I hear about insurance companies complaining about lawsuits, I'm going to show them this one. Tower Hill has had years to resolve this claim, but chose to adjust the loss in the courtroom." Corless hopes the loss today will bring Tower Hill to its senses with the hope it will not use these same tactics in other cases as well. Corless said his phone "has been ringing off the hook since word got out that the Tower Hill 'siege' is now over."

Tower Hill with have 60 days from the date of the final judgment to pay the loss, and 30 days from the date to file an appeal.

Sinkhole Lawsuits: Tower Hill Loses (Again) in Sinkhole Suit

2012-04-06T15:27:33Z

Tower Hill Preferred Insurance Company had taken a back seat (perhaps the trunk) to most other insurance companies who fought the good fight on sinkhole lawsuits. Prior to the two cases it has tried this year, I am not aware of any case where they actually went in front of a jury. Since the year began, Tower Hill has taken two cases to trial, and has lost another. This one was in Polk County, as opposed to last January, where the case was pending in Hernando County. By most Florida sinkhole maps, both counties are prone to both sinkhole claims and sinkhole lawsuits.

]]> Two interesting things about this case, which is still on review by the Court and any appellate activity. First, Tower Hill changed horses within weeks of the trial. I do not know why, nor would I speculate specifically. I will say that in my 15 year tenure previously representing insurance companies, this was an extreme rarity. Generally speaking, if personalities can be kept out of claims decisions, there is nothing that can happen in short periods of time before a trial that would justify a choice like that. Introducing new counsel is an uphill battle; new counsel often lacks the nuance of the case. Sitting with witnesses, thinking about cases over and over again to developing a strategy, is what wins close trials. Handing the case to a new lawyer is like handing someone the leash to a dog and walking away. The expecting thing, too is that the new, losing law firms often flyspeck the file and find a source to blame the previous law firm. Let's hope these defense attorneys' don't try that.

Second, Tower Hill must have found the final solution on sinkhole lawsuits, to be as bold as it was in the trial. Apparently, the defense of the case by Tower Hill required no witnesses. Excuse me... Yes, I am saying Tower Hill felt so comfortable with its position, its defense attorney called no witnesses in the defense of a sinkhole claim. Wow. Breath that in. Man, they must have had something in their briefcase they didn't pull or someone made a metric booh-booh. Again, I admit to trying more than a half dozen cases, where I never called a defense witness (and won them all). But, for an insurer to never put a witness on the stand to explain why, or a scientist who would explain the reasons. I just hope the lawyer for Tower Hill did not try and make scientific arguments because he would have looked foolish. I don't know all the details, but wow, do lawyers love to talk about a fallen colleague.

Again, I look forward to my current case list set for trial, where Tower Hill is our opponent. Interestingly, in one of them, Tower Hill just recently admitted total, comprehensive fault. The remaining details are more procedural. The next one against them in June looks like there is virtually nothing left for them to defend.

Let's hope our clients find their Easter eggs soon. Happy Easter. TC

Hiring a Lawyer - Part Two: "Why are lawyers such horrible business people?"

2012-04-02T14:56:34Z

This is the second blog post following yesterday associated with the issue of dealing with lawyers and how their business practices can impact the outcome of a case.

For many firms, their work product is subpar, their ethics are astringent, and their preparation non-existent. But, for all their warts and limitations, they have focused their energy on the true, fundamental nature of defending a lawsuit. No, it does not relate to complex interpretations of jurisprudential ether, or strategic development of jury selection, or even interpersonal relationships with the judge. Instead, they've figured one thing will always serve them well...

]]> Phone calls? Don't return 'em. Emails? My computer has been down. Letters? None in my file. In sum, it's the "art of the stall."

Here's a sequence I am enduring by one of my defense colleagues. In advance of filing suit, I provided a copy of our lawsuit to his office (by fax), as well as by letter (certified mail), and by an email (receipt obtained). I suggested that due to the nature of the dispute, this would be a case for early assessment and potentially an expedited mediation. I shared these ideas with my client who found them encouraging. I also copied them on all of these communications who later confirmed receipt of it all.

I heard nothing, and after the proscribed time, sent the suit to be served. Upon receipt of the lawsuit, I received a phone call, asking why I had not simply called them to discuss a case like this where early resolution was possible. I described what I had done (fax, email, and letter), "no, never got them." "Do you think we can get an extension to discuss with our client?" The standard courtesy being yes, I obliged, but confirmed in writing a specific deadline (by fax, with confirmation). Of course, the date came and went, as did the date the suit was now to be answered. We sent a letter, telling them they were now in default (by fax, confirmed, and email). No answer. OK, we filed a motion for default (by fax).

I receive, the day before the date of the hearing on the default, a 6-page memo in opposition, where it is noted that the parties had voluntarily agreed to stay the lawsuit until it would appear no resolution could be reached. No mention of my copious letters. No way I was going to front of the Court on this, as I knew we'd both be blamed like warring teenagers. So, I called and he did take the call. We agreed I'd withdraw the motion for default and he would answer. Yes, this time, he filed his answer, but again suggested we stay the matter until they could evaluate it. Fearing my client's wrath, no, I said, it's time to litigate. They did ask for mediation and we agreed to voluntarily attend.

You know how the mediation went, as they offered us approximately 20 percent of what the case was worth. Now my client is really pissed, and in part, at me, for believing this would be worthwhile. However, they got the mediator to agree to "extend" the mediation so that we could make continued efforts to resolve the case. No, I said, but the mediator ordered it. "Why can't you all get along?" he asked. Eh hmmm.

You know how the 10 days went, that being nowhere. We heard nothing, and the mediator told the court no settlement. Upon receipt of the mediator's notice of impasse, I get a call from the lawyer. After hearing him whine about how unreasonable my client is, to which I laughed, I told him we were going to be taking all of our depositions in the next several weeks. And we did just that, completing all of our discovery, weeks ahead of schedule, and prepared to attend a conference where the court would set it for trial.

The Court asked, "are you ready for trial?" "No, said the defense lawyer, we have been unable to complete our discovery due to the lack of response we have been getting from the opposing attorney." The Court then said that he was tired of hearing about cat fights between lawyers and wondered why we all just can't suck it up and get along. My clients were furious and I needed a drink.

See the point: most of these defense attorneys ignore the substantive issue and just simply wait you out. And, boy, are they good at it. But in the end, we will win, and boy, will they pay.

Hiring a Lawyer - Part One: "Why are lawyers such horrible business people?"

2012-03-29T13:36:34Z

I received a Facebook note earlier today from a fraternity pledge brother of mine, from the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity at the University of Missouri. He was writing to me in frustration of the fact his lawyer never returns phone calls, shows up unprepared to meetings, and lacks a sense of purpose in his work. "Why," he asked, "are lawyers such horrible business people?"

My answer to this question will require two blog posts.

I've trained about 30 lawyers since I have been practicing law, with most of these in areas where there is a particular need for aptitude in the sciences (sinkholes, fire cause and origin, and personal injuries), in addition to good legal prowess. In interviewing lawyers, hiring them, and then watching them succeed (or not), I've learned all of these things matter little if the lawyer lacks one, essential skill:

Time management. It's that simple.

]]> You see, for most lawyers who defend cases, there are rarely incentives to do things quickly. They charge by the hour, and many times, they see no value in calling their clients to tell them bad news especially if their clients are insurance companies who are being told to pay their claims. I didn't see it that way, and was one of the few lawyers I knew that would pick up the phone after the initial intake of a new defense case (especially for first party cases in insurance on sinkhole claims) and say "Don't answer this lawsuit - pay them now." This saved everyone money, and gained me the trust of my clients.

Many times, after a case has been around for 2 years (not kidding), it does become apparent that the case is not going well because someone finally sat down and read the damn file. "Wow," the lawyer notes, "our client is screwed." Luckily for the lawyer, the client contact at the insurance company who hired him originally, who he told the case was "looking very defensible," no longer works there. The worst question a lawyer could ever hear after two years is "now that you are asking us to settle this case, what is it about it that changed, before you charged us thousands of dollars to defend it?" Yikes.

The only place where turnover is worse than insurance companies is at insurance defense law firms. In fact, some of the most common defense firms have to hire so frequently, they run nearly continuous advertisements for new lawyers. I was recently in a deposition where my opposing attorney on a million dollar lawyer had been licensed for 4 months, and at one point, become so frightened, he ran from the room into the bathroom. I can show you the deposition, where I asked him what loss of control he must have suffered, which he refused to answer.

Why do most of these bad habits get started? Other than the fact most lawyers have the attention spans of a gold fish, it is time management. Rather than stop what they are doing and sit down for a reasonable period of time to review their files to offer opinions, they waste time and delay the process. Then, after so much time passes, it behooves them to make it look like this was the plan, so the client does not fire them.

Insureds Should Demand Their Claims Go to Jury Trials

2012-03-12T15:47:15Z

The most common question I hear from my new clients relates to how the case will likely end. Will they see they have been sued, and decide to change course? Conversely, should I trust their threat that under circumstances will they pay our claim, even after we actually win at trial (Tower Hill does this)? When they say, "we will appeal," do they mean it, and if so, how does this look for us?

]]> The reality is, most insurance companies know they would never be able to try all of the cases they have now. Sure, many of them like to say "We should try more of these insurance cases to juries," reflecting a tacit belief they will prevail each time or most of the time. Sure, there are cases they may win, but could they really "try all of them?"

I am thinking this way because of an article I read today in the New York Times suggesting that more and more criminal defendants should demand trials and ignore attempts to plea bargain. Like in criminal cases, many insurers attempt to "claim bargain" with the threat that any attempt to obtain the true value of their insurance claim (for sinkhole damage, storm impact, or water loss) will be met with an aggressive stare into the abyss of the American judicial system.

I say try them all, and let the best claims win. If these carriers really believed they could handle the outcome of "trying more cases," maybe they would make smarter claim decisions. Maybe if they knew each bad decision would end up being evaluated by a jury, they would make choices where they truly balance the outcome. On the other isle, many less experienced insurance lawyers representing policyholders are now finding out that the insurance lawsuits they file are not easy money. How else would so many cases be taken, and so few tried?

In our office, we look for the legitimate claim, where we could try the case. Sometimes, this is hard because we know the insurance company is going to exploit some issue in the case, and never slow down. We commonly refer to this as "let the insurance companies play checkers, and we will play chess."

For a link to the article in the Times, you can click here.

Insureds Should Demand Their Claims Go to Jury Trials

2012-03-12T15:47:15Z

For a link to the article in the Times, you can click here.

Sinkhole Damage: How should the Insurance Company decide to "holdback" our subsurface money?

2012-02-17T14:23:08Z

The big win for the Insurance Lobby in 2005, which haunts them to this day, is the ability to not pay for sinkhole, subsurface repairs, until the insured enters into a contract and commences the repairs. Under current law, and most policies, an insurer will begin by conducting an investigation to determine whether there is damage consistent with sinkhole activity. If a subsequent investigation determines there is sinkhole activity as a concurrent cause of the damage, the insurance company must pay to stabilize the land and the foundation and pay for cosmetic repairs.

]]> This often throws my clients off because they get a check for the cosmetic damages before they even do the subsurface repairs. It makes no sense to conduct these above-ground repairs until you do the subsurface grouting and pinning. Why? Because the subsurface repair causes additional damage about 100 percent of the time. But, under the law written by the Insurance Lobby, "them's the rules."

As for subsurface repairs, the law says that the cost of the subsurface repairs, however, is not due until the insured (1) enters into a contract, and (2) commences the repairs. Despite representations to the contrary, the law (627.707(5)(a)) not not REQUIRE insurance companies to holdback the money. Instead, it merely says they "may" do this. At the same time, the insurers must take steps that are in the best interest of the insureds, and not put their own financial interests first. Here's the problem: when should they do this? Everytime? That's seems arbitrary because not all claims are created equal, and each insured has a different set of facts to consider. The statute provides no help at all, nor does the language in the policy. Instead, the law simply states "may" and the insurers and their insureds have to battle it out.

I am writing about this today because I met with an insured today and her family who are dealing with a very catastrophic family loss. Without any real detail, suffice to say that at the time of the claim, making her repair the house would not seem that unfair (maybe). But, since the claim was made and sinkhole activity confirmed, it is very clear to any reasonable person it would make no sense at all to force the repair, and this insured should be paid.

We are hoping that the insurance company makes the right choice. I am pretty sure this is not going to get resolved without a fight, but let's hope someone at that company has a heart and is actually interested in helping this family out.

If you have questions about this or any other insurance related issues, we are here to help. TC

Sinkhole Damage: Insurance Companies Using Holdbacks in Bad Faith (Part II)

2012-02-15T14:50:07Z

As noted in an earlier blog post, many insurance companies are using language included in the 2005 revisions to the sinkhole laws in bad faith. For example, merely because the revisions state that insurance companies "may" holdback subsurface repair money until it is incurred does not provide the insurance company the right to use this provision without considering the best interests of their insured. Although the law specifically requires insurance companies to consider the best interests of their insured as the guiding principle of all claim decisions, the insurance companies are actively, shamelessly abusing this right.

]]> For example, if you have a confirmed sinkhole where the damage is more than your policy limits, many insurance companies are attempting to "negotiate" your coverage. If the estimate comes from the engineering firm as being $100,000, you will get a letter that says the Insurance Company is holding back this money until you get a contract. Alternatively, the Insurance Company is telling you that they will pay you the subsurface, but only if you agree to "discount" the money due. They will pay you $80,000, in cash, but only if you sign a release to waive your coverage in the future and walk away from the remaining $20,000 you are contractually entitled to recover. This is bad faith as the Insurance Company is using their discretion to avoid paying you all you need to recover.

Either they don't know, or they don't care. Regardless, we do.

As someone who use to represent insurance companies for more than a decade before I gave up that practice to solely represent policyholders, I understand (generally) the frustration many insurers felt about bogus claims. However, in a situation like this, where an insured has a confirmed loss but the insurance company is "negotiating" rights under a contract, I scream foul.

If you have questions about any kind of sinkhole loss, or any other claim involving storm damage, fire, or otherwise, we are here to help. TC

Sinkhole Damage: Insurance Companies Using Holdbacks in Bad Faith

2012-02-10T18:18:51Z

After 2005, the law changed to permit insurance companies to "holdback" the cost of repairing the subsurface of a home (grouting, pinning, chemical grouting), until the insured enters into a contract and commences repairs (627.707(5)(a)). The focus on this language is the word "may" holdback, as some carriers are interpreting this language as "shall" holdback.

]]> Example: an insured files a sinkhole claim, which is confirmed by engineering firm ABC. ABC calculates the damage to the cosmetic portion at $35,000. Additionally, ABC states that the home requires both pinning and grouting, and estimates those costs at $100,000. The Insurance Company receives the estimates, pays $35,000, but refuses to pay the $100,000 until the repairs are completed.

Bad Faith Example Number 1: what if the home is only insured for $100,000? The home is now a total loss, yet the insurance company wants to hold back the money in the hopes the insured will never do the repairs and they get to keep their money. Although the statute says an insurer "may" holdback this money, it does not mean it can do so simply because it is in the insurer's best interests to do so. It would seem, reasonably, that it would not be in the best interests of the insured to holdback the money as the home is totaled.

More examples soon.

If you have this issue, there have been dramatic changes in the law over the past several months, and you should consider your options. If you have any questions, we may be able to help.

Insurance Inventory Claims: Check Your Inventory upon Renewal

2012-02-08T20:11:11Z

My wife loves jewelry. So much that we added a Personal Articles Policy, which permits you to obtain an appraisal and seek recovery in the event of loss, theft or damage. These policies are something that just about everyone should have, although most people believe these items (e.g. jewelry, computers, musical instruments) are ordinarily covered by their homeowners' policies. While this is true, they are, they are also subject to maximum recovery. Many policies place a cap of $5,000 for ALL jewelry, and if you live in most households, that wouldn't even scratch the surface.

]]> Having just celebrated our 10-year anniversary, I bought my wife and new ring (yes, very nice). This prompted me to ask our insurance agent (who is awesome) to provide me an inventory of the items we included. Most PAPs require you to provide a list in advance and to include an appraisal. I own a vintage 1968 Les Paul, and had to get an appraisal for it. If you don't have an appraisal, your loss will be limited to what you paid for the item, even if that was 10 years ago.

I am glad we asked for the inventory, as we discovered duplications (my watch was listed twice, and my wife's engagement ring was listed 3 times), and omissions as well. We were able to resolve the issues with our agent, and actually discovered we were entitled to a refund of portions of our premium. In response to our concerns, our agent acted quickly and professionally.

The morals to this story: (1) consider a Personal Articles Policy if you own any quantity of jewelry, computers, or other expensive personal items; (2) upon renewal of a PAP or any other insurance for that matter, ask for a copy of your policy and determine if it is accurate and complete; (3) buy your insurance from people, not from an (800) number you saw on television. Being proactive in your insurance products can save you money and a lot of headaches later.

Good luck, and let us know if you need our assistance. TC

Sinkhole Claims: Look for the Insurance Spin on Fraud Case

2012-02-07T17:10:42Z

The Insurance Lobby loves to talk about sinkhole fraud, because it allows the writing of fiction that sinkholes do not actually exist in Florida. Right. If there were never any sinkholes in Florida, why did you ever right the coverage for them - do you also sell "snipe" insurance?).

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_citrus_hernando/local-engineer-arrested-in-sinkhole-fraud-scheme

]]> In this story, we will be told by an insurance lobbyist that it "proves" that sinkhole repair companies are all frauds, and all investigations confirming sinkhole activity are a "hoax" (ask SDII Global, who had a seminar by the same title).

But this, like most sinkhole stories, is misleading to the consumer. There was no "sinkhole" fraud. Instead, the "fraud" was in the "permitting" of the repairs. The real story is that a contractor who did a bunch of unpermitted work hired an engineer to go backwards and file bogus permit applications. This is construction fraud, not sinkhole fraud, as the title to the article suggests.

As I have written about, and what you will read on www.sinkholedamageblog.com, you should do your homework on sinkhole repair contractors and confirm they are legitimate. Additionally, you should make sure that you retain a geotechnical engineer to properly supervise the project, which is paid for by the insurance company. Just like any other contractor, there are good, ethical contractors and otherwise.

If you need help with the selection of a qualified, sinkhole repair company either for grouting, pinning, chemical grouting, or other kind of subsidence repair method, you are free to call our office. We can refer you to contractors, with whom we have no financial relationship, who are bid for your business. TC

Tower Hill Select Starts to Crack on Defense

2012-02-06T15:16:39Z

Like USAA and others, Tower Hill took an aggressive, poorly planned strategy in evaluating its claims after last years overhaul of most sinkhole insurance laws. While Senate Bill 408 was signed into law on May 17, 2011, Tower Hill Select denied dozens (if not hundreds) of sinkhole claims, as it attempted to "retroactively" deny insurance benefits. Under established constitutional principles, no party to a contract can seek to force new terms and conditions after the contract (here, that's the policy) commenced.

]]> But, for reasons we are just starting to understand, Tower Hill Select took a position based upon a theory that the changes to the new law were meant to be "procedural" in nature, and not intended to cause substantive changes in an insured's coverage. Forget that under the new law, what had originally been considered covered was now excluded, which certainly appear to be substantive to me. At the same time, when working with Tower Hill Select insureds, we have been told by the long list of law firms that Tower Hill Select and its related companies are "in for the long hall," with the intention of "killing the sinkhole beast and waiting out the policyholder firms." Sometimes being right isn't enough, but must also consider the possibility of an insurer who is willing to throw millions of dollars at costs and fees to deter valid claims.

Our dillegence appears to be working. Yesterday, I received call a Tower Hill Select defense attorney who conceded that Tower Hill Select had not properly evaluated the mandates of the law and its policies, and was blown out by a decision rendered in December 2011 on this issue by Judge Whittemore (see earlier post on the Bay Farms decision). In true form, however, while this firm is telling us Tower Hill Select is having a change of heart, many other lawyers on several other cases remain quiet, hoping that maybe will go away (trust me, we aren't).

For those of you who are on staff at Tower Hill Select, I hope you reconsider your position, stop delaying your payments, and are preparing for your depositions in the multiparty, bad faith suit we are going to file against your company.

See you soon, Tower Hill Select. Get some rest, as you are going to need it. TC

Supreme Court Reverses Defense Verdict in Sinkhole Case

2012-01-26T20:12:21Z

The Supreme Court today ruled that a trial court erred in permitting a defense attorney to argue an insured had a duty to prove sinkhole activity was the case of the damage. In a case styled Universal Insurance Company of North America v. Warfel, the Supreme Court ruled that the insurance company was responsible to disprove the presence of sinkhole activity. At the trial court level, the defense attorney argued that the jury should "presume" the findings of the insurance company engineer to be correct. This argument arose from language adopted by the State in the changes to the law in 2005. Although this interpretation flew in the face of decades of legal precedent, the court permitted the defense attorney to make this argument based upon the limited statement contained in the statute. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled that while the statute stated that the findings were to be deemed "correct," this was for purposes of claim evaluation and nothing more. This presumption would essentially "burst" once the case proceeded to trial.

]]> Consumer advocates had argued that to permit such a finding would encourage incomplete or shoddy work by consulting engineers, who could look to the statement in the statute to protect their insurance clients from allegations of bad faith. For your convenience, a copy of the opinion is available here.

Great work to the lawyers involved. TC