Insurance News You Can Use

Welp folks this Cowboy don't know what to make of ole Chaney. One day he campaign promisin' to make the insurance commissioner appointed then after he wins he says he wasn't going to fight for that in the legislature since it was just his personal opinion. A couple weeks back he says rates is goin' up and now he says rates is goin' down. Maybe one of the others can make sense of this Sun Herald story for me.

Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney told members of the Biloxi Businessmen's Club on Thursday he hopes to lower residential rates in the state wind pool by at least 10 percent.

Chaney said he would like to see a decrease of up to 40 percent in rates for the coverage offered by South Mississippi's wind insurance company of last resort, but doesn't know if that's possible. The wind pool is shopping for reinsurance, which would help cover its losses in case of a disaster. Chaney will be transferring $40 million to the pool between now and July to help pay for the coverage.

With reinsurance rates going down, the hope is wind pool rates also can be lowered.

Wind pool rates increased 90 percent for homeowners in October 2006 because of Hurricane Katrina. On the Coast, insurance companies also stopped offering new customers homeowner insurance that included wind coverage and in some cases cancelled policies at renewal time.

Chaney said the Coast is probably one of the "most profitable markets" for insurance companies that offer policies without wind coverage because the risk of ice storms and tornadoes, which their policies do cover, is relatively low.

A day earlier, Chaney had announced Aegis Security Insurance Co. would resume offering new policies in Mississippi, but it turns out the company will offer wind coverage only as far south as George, Stone and Pearl River counties.

In other news the leader of the Diamondhead Slingshot Group has finally settled out with them crooks at State Farm. It only took 30 months and bringin' in a lawyer to get them Gucci suit wearin' crooks to experience a come to Jesus moment and honor their obligations. Havin' to fight your insurance company tooth and nail is the new fangled way of doin' business. Besides them executives and their yearly bonuses the other folks I see benefitin' from the current system is the lawyers. Here is the Anita Lee story:

A Diamondhead homeowner who rallied policyholders to fight for payment of their Katrina claims has settled her lawsuit with State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.

Notice of the settlement was filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Gulfport. Terms were undisclosed.

Kenneth and Judy Dutruch sued State Farm in June 2007. They accused the company of breaching its contract to cover Katrina damage to the couple's vacation home and sought punitive damages for denial of their claim.

Judy Dutruch has told the Sun Herald in previous interviews State Farm refused to consider evidence of wind damage to the couple's South Diamondhead home off the Bay of St. Louis. State Farm sent experts to examine the property only after the Merlin Law Group filed the lawsuit on the Dutruchs' behalf.

Experts hired by the Dutruchs, including a forensic arborist, concluded their home suffered extensive wind damage - covered under their State Farm policy. State Farm concluded storm surge, excluded from coverage, destroyed the home.

As a result of widespread denials by State Farm and other major insurance companies, Judy Dutruch formed the Slingshot Gang in Diamondhead to unite waterfront homeowners. They pooled money to pay for expert reports, shared information and provided moral support to one another.

Many members of the group have settled their claims, but the Slingshots agreed not to disband until all claims were resolved.

As part of the settlement, both sides agreed not to disclose the terms. In fact, they could say little more than they were "pleased."

Judy Dutruch added, "We are certainly glad that it is all over and we can now start thinking about future plans of rebuilding."

A State Farm spokesman said, "We're pleased to have resolved our differences with Mrs. Dutruch."

Nationwide on Your Side? Nope

Any company that would screw an old lady certainly has no problems messin' with younger folks. Keep that chair pulled up as these videos illustrate why folks like Senator Chris Dodd and Richard Shelby live by "Show me the Money". If you is common folk and got no money then you don't count like their friends in big insurance.

Bad Faith Insurance Bible: Screw the Common Man

This Cowboy has told ayone who would listen how big insurance companies intentionally screw their customers to save a buck to pay for some obscene executive bonus. Ole Michael Sasso over Tampa Tribune way tells the story of Allstate and what they is hidin' from them insurance boys in Florida. Pull up a chair and learn more:

Secretive Allstate File Could Show 'Bad Faith'

By MICHAEL SASSO, The Tampa Tribune

TAMPA - Behind the fight between Florida's insurance commissioner and Allstate Insurance Co. is a mystery that could have come from a John Grisham novel.

Secret Allstate documents - known as the McKinsey documents - allegedly show how the insurance giant intentionally has made low-ball claims offers to its customers for years, netting Allstate billions of dollars in the process.

But the McKinsey documents have never seen the light of day.

Trial lawyers who have sued Allstate in recent years have eagerly sought them, and Allstate reluctantly has turned them over to lawyers under subpoena. However, each time a judge has prohibited lawyers from distributing them to the media and the public under a protective order.

Florida now is demanding the documents from Allstate and other insurers in a broad-based investigation of the companies' business practices, including alleged collusion with other insurers and their claims handling procedures. The issue came to a head last week, when Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty suspended Allstate's right to issue new insurance policies in Florida. A judge later lifted McCarty's suspension.

Allstate spokesman Mike Siemienas said the company intends to turn over the documents, but Florida might not find them all that revealing. The McKinsey documents at issue concern auto insurance - not the hot-button issue of homeowners insurance. Some of the strategies laid out in the documents were just ideas and never became Allstate policy, Siemienas said.

Still, Whitney Buchanan, an Albuquerque, N.M., trial lawyer who has seen the elusive documents, said that if Florida's insurance commissioner receives them, they could go a long way to showing that Allstate has not been playing fair.

"These documents are devastating to them in bad faith litigation," Buchanan said.

The McKinsey documents were drafted in the early 1990s, when Allstate hired the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. to review its business practices. Some of McKinsey's ideas became company practice, said David Berardinelli, a Santa Fe, N.M., trial lawyer who has sued Allstate on occasion.

In the course of one 2001 lawsuit, a judge ordered Allstate to give Berardinelli the McKinsey documents for a short period. The documents bore a watermark that prevented them from being reproduced, but the lawyer took numerous pages of notes on what he saw. He later turned those notes into a book called "From Good Hands to Boxing Gloves," which is marketed only to lawyers.

File Explains 'Fast Track' Strategy

One of Allstate's strategies: a "fast-track" settlement offer. Berardinelli claims the documents reveal how Allstate would offer insurance claimants an extremely low offer during the first 90 days after an auto accident. During these initial 90 days people are the most in need of money and most likely to accept a low-ball offer, Berardinelli said. Allstate claims adjusters were expected to persuade a certain percentage of customers to accept these fast-track offers, Berardinelli said.

Overall, Allstate tried to standardize the claims process, by using computer models that offered low-ball estimates of the value of a person's claim, Berardinelli said.

"They are charging people for coverage that they're never going to get," said Berardinelli, who has teamed up with Buchanan on occasion to sue Allstate. "That is fraud."

Siemienas, the Allstate spokesman, said Allstate investigates the merits of each insurance claim and bases its payouts on its investigation. It has no such standardized approach to payouts, he said.

Word of the McKinsey documents' existence spread among trial lawyers, and soon other lawyers began subpoenaing them from Allstate for their own insurance lawsuits.

Although some lawyers have received them, Allstate has gone to great lengths to prevent their dissemination to the public or the media. Four trial lawyers reached this week all said they are unable to give the documents to anyone else because of a protective order from the court.

Siemienas said Allstate seeks court orders because the documents contain trade secrets that could benefit Allstate's competitors if they were released.

In an ongoing Missouri case, a judge has ordered Allstate to turn over the documents to an attorney without benefit of the court order. But Allstate has refused, causing the judge to fine the company $25,000 a day until the company turns over the McKinsey papers to the attorney.

Allstate's fine in the Missouri case has grown to $2.4 million, according to new documents from the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, which is watching the Missouri case. Rich Halberg, a spokesman for Allstate, acknowledged that there is a court order to produce the documents, but he said the judge hasn't enforced it and that Allstate hasn't incurred a fine.

What the documents mean - and how Florida's insurance commissioner might use them - is debatable.

2nd File Deals With Homeowners Policies

The McKinsey documents that have raised such a fuss nationwide were developed for auto accident cases, Halberg said. They don't relate to homeowners insurance, which has become such a major issue in Florida in recent years, he said. McKinsey & Co. created other documents for Allstate involving homeowners insurance, Halberg said, but they are not the documents that lawyers have targeted.

A spokesman for McKinsey, Mark Garrett, said in a telephone voice mail that McKinsey does not comment on matters relating to its clients.

Trial lawyers say the documents have become hot property in both auto and property insurance lawsuits.

William "Chip" Merlin, a Tampa trial lawyer, said he has subpoenaed the documents from Allstate on several occasions, and they have helped him secure settlements from the insurer on behalf of clients in auto and homeowners cases. The documents can show juries that a customer's insurance claim wasn't handled properly and that Allstate tried to keep unhappy customers from hiring attorneys, Merlin said.

Buchanan, the Albuquerque lawyer, said the documents helped him secure settlements from Allstate, too.

Still, Merlin said the documents alone aren't enough to win a lawsuit against Allstate.

In Lexington, Ky., trial lawyer Dale Golden subpoenaed Allstate for the documents and filed a class-action lawsuit against the company on behalf of auto accident victims. Even though he had the supposedly damning documents, a judge declined to make the lawsuit a class action, meaning he could not represent a wide group of people. Golden also later lost the case when he brought it on behalf of a single client.

Golden said he is appealing. He said the length to which Allstate has gone to prevent public disclosure shows how damaging they are.

"What else is Allstate hiding?" Golden asked.

Breaking News: Hood Fires Back

Jim Hood has made the news today with his Friday court filings in response to State Farm trying to prevent a new grand jury from looking into alleged wrong doings on their part in how Katria claims were adjusted here on the coast. I write this post with a heavy heart as we have just learned of Jody Compretta's untimely passing in a parade accident last night in New Orleans. Our thoughts and prayers are with JP and his family.

The AP story:

A lawsuit filed by State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. that accuses Attorney General Jim Hood of using the threat of criminal charges to force settlements in civil lawsuits is based on "lies, speculation, and innuendo," Hood said in court papers.

State Farm sued Hood in September, claiming he violated his part of a January 2007 settlement in which the attorney general's office agreed to end its criminal investigation over the company's handling of Hurricane Katrina claims. A judge ordered Hood to temporarily shut down the probe.

The accusations in court documents have intensified over the past week as both sides prepare for a hearing on Wednesday.

"Before allowing State Farm to use this court as a three ring circus to parade its inflammatory evidentiary rhetoric of innuendo, guilt by association, and smears, there should be some factual basis alleged to support a conclusion of retaliation and/or harassment," Hood said in papers filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Jackson.

Jonathan Freed, a State Farm spokesman told The Associated Press on Friday, that the insurer is ready to "proceed with our case and we're looking forward to airing these issues in court."

Hood asked the court to dissolve the restraining order and allow him to resume his investigation. Hood's 19-page filing came just days after State Farm used some of the strongest language yet in accusing the second-term attorney general of wrongdoing.

The company claimed Hood and wealthy plaintiffs attorney Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, who is facing corruption and contempt charges in other cases, participated in an "extortion conspiracy" by trying to force the company to settle civil litigation with private attorneys.

The court battle heated up when State Farm began urging a judge to allow the company to question Scruggs under oath. Hood has called Scruggs his "confidential informant" and has said Scruggs provided allegedly incriminating information about State Farm."

General Hood is clearly concerned that his co-conspirator will either tell the truth or invoke the Fifth Amendment on specific questions related to their extortion conspiracy," State Farm said in a motion filed Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Michael P. Mills on Friday ordered Scruggs to submit to the questioning by 5 p.m. Monday. Scruggs will likely invoke his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination when questioned because of the pending charges against him.

Scruggs, one of the most influential plaintiffs lawyers in the country, is facing federal charges that he conspired with several associates to bribe a judge in an unrelated dispute over $26.5 million in fees from a mass settlement of Katrina claims. He's facing contempt charges in Alabama for allegedly violating a federal judge's order by giving leaked Katrina assessment documents to Hood rather than returning them to the company from which they were taken.

Scruggs has denied wrongdoing in either case. Scruggs is not a party to the lawsuit State Farm filed against Hood, but the company claims he worked in collusion with Hood.

The January 2007 agreement that State Farm claims Hood violated by resuming a criminal investigation was part of a broader settlement that called for State Farm to reopen and possibly pay thousands of policyholder claims. However, a federal judge refused to sign off the terms of deal and State Farm later entered into another agreement with George Dale, who was then Mississippi's Insurance Commissioner.

In August 2007, State Farm received a new subpoena for records from a grand jury. Less than a month later, the company sued Hood in an effort to stop the grand jury's investigation.Hood claims he wasn't reopening the same investigation, rather he was probing new claims.Hood has argued that he never provided "blanket immunity" from future investigations.

Washington State Voters Say No to Big Insurance and Yes to Ending Institutionalized Claims Abuse

This past November, despite insurance companies spending millions on the election, Washington State Votes passed the "Insurance Fair Conduct Act" which allows for treble damages against insurance companies that treat their customers in bad faith. Predictably the insurers played from the old script of threatening higher rates if they were forced to behave responsibly. Not as predictable were the voters that ratified the law, evidently tired of being mistreated by insurance companies.

"Companies (that) act in good faith are not going to have a problem, its not going to cost any more money , its not going to be any legal action and its not going to cost them treble damages because if companies deal with their customers in good faith, there is no penalty." said Mike Kreidler, Washington State Insurance Commissioner when interviewed about Washington State Fair Claims Act.

Why would any business be against treating it's customers fairly? One look at the profit made from institutionalized customer/claimant abuse reveals the answer.

Anderson Cooper has reported on the issue of insurance bad faith repeatedly since Hurricane Katrina, possibly because he was moved by the treatement of ordinary men and women here in Mississippi by their insurers after the storm. The following video clip is from a report on CNN on the Washington State Vote and is well worth watching. Enjoy.

sop

Shareholders strike back: McKinsey Not Good for Owners

We note with some disappointment that Cowboy's efforts to enlist the help of another insurance law blogger with a case document went unanswered but in this day and age of the internet even non legal lay people can come by case documents. Such is the case in Fojas v. Ackerman et al and Allstate Corporation, a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed January 18, 2008. This news broke on the Allstate Message Board at Yahoo Finance where the authors of this blog have become board regulars telling our story of insurance bad faith and was confirmed yesterday evening by Forrestgrump55i, an ally in this battle between ordinary citizens and the insurance giants.

The suit contains a well written account of the institutionalization of claimant abuse as part of the big insurance business model:

In 1992, Allstate hired McKinsey & Co. (“McKinsey”), a global management consulting company which assists corporate executives in identifying ways to improve the performance of the company, to “redesign” Allstate’s claims handling procedures. The “new” claims handling procedure was implemented by Allstate in 1995. According to the McKinsey reports, the claims handling procedure would increase Allstate’s stock price and add $700 million to Allstate’s revenue.

The engagement of McKinsey lasted approximately five years, during which time McKinsey constantly updated Allstate management in reports and power-point presentations (“McKinsey reports”). Certain of the McKinsey reports came to light in Geneva Hager v. Allstate Ins. Co., 98-cl-2482, Fayette Circuit Court Kentucky, a civil action filed by an Allstate policyholder against the Company alleging bad faith claims handling. During the trial in October, 2007, the plaintiff’s lawyer outlined how the McKinsey reports essentially detail a course of action designed to avoid paying claims, and when claims were paid - - pay less.

According to a July 9, 2006 article in the Lexington Herald-Leader, the McKinsey reports were obtained by lawyers in several additional civil cases, but were all subject to protective orders, until a bad faith claim was asserted in New Mexico (“New Mexico litigation”). In the New Mexico litigation, the plaintiff’s attorney refused to consent to a protective order. Allstate argued that the McKinsey reports were trade secrets, and appealed the trial court’s findings that they did not constitute trade secrets. Following the unsuccessful appeal on that order two years later, Allstate refused to turn over the McKinsey reports, leading to the entry of a default judgment against Allstate, which again Allstate appealed.

In the Hager litigation, the judge ruled in 2001 that the McKinsey reports were not trade secrets; in order to avoid the inevitable appeal, however, the parties agreed to treat the documents confidential to keep the litigation proceeding. Eventually, certain pages of the McKinsey report were made public during the October 2007 trial, but the majority remains confidential.

Allstate continues to attempt to maintain the confidentiality of the McKinsey reports, no matter what effect it has on the Company, its reputation or its finances.

In a September 12, 2007 order entered in an action styled Dale Deer v. Allstate Ins. Co., Case No. 0516-CV24031, Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, Allstate failed to respond to an Order to Show Cause issued to address, in part, Allstate’s prior violations of two court orders requiring responses to discovery, and was found in civil contempt of court. The court ordered Allstate to pay $25,000 per day beginning September 14, 2007 until the discovery sought was produced. Allstate instead appealed, and the appeal is pending. If penalties accrue to date, Allstate would be faced with sanctions of approximately $3 million at this juncture.

This suit represents an important new front in this battle of profits and corporate greed over people. Settling claims should not be a game of low ball and hard ball; rather claims should be adjusted fairly to the proper amount.

sop

Aiken v USAA: Rimkus Gets a Free Pass

Rimkus skates because they were not hired by the Aiken's according to a ruling yesterday in Aiken v USAA. I will certainly remember Judge Senter's ruling letting Rimkus off the hook next time one of my colleagues is hit with a malpractice suit by a third party over an audit report. On it's face this decision means its open season on us consumers by the hired guns of big insurance since they appear "not accountable" for their work product to third parties.

Rimkus and James W. Jordan had a contract with USAA to adjust the claim, notwith the Aikens. As a result, Rimkus did not have a duty under Mississippi law to deal fairly and in good faith with the Aikens, as does USAA. The insurance policy USAA provided the Aikens is considered a contract.

Even if the Aiken's prevail in their suit monetarily this will be a loss for the greater cause of fairness in claims adjusting so long dominated by claimant abuse since the McKinsey recommendations were adopted as the new gold standard by the insurance industry.

In any event today's Sun Herald story.

Judge dismisses Rimkus from USAA suit

Senter said there was no proof of gross negligence
By ANITA LEE

GULFPORT --Insufficient evidence of gross negligence and fraud led a judge to dismiss Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. and a company engineer from an insurance lawsuit after the policyholders' case was presented to a jury in U.S. District Court.

USAA Casualty Insurance Co. hired Rimkus to inspect the Pass Christian vacation home of David W. and Marilyn M. Aiken, which was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. USAA is still presenting its arguments, and the case could go to the jury as early as today.

Rimkus and James W. Jordan had a contract with USAA to adjust the claim, not with the Aikens. As a result, Rimkus did not have a duty under Mississippi law to deal fairly and in good faith with the Aikens, as does USAA. The insurance policy USAA provided the Aikens is considered a contract.

The Aikens maintain USAA ordered an engineering report that would minimize wind damage to their property, insured for more than $680,000. USAA paid them $178,205 for wind damage. They received maximum benefits of $278,000 for damage from tidal surge under a federal flood insurance policy. USAA also adjusted the flood claim.

U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. noted the Aikens accepted the flood insurance money even though they contend a tornado destroyed their vacation home and boat house before Katrina moved ashore.

"At most, the evidence against Rimkus and Jordan would support no more than a finding of simple negligence in the investigation of the claim," Senter said in dismissing them from the case. "The testimony and evidence are not sufficient to support a finding that these defendants handled this matter in a grossly negligent or wanton matter with malice or with reckless disregard for the rights of the insureds."

A report Rimkus sent USAA in December 2005 concluded Katrina's wind or water was sufficient to destroy the house and boat house, saying the percentage of damage wind caused before the storm surge arrived could not be determined.

At USAA's request, Rimkus issued a supplemental report in March 2006 that detailed construction components wind could have destroyed before tidal surge destroyed the building superstructures. USAA based its payment to the Aikens on the March report. Rimkus and USAA witnesses said the supplemental report was meant to clarify how much the Aikens were owed, not to deny coverage.

Pink Pig: How Insurance Crooks View You the Customer/Claimant

Folks this Cowboy has been educatin' the public for almost a year now on how these fancy insurance crooks masqueradin' as honest businessmen screw the public. Welp folks, nothing says how these miscreants view their own customers better than their own words. In today's installment of "As the Pink Pig Turns" we hear how a insurance company was actually proud of screwin' their customers, including a man so badly injured in a car accident he couldn't work for a year yet these crooks wouldn't give him anything. He had to sue and the rest is history. For Nick Peressini Pink Pigs do fly. But what about the countless untold others - the 80-90% that just take their screwin' from Big Insurance unable to fight back?

Here is some deposition quotes from one of them crooks. Though he admits he done wrong he is still ain't sorry for what he done.

In the deposition video, it is clear that Scott is not sorry for how Peressini's claim was handled.

Livingston: "For each one of those months, April through October, you violated the regulation, correct?"
Scott: "Yes."
Livingston: "And that wasn't fair to Mr. Peressini, was it?"
Scott: "No."
Livingston: "So you think she's lying under oath about what she did, or do you think maybe you ought to accept what she said under oath and apologize to this guy?"
Scott: "I'm not going to apologize."
Livingston: "Why not?"
Scott: "'Cause I'm not going to."
Livingston: "Why not?"
Scott: "'Cause I'm not going to.

So there you have it folks, these insurance claims adjustin' crooks think you are a rube, a conquest, another notch on their belt buckle on their way to collectin' their big fat Christmas bonus and they don't care if they cheat you. It makes this Cowboy sick to his stomach! Pull up a chair and watch the news story embedded on the web page courtesy of 7news Denver.

We're all supposed to have insurance and at one time we will all likely need to file a claim. Ever wonder how the companies decide what to pay and when to pay?

7NEWS looked into a company's practice that the state's insurance commissioner calls "inappropriate and unprofessional conduct."

The company, American Family Insurance, said it's done nothing wrong

But a Boulder jury said there was something wrong and handed down a $3 million verdict against American Family Insurance.

AIken v USAA Continues: More Employees Take the Stand

Yesterday the trial resumed after the holiday break with Rimkus and USAA employees taking the witness stand. From the looks of the Sun Herald story, yesterday was not very eventful as employees from Rimkus and USAA took the stand to deny the engineering reports were changed simply to save USAA money. Given what we have found regarding the McKinsey consulting recommendations regarding claims handling and its apparent widespread use across the insurance industry as the new claims adjusting bible I have a hard time believing those statements. This would never come out in Court but I'd love to see if just one of these altered engineering reports resulted in a favorable change for the claimant/insured. Forgive the sarcasm but I suspect if such were the case pink pigs really do fly.....

sop

USAA employees testify in case
By ANITA LEE calee@sunherald.com

GULFPORT --Employees testified that USAA Casualty Insurance Co. did not conspire with engineering firm Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. to deny coverage to a couple after Hurricane Katrina.

"Absolutely not," said Rimkus manager Paul Colman, whose denial was echoed by two USAA claims managers testifying in the second week of the U.S. District Court trial.

The three were called to the stand Tuesday by the plaintiffs' attorneys, who are trying to prove USAA pressured Rimkus to change reports that would minimize what the company owed for wind damage.

USAA paid David W. and Marilyn M. Aiken $178,205 for wind damage on a policy that exceeded $680,000 in coverage for their Pass Christian vacation home. The Metairie couple is seeking full coverage, plus punitive damages based on the allegation their claim was denied in bad faith.

USAA employee William McNamara, who supervises adjusters and coordinated work by engineering firms after Katrina, testified Tuesday afternoon. He said Rimkus provided reports for USAA on 200 properties. McNamara also verified he called Rimkus to request its engineering report on the damage be corrected and include more detail.

McNamara said he was not attempting to change the engineering company's opinion about the cause of damage. Instead, he said, USAA needed the wind damage detailed in order to estimate what the Aikens were owed.

Rimkus had closed the file in December, after sending USAA a report that said, in part: "It cannot be visually determined from the remaining physical evidence the percentage of damage resulting from surge forces and the percentage of damage resulting from wind forces." Federal flood insurance covered the Aiken's damage from storm surge, paying them policy limits of $250,000 - less than half the home's value.

A day after McNamara contacted Rimkus in March 2006, the engineering firm sent USAA a "supplemental report" that listed construction components most likely damaged by wind, including gutters, the roof, siding and trim. The supplemental findings also said a storm surge of 20 feet above ground, excluding waves, destroyed building super- structures.

Bad Faith Claims Handling: The New Norm for Big Insurance

Folks we got sold a pig in the poke with tort reform as our legislators just give them crooks in Gucci suits a bigger club to hit the common man right in the head. That's right boys and girls, insurance companies will deny legitimate claims knowing most folks won't fight 'em but occasionally people do like this Tow Truck outfit. So pop some pop corn, pull up a chair and see if Pink Pigs Fly. This video is dedicated to this Cowboy's favorite corporate insurance lawyer in Portland Oregon, Mr. David Rossmiller.









Like this story says and Sop can personally vouch, there is no dollar amount too low for these crooks to try and screw you. And don't you know that corporate insurance lawyers love making big fat fees fightin' for a year over $3000. If you want to be paid fair like, be prepared to sue!