Have you ever had a questionable or unfair insurance claim settlement in Texas? If so, you may be able to challenge the decision with the help of the bad faith insurance claim lawyers of Millin & Millin.
One party that can be held legally liable for an act of insurance bad faith is the insurance adjuster who handled your claim.
Many people are unaware that insurance claim adjusters — who investigate cases on behalf of the insurance company— can face civil lawsuits in Texas for errors and omissions (E&O) whether they are company, independent or public adjusters. Our bad faith insurance insurance lawyers can determine whether the insurance adjuster lived up to their duties and obligations as fiduciaries under the Texas Insurance Code.
Unfortunately, adjusters are sometimes sued unnecessarily either to pressure them to implicate the insurance company’s policy or to defeat diversity jurisdiction (keeping the case out of federal court).
Such cases are usually clear-cut and only result in wasted time and money for everyone involved.
A 2018 Insurance Litigation Report on 93,000 federal district court coverage cases between 2009 and 2017 found that in cases involving bad faith claims, approximately 90% found no bad faith on the part of the insurer, though most of these were resolved by summary judgment – when taken to trial, bad faith findings were closer to evenly split.
To bring a successful civil lawsuit against adjusters in Texas, there must be clear facts and evidence or at least red flags that the adjuster has acted in bad faith, either on their own initiative or on behalf of the insurance provider. Some examples of bad faith acts done by an insurance adjuster include:
Insurance claim adjusters are not neutral third-parties acting on behalf of a corporation that bears all the risk and blame – adjusters have multiple duties under the Texas Insurance Code and can be sued individually or jointly in bad faith cases. These duties include accurately representing facts and policy provisions to both parties (policyholder and insurance company), providing a reasonable explanation for a denied claim or settlement offer, and conducting a reasonable investigation prior to denying a claim.
Having a contractual obligation to the insurance company is not an excuse that adjusters can use to justify unfair decisions or deceptive practices.
Bad faith claims are often successfully prosecuted in cases of property damage or auto accidents where there is personal injury or even death (frequently involving payouts due to uninsured motorists). If you believe you have been the victim of a questionable or inequitable insurance claim settlement, contact a bad faith insurance claim lawyer as soon as possible to hold the adjuster and/or insurance provider responsible.
Workers’ compensation is a form of insurance that allows for employees to seek out wage replacement and medical benefits in the case that they are injured or harmed in any manner while performing their work duties.
Every state has its own conditions and requirements for employees who are attempting to file for these benefits. If you are going to file for workers’ compensation in Texas, you’ll want to review all information available to you on the Texas Department of Insurance website.
You’ll be able to find guidance on how to seek workers compensation as well as the forms necessary to file a claim.
Alongside understanding the process of what to do when attempting to secure workers’ compensation, you’ll also want to know what NOT to do. Your bad faith insurance lawyers at Millin & Millin would like to share a bit of information regarding filing a workers’ compensation claim so that you can begin the process of healing and recovery.
If you wish to receive treatment, compensation, and benefits for your work-related injury, beware these common mistakes.
1. Not knowing if your employer has workers’ compensation insurance.
Although it is required by many states, in Texas, employers have the ability to opt-out of obtaining workers’ compensation, except if they are public employers or if they fall under special categories.
It is necessary for employers who choose not to obtain coverage to notify the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) and to ensure all employees are well-informed about the lack of workers’ compensation. However, employers who fail to obtain workers’ compensation insurance (also known as nonsubscribers), are liable for workplace injuries and illnesses. If sued, nonsubscribing businesses cannot argue that:
Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the injury, you should know whether or not you are protected by workers’ compensation insurance or if you will have to seek out another legal route to obtain compensation for your injury.
2. Reporting your injury too late.
If you have suffered an injury while on the job, you should report the incident to a supervisor or manager immediately. Generally, accident policies - which contain information on who needs to be notified of your injury - can often be found in the company’s employee manual.
If your company does not have an accident policy, it is best to inform multiple parties about what has happened. This includes your manager, supervisor, co-workers, and also those in Human Resources.
Often employees cannot file for workers’ compensation because they failed to notify their employer within an appropriate time frame. The longer you wait to notify your employer, the more challenging it becomes to prove that the injury happened at work and not on your own personal time.
You should be aware that the law generally requires you submit a written notice to your employer within 30 days of the injury. Although this is several weeks worth of time, you should not wait the entire duration as it may raise red flags.
3. Missing the deadline to file a DWC Form-041.
Once you have reported your injury to your employer, the next important action to take is to file a workers’ compensation claim for a work-related injury or occupational disease.
You can file with the DWC online or in person, but you only have a year after the injury to do so. The organization will gather information concerning your work situation, injury, and status. You may then follow up with the Office of Injured Employee Counsel.
Missing the deadline can impact your ability to obtain benefits or how much you can collect. Make sure to file the DWC Form-041 as soon as you report your injury to your employer.
4. Not Receiving Medical Treatment
It is essential that you seek medical treatment for your work-related injury in order to receive compensation or benefits. Failure to describe all work-related injuries or be truthful with any medical professional providing you treatment can harm your claim and ability to secure benefits.
The employer or insurance will generally appoint you to a company medical provider. Even if you choose to get a second opinion, you must attend these initial appointments to assess work-related injuries.
Additionally, if you begin to obtain workers compensation benefits, but fail to attend sessions with appointed medical providers, benefits can be terminated.
Even employers that do have Texas workers’ compensation insurance may try to opt-out of giving you these benefits, try to deny your claim, or act in an unfair manner.
A class-action lawsuit filed in 2012 has finally been settled with a big name in the insurance industry having to pay out those they have wronged.
State Farm has gathered the attention of the public eye recently when they settled a class-action lawsuit for $250 million. It was claimed that the company tried to defraud 4.7 million past and current customers out of $1.05 billion that was rightfully owed to them.
Trust your bad faith insurance attorneys at Millin & Millin to stay up-to-date on major insurance news in order to deliver top-quality representation designed to get you the compensation you deserve.
The alleged debacle originally began more than 20 years ago, specifically, in 1997. The lawsuit at that time claimed that State Farm did not pay for original parts when vehicles insured by them were repaired.
In 1999, a Williamson County jury and judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them $456.6 million in damages for breach of contract, another $600 million in punitive damages against State Farm for violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and disgorgement damages totaling around $130 million. Not long after, an appeals court scratched out the disgorgement damages.
State Farm insurance would go on to appeal the judge’s original ruling and the lawsuit stayed in a legislative limbo of sorts within the Illinois Supreme Court. It was then alleged that State Farm had violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act) by funneling money through several advocacy groups to certain political figures within the Illinois Supreme Court with the goal of keeping their donor list anonymous.
By keeping the donor list anonymous, this allegedly enabled State Farm to funnel more than $4 million in aid to the campaign of then-candidate, Lloyd Karmeier, back in 2004, who was running for the Illinois Supreme Court.
Karmeier would go on to win, and a mere 9 months after his election, he overturned the judgment on the original class-action lawsuit from 1999.
After a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that stated that a different West Virginia judge should have recused himself in a somewhat similar situation, blood—figuratively speaking—began to churn in the legislative waters, attracting plaintiffs and lawyers alike to investigate this ordeal.
In 2012, a federal racketeering lawsuit was filed.
The amount recently awarded, $250 million, was calculated to include the costs of administering the settlement, lawyers’ fees, and other costs.
The settlement also covered those from the original class-action lawsuit that were insured by and had filed an accident claim through State Farm and were given—or paid for the value of—a non-factory authorized or original part when their vehicle was repaired between July 28, 1987, to February 24, 1998.
It is important to note, however, that even though State Farm settled, they are not admitting guilt.
Every day, millions of people place their trust in the hands of their insurance companies, hoping that one day, should they need them, they will have their back.
The reality is, however, that sometimes insurance companies will put their profits over your best interests, and if that happens, you need the best bad faith insurance attorney. You need the expertise of Millin & Millin.
Contact us at (956) 631-5600 for your free case evaluation today.
It’s a story we’ve heard told over and over again, but still, it remains a seemingly consistent worry in the minds of the insured.
All across the nation, upstanding and responsible individuals are paying their insurance premiums on time. They are working hard and making sure that they handle their financial obligations. Suddenly, tragedy strikes. An injury at work. An accident on the road. A natural disaster that destroys their home.
It’s moments like this when they face some of their biggest challenges in life that they need support and protection the most. They turn to their insurer, expecting their company to be there. You should expect your insurer to honor their responsibility when you keep yours.
But that isn’t always the case, and a recent investigation into insurance giant Aetna proves just that.
Your bad faith insurance attorneys at Millin & Millin have represented hundreds of individuals and businesses confronted with their insurers acting in bad faith. When profit comes before a client, your team at Millin & Millin is there to make sure you obtain the benefits and compensation that are rightfully yours.
In February 2018, a shocking discovery first reported by CNN revealed a 2016 videotaped deposition of Dr. Jay Ken Iinuma, former Medical Director for Aetna in Southern California from 2012 to 2015, admitting under oath that he never looked at patients’ medical records when deciding whether to deny or approve their coverage. Instead, Iimuma claimed that he was simply following Aetna’s protocols and was making his decisions based on what nurses recommended to him.
As the third-largest insurance company in the United States with over 23 million clients, this horrific admission has made quite a wave in the news and with lawmakers.
Iinuma made these statements in a courtroom appearance for a lawsuit filed by Gillen Washington in 2016. Washington sued the company because he was initially denied treatment for a rare immune disorder known as common variable immunodeficiency (CVID). Individuals who suffer from CVID are highly susceptible to infection and often deal with recurring health issues in the lungs, sinuses, and ears.
Washington, 23, sued for breach of contract and bad faith when he was denied coverage for the treatments needed when he was 19 years old. The company claimed that his bloodwork was outdated, and that his treatment wasn’t medically necessary. Without that treatment, Washington eventually suffered pneumonia and a collapsed lung while appealing Aetna’s decision.
Iinuma’s denial of coverage to clients like Washington without properly reviewing medical records is underscored by his admission to not knowing what plagued Washington as well as never having treated a patient dealing with the condition.
A growing number of state and federal agencies have begun to investigate and request additional information to determine whether any laws were broken.
In the state of California, where the suit took place, two different agencies have begun to look into Aetna’s operations including the California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, who noted that the story was of “significant concern” to him. Considering that state law requires medical directors who are unqualified to review a patient’s case to seek consultation from another more qualified expert, the news of Iinuma’s action may prove to have been illegal. The California Medical Association and American Medical Association have shown similar concerns to Commissioner Jones.
Three other states have also begun their own investigation including Colorado, Washington, and Connecticut. Interestingly enough, Aetna is headquartered in Connecticut.
Now included in those state investigations, two Democratic senators have written a joint letter to current Aetna Chairman and CEO, Mark Bertolini. Ron Wyden of Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and Patty Murray of Washington, ranking Member of Senate Health Committee, have requested for the company to release information related to their review process including “specific responsibilities of medical directors, nurses and chief medical officers, as well as any other company employees who are involved in such decisions.”
The senators also noted that, “In 2009, Aetna Health, Inc. and Aetna Life Insurance paid a $256,000 fine to Arizona insurance regulators for, among other things, denying health care provider payments without requesting additional information that could prove the claim valid.”
Sadly, this haunting truth isn’t the first time the insurance industry has been exposed for its seemingly rampant use of bad faith techniques and strategies to deny or underpay their clients. Thus far the company’s response has been that the testimony was “taken out of context”.
If you have any additional questions or simply need assistance with insurance claims and issues contact Millin & Millin at (956) 631-5600 to schedule a free case evaluation. Our compassion, dedication, and personal attention will get you the RESULTS you deserve.
Millin & Millin PLLC is pleased to announce that Gina Karam Millin has joined the Board of Directors of the Texas Civil Rights Project. TCRP believes that legal advocacy and litigation are critical tools to protect and advance the civil rights of everyone in Texas, particularly our state’s most vulnerable populations, and to effect positive and lasting change to law and policy. TCRP believes that by serving the rising social justice movement in Texas with excellent legal representation and bold strategies, they can respond to the needs of the communities served. TCRP has offices in Houston, Dallas, El Paso, McAllen and is based in Austin. To learn more about this outstanding non-profit organization, please visit https://www.texascivilrightsproject.org.
The Texas Supreme Court’s opinion was issued on a case between homeowner’s insurance company, USAA Texas Lloyds Co. and Gail Menchaca. The high court reversed the decisions of both the court of appeals and the trial court judgement.
In 2008, following the destruction caused by Hurricane Ike, Gail Menchaca made a homeowner’s property claim to USAA.
An adjuster was sent to investigate the claim, who found minimal covered damage, which did not exceed the policy’s deductible. Because of this USAA declined to pay out any benefits.
Nearly five months later, Ms. Menchaca requested a re-inspection of the damages. USAA sent a different adjustor that essentially confirmed the initial findings. Again, USAA refused to pay out on any benefits.
The insured party sued USAA for breach of contract and for unfair settlement practices that violated the Texas Insurance code. Ms. Menchaca sought insurance benefits under the policy, court costs, and attorney’s fees.
The case was tried to a jury in Conroe, Texas.
The jury first determined that USAA had not breached the contract and thus no policy benefits were owed. While the jury also validated that the carrier had not infringed on five provisions of the Texas Insurance Code, they found that the insurer was in violation of not reasonably investigating the claim.
Because the jury found that USAA had been engaged in unfair trade practices, they awarded Ms. Menchaca $11,350 for actual damages and $130,000 in attorney fees. Nothing was awarded for contract benefits as there was no breach of contract.
Both parties motioned for judgement in their favor. USAA argued that the Ms. Menchaca was not entitled to statutory damages as they had effectively complied with policy standards. The trial court denied this motion and ruled in favor of Menchaca.
The recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Texas reversed these decisions and remanded that a new trial take place using the five new rules they developed.
The Supreme Court outlined five new rules in order to help answer the question of “whether the insured can recover policy benefits based on jury findings that the insurer violated the Texas Insurance Code and that the violation resulted in the insured’s loss of benefits the insurer ‘should have paid’ under the policy, even though the jury also failed to find that the insurer failed to comply with its obligations under the policy.”
The five newly established statutes are as follows:
The manner in which the Menchaca decisions plays out in future cases is still to be seen, but rest assured that your bad faith insurance lawyers at Millin & Millin are diligently following the changes in law that may affect your own situation.
Our bad faith insurance lawyers are strong advocates for McAllen metro residents who have had to deal with bad faith insurance tactics. Our attorneys possess superior experience and the necessary knowledge to bring forth an exceptional case.
Contact us at (956) 631-5600 for a free consultation.
Fitch Ratings, one of the three largest credit rating agencies in the United States, has speculated about the new presidential administration and what that means for the insurance industry.
While Fitch did not expect any policy initiatives to be directly focused on the non-health insurance industry, extensive changes to the financial industry would ease regulations for the larger U.S. insurance corporations.
Though Fitch did stipulate that a new presidency would not have an immediate impact on the insurance industry, as well as the fact that insurance agencies are generally regulated by in-state laws, the macroeconomic trends that could emerge from a change in economic policies could have a critical impact on profits, premium growth, and investment performance.
With financial deregulation a major standing point during his election campaign, and an economic strategy likely to be backed by the majority Republican Congress, changes to the current system will undoubtedly have multiple implications for insurers. The repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act, which was a massive financial reform legislation passed in 2010 as a response to the financial crisis and to develop oversight of the American banking system, could greatly reduce regulatory standards.
Three of the largest insurers - Prudent, AIG, and MetLife - were all designated as systemically important bank and non-bank financial institutions (SIFIs) in 2014 and faced higher standards.
Fitch analysts expect a Trump administration to begin reining-in these designations following changes in the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) leadership or through changes to the Dodd-Frank Act itself.
The Federal Insurance Office, which was developed under Dodd-Frank, may see its role diminished or modified under the new president, and this could also reduce the nation’s participation in international insurance regulatory activities.
Consumer protection would likely be affected by deregulation and tax code changes. Some life insurance products benefit from tax sheltering and offshore business; if corporate tax rates are lowered or tax rules simplified, the relative value of these products will likely change as well.
Alongside potential regulatory and tax shifts, insurers will also have to consider recently-approved Department of Labor rules that affect investment portfolios, and macroeconomic changes.
Fitch noted that future trends involving increases in interest rates and limited inflation could be positive for insurers, but sharp spikes in either of these could also be disruptive to profitability and growth across all insurance sectors.
While it will likely be some months before the new administration is able to implement changes and those changes begin to take effect, it’s still important for the general public to be aware that industry deregulations may leave a significant mark on their insurance policies and the manner in which their insurers work with them.
While new governmental administrations and presidents can always be a cause of concern, it’s important for consumers to know that still does not give insurers the right to act in bad faith.
Unfortunately, large insurance companies are business, and thus are ultimately concerned with increasing profits and lowering overhead. This also means that the general public can fall victim to their bad faith tactics and business techniques.
Don’t allow your insurance company to take advantage of you. The attorneys of Millin & Millin are here to help protect your rights and fight for your due justice. Contact us today at (956) 631-5600 for a free case evaluations.
After purchasing a building in 1994, a Houston man known as Davis, found himself in a horrible bind after realizing that his roof had sustained damages from natural causes.
When Davis originally purchased the building, he knew that the roof was composed of asphalt and a rubber material, but he didn’t know the exact age of the roof nor did he find a need to replace it. Naturally, Davis purchased an insurance policy to ensure the coverage of any future damages.
Davis was running his business from the building, and living there as well, which further cemented his need for insurance on the property. National Lloyds Insurance Company (Lloyds) insured his property against wind, fire, and hail.
Unfortunately, Davis’ policy did not cover rain damages “unless the building or structure first sustains wind or hail damage to its roof or walls through which the rain [can enter]”. The policy also stated that it would “determine the value of the covered property in the event of loss or damage ... [at] actual cash value as of the time of loss or damage”.
Optional coverages were offered, including replacement cost value coverage that Davis declined. The policy had a $3,700 deductible for building damage and a $2,500 deductible for damages to the building’s contents.
Houston was struck by Hurricane Rita in 2005 and many individuals suffered property damage - including Davis. He immediately noticed roof leaks right after the storm and decided to file a claim, which was unfortunately denied.
Davis had no other choice, but to use out of pocket money to hire a contractor to repair the building to its original state. The work performed put a pause on the leakage, until 2008, when Houston underwent another natural catastrophe - Hurricane Ike.
The roof once again began to leak and the property underwent other damages to a shingled area and an AC unit. Again, a Lloyds adjuster inspected the damages, but only valued them at $1,825, ensuring no payment was to be made to Davis.
Luckily, a public adjuster made an additional inspection, and this time, asserted that the property had incurred damages directly caused by Hurricane Ike and that they were above Davis’s $3,700 deductible.
Davis ultimately filed a lawsuit and alleged a breach of contract, violation of the Texas insurance code, and breach of good faith and fair dealing. When both parties were at trial, plenty of disagreements arose in regards to what evidence showed was the cause of the roof leakage.
Lloyds’ experts concluded that the roof was old and had previously shown a leakage issue in 1997. Both parties also disagreed on the cost of repairs.
Experts who represented Davis asserted that $108,038.75 was owed in repair cost, while Lloyds’ experts argued that the price was inaccurate and did not differentiate between covered damages from non-covered damages.
Lamentably, the court concluded that Davis’ policy only covered cash value, which the jury determined was below the deductible. Although it was a fact that the condition of the roof was defective and needed to be replaced, Davis’ policy only covered damages done by hail and wind.
The trial court also concluded that the insurer could not be liable for bad faith since no payment was liable under the terms of the insurance contract.
Are you struggling to receive your fair share of compensation? Is your insurance company claiming your policy didn’t cover damages by arguing about unclear language? The tough team of attorneys at Millin & Millin have fought for the rights of a multitude of individuals. Call us today for a free case evaluation at (956) 631-5600.
Throughout the years, numerous cases involving unethical insurance practices have proven that the insurance industry has become a profit leader by purposely harming its policyholders.
Lamentably, the insurance companies involved in these illegal acts are the same ones that spend billions of dollars persuading consumers to purchase their policies while guaranteeing the best coverage and compensation during an unfortunate event. The unfortunate truth is that not all insurance companies intend to provide their policyholders with the help that the individuals sign up for.
Although insurance bad faith acts are illegal and insurance companies face the risk of being penalized, it still occurs with the sole purpose of increasing revenue.
Have you been victimized by the unethical acts of an insurance company? Are you struggling to receive a fair compensation? The tough team of attorneys at Millin & Millin have helped and fought for the rights of a multitude of individuals. Call us today for a free case evaluation at (956) 631-5600.
Denying a claim is probably the most common malpractice utilized by an insurance company to continue increasing profit. In fact, there have been numerous cases in which individuals have been involved in severe accidents caused by other drivers, and which has left them in a coma, with collapsed lungs, and multiple injuries.
However, insurance companies identify these claims as acts of road rage, which therefore do not fall in the category of an accident.
But there is more than just denying your claim for unethical reasons; the most appalling insurance malpractice is delaying a claim until the death of an insured.
This act mostly happens to long-term policyholders such as senior citizens, with a history of medical conditions. Insurance companies know the health conditions of their policyholders and often take advantage of age and unhealthy condition.
As per the words of a regulator, “The bottom line is, insurance companies make money when they don’t pay claims, and will do anything to avoid paying because if they wait long enough, policyholders will die.”
Policyholders who have been victims of any kind of unfortunate situation, whether a traffic accident or a catastrophic event, often feel a sense of ease when they realize that their insurance provider will make up for any loss.
Unfortunately, policyholders face deeper challenges that often lead to major economical burdens. One of these burdens is being lied to about the type of damages that are covered by their policy.
In 2005, a policyholder in Mississippi suffered over $130,000 worth of damages when Hurricane Katrina struck his home.
The damages included flooding of the lower level of his home. Although the individual was supposedly covered by hurricane insurance, his insurance company pointed to the anti-concurrent clause of his policy, which concluded that his losses would not be covered.
The man testified that his insurance agent had told him that he did not need flood insurance and explained that the insurance company responded to his claim by saying he should’ve read his policy papers – papers that he had only received after he purchased the insurance.
Even more so, insurance companies do not always use plain English language in their forms and policies. Policyholders are often confused with the terminology used in their policies, which is another fraudulent tactic that keeps these disreputable companies increasing profit.
Auto insurance companies for example, also increase their profit by utilizing credit scores to develop their policies different for each individual. If you are the kind of person who finds it convenient to pay your purchases in cash, you may face a premium increase of over 100% for having no credit on file.
Furthermore, policyholders can have an impeccable driving record, no claims on file, and be eligible for many driver discounts, but will not qualify for a lower rate if they have no credit score.
The way insurance companies justify the credit scoring is by assuming that if you are careless about credit then you must be a careless driver or irresponsible property owner. This mostly affects less fortunate individuals who have no credit on file.
The element that makes this type of situation even more alarming is that insurance companies also investigate a policyholder’s lifestyle. One’s hobbies and grocery lists can be used to determine a policyholder’s premium, and work in favor of the company, thus helping them to stack up on profit.
What on the outside appear to be simple meetings with State Department of Insurance employees and insurance companies, has individuals worried that these engagements are actually being used to persuade regulators to approve increased premiums.
Perhaps most tellingly, insurance companies are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars developing meetings at prime vacation spots where regulators have access to free meals and other privileges.
It appears that close relationships between state insurance commissioners and insurers are the leading reason why consumers are at greater risk of unfair treatment.
Have you been treated unfairly by your insurance provider? Let Millin & Millin Attorneys advocate on your behalf and help you take advantage of your legal rights.
Throughout the nation, insurers have played an influential role in the decisions of insurance commissioners, and while state commissioners are supposed to regulate the insurance industry fairly and protect policyholders, it appears that insurance companies have corrupted the system.
For example, an Arkansas case in 2008 involved an insurance commissioner who failed to comply to state standards, and showed little understanding of a hospital’s billing complaint.
After countless interactions with UnitedHealthcare lawyers and lobbyists, the Arkansas insurance commissioner decided to grant the case in favor of the insurance giant. The ultimate decision, and dishonest behavior of the state commissioner, saved UnitedHealthcare millions of dollars.
But the nation, as well as policyholders, faces a deeper concern as matters worsen. According to the Center For Public integrity, 6 percent of the annual revenues collected by insurance departments were spent on regulation.
This puts both a policyholder and the nation in general in economic distress. For example, a consumer is placed in a position of vulnerability, as insurance companies will potentially try to utilize social media to gain personal data about a customer.
This means that an insurer can adjust a policyholder’s premium to reflect a customer’s lifestyle.
Furthermore, insurance companies are economic development engines in many states, so a lack of political fortitude by regulators could place them in financial hardship.
The countless gatherings and powerful relationships that are developed between insurers and insurance commissioners usually are not in vain. In fact, these relationships build solid foundations and pathways for employment opportunities for former regulators who sometimes resign from their position before their term has been completed.
According to the Center For Public integrity, half of the 109 insurance regulators that resigned from their term obtained an employment opportunity with the industry they used to regulate.
There is no doubt that insurance commissioners were thinking about their future and no one else’s.
At Millin & Millin Attorneys, we understand how horrible it is to be victimized by a corrupt and unjust industry. If you have been the victim of bad faith insurance practices, then let us take the required measures that will help you gain the compensation you deserve. Our attorneys service the McAllen metro area and surrounding Rio Grande Valley cities.
Contact us today for a free case evaluation at (956) 631-5600.
