Not a lot of lawyers can say that they helped create a whole new legal field, but William Shernoff can. On this week's episode, Ralph welcomes trailblazing attorney William Shernoff to discuss predatory insurance practices, and how consumers can protect themselves. This special episode was co-presented by The American Museum of Tort Law, and was recorded in front of a live virtual audience.
Great program as always. As someone who works for a property & casualty insurance company, I'll be the first to tell you insurance companies are far from saints. I do think people need to understand though that insurance is a for profit business (whether that's how it should be is a whole nother conversation). While I can't speak to the bad faith Bill discussed regarding health and life insurance (and we need more lawyers like him acting on behalf of the common person and not on behalf of their wallet), in the casualty world it's not always the insurance company with bad intentions. Although Ralph correctly points out that insurance companies make a good chunk of their money by investment, at the end of the day they're judged by whether they bring in enough premium to cover their losses. Auto policies are a great example of this. Lawyers have taken advantage of the system and are now causing settlements and awards to skyrocket, what we call nuclear verdicts. Yes people need to be compensated for their injuries and the negligence of others, but when someone gets $50M for an injury in an auto accident that should've only been $5M, that hurts all of us. Why? Because who funds the policies? All of us policy holders. And when the losses outpace the premiums, naturally the insurance company is going to raise the premiums for everyone to help fund those losses. So when you see someone with a huge multi million dollar award and think "Awesome, they stuck it to the insurance company!" what is really happening is they're causing all of our premiums to go up. And it's now getting to the point where small businesses (and working class people) can't afford their insurance and have to close up shop or sell to a larger company. Thus creating oligopolies and hurting us in the long run.
And who's winning? Insurance companies yes but the plantiffs lawyers who are running away with +50% of the settlements along with the defense attorneys. And who is losing? Us, because now are not only paying (through our premiums and denial of coverage) for the greed of the insurance companies, we have to pay for the lawyers greed who want a huge slice of the insurance pie.
I'm not trying to defend the insurance companies here, just want people to realize these huge settlements end up hurting us and it's not as black and white as we may think. And realize that there are other bad faith players in this game. Oh and there are some good people who work in insurance :)
Keep up the awesome work team and thanks for all you do!
Excellent program as usual and absolutely outrageous abuse of rights by corporations especially insurance companies! A corporate death penalty is way overdue.
Thank you William Shernoff for choosing to help consumers protect themselves when you probably could have made much more money working for the insurance companies.
Unfortunately that makes Mr. Shernoff the rare exception when it comes to lawyers.
How about an episode that explores changing how lawyers get paid.
We could have people not pay lawyers directly but instead pay into a fund based on their ability to pay and the fund pays lawyers a set fee for their services. This would level the paying field between consumers and insurance companies and other corporations when it comes to legal representation.
While some would argue that this would discourage the best and brightest from becoming lawyers, I believe the current way of paying lawyers discourages the best and brightest from becoming the kind of lawyers that Ralph and Mr. Shernoff are.
The current system promotes lawyers that are more interested in the money while the fund system would promote lawyers that are more interested in helping to protect consumers.
However, this would only address part of the problem. The lawyers would still only be able to do what the law and the government officials allow and the bad faith politicians would still be making and enforcing the laws to benefit the insurance companies.
What we need is for Ralph to lead a trailblazing political movement to change the way we pay for campaigns so we can vote for and elect small donor politicians that will make and enforce laws to help "consumers" of politicians protect themselves from the predatory and deceptive big money politicians that work for the insurance companies and other corporations.
The current system of financing campaigns results in politicians that work for the big money interests and discourages people like Ralph and Mr. Shernoff that would be working for ordinary citizens from running for office and making it more difficult for them to succeed when they do run.
If we keep voting for big money candidates we will keep getting big money legislators.
Demanding small donor candidates and enforcing that demand with our votes is Democracy 101.
If you say that making a demand and enforcing that demand with our votes won't work, then you are saying democracy won't work.
Please, Ralph, explain why democracy won't work or lead this effort to use the basic principles of democracy to save democracy.
It was an honor to listen to Mr. Shernoff. When I was in law school, decades ago, I would study his landmark cases on insurance bad faith. After graduation, I often referred to his treatises to help me with my cases. Thanks for having him on.
I recognize the format and length of the episode made it difficult- if not impossible- for Mr. Shernoff to discuss many of the nuances of bad faith law, but there are a few general subject matters, which I believe deserve additional comment.
First, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, commonly referred to as “ERISA,” does not necessarily eliminate a person’s right to sue for bad faith when health insurance is paid through the employer. Bad faith suits are only prohibited when the employer is paying its employees’ medical bills out of its own pocket (“Self-insuring”). If, however, the employer is merely paying an insurance company a premium to provide health insurance coverage to employees, then the employees can still sue the insurance company for bad faith. This exception is significant: Most small businesses and even some larger ones simply pay premiums rather than self-insuring and therefore, bad faith law still applies.
I have to disagree with the recommendation that internet websites are a reliable source for identifying attorneys skilled and competent in bad faith law. I am fairly certain Ralph and Mr. Shernoff will agree attorneys, unfortunately, are notorious for exaggerating their skills and experience on their websites and paid advertisements. Some hold themselves out to be great trial lawyers, when, accurate evidence, would reveal they seldom- if ever- go to trial. Others, might advertise specialization in a variety of legal subjects, including insurance bad faith, when nothing could be farther from the truth. Some pay so-called professional organizations to certify they are great lawyers based on little more than the amount the lawyer pays the organization. The sad thing is the insurance companies know who the charlatans are even if the general public does not. So, if you hire an attorney who exaggerates his or her skills, you can bet the insurance companies will take advantage, knowing they can get off cheap.
It is not difficult to independently verify the accomplishments and experience an attorney claims he or she brings to the table. Besides reviewing what is being stated in paid advertisements, you have a right to interview the attorney when you meet. Don’t be afraid to bluntly ask the attorney to specifically identify the cases he or she has tried and/or appealed to higher courts. Then look up those cases on the internet or other public records to see what is true and what is not. If the attorney cannot identify many cases or the public record contradicts what is being advertised, then, a big red flag should go up.
There are other things you can do to protect yourself, but this comment is already too long so I’ll just say be resourceful and brave. Caveat emptor applies.
Thanks for allowing me to comment. I hope it will be of some assistance to my fellow listeners.
The Washington Post reported on March 29, 2024 in an article with the head line “U.S. signs off on more bombs, warplanes for Israel” the following:
“Last week, the State Department authorized the transfer of 25 F-35A fighter jets and engines worth roughly $2.5 billion, U.S. officials said. The case was approved by Congress in 2008, so the department was not required to provide a new notification to lawmakers.
The MK84 and MK82 bombs authorized this week for transfer also were approved by Congress years ago but had not yet been fulfilled. “
The closed deal included “1,800 MK84 2,000-pound bombs and 500 MK82 500-pound bombs.”
Would you please in your next program have a short report validating that there was a 2008 approval by congress and an authorization approved by congress “years ago.” Thanks
I've heard (anecdotally) that home Insurers are leaving Florida and/or refusing to insure Florida residents in areas increasingly subject to hurricanes made more intense and frequent by global warming. What do those folks do when they can't even insure their homes let alone collect on a policy?
What a timely discussion. Homeowners right now are suffering from being dropped from their homeowners insurance policies if they've had even minor claims in the past, forcing them to go on 'hazard insurance,' increasing monthly mortgage payments by hundreds and even THOUSANDS of dollars with no recourse. Once you've been denied insurance by one insurer, the rest follow.
Not sure how this is even legal. There are laws against raising rents by more than X%, but how are there no laws against insurers to cap their immediate rate hikes or policy withdrawals??
Great program as always. As someone who works for a property & casualty insurance company, I'll be the first to tell you insurance companies are far from saints. I do think people need to understand though that insurance is a for profit business (whether that's how it should be is a whole nother conversation). While I can't speak to the bad faith Bill discussed regarding health and life insurance (and we need more lawyers like him acting on behalf of the common person and not on behalf of their wallet), in the casualty world it's not always the insurance company with bad intentions. Although Ralph correctly points out that insurance companies make a good chunk of their money by investment, at the end of the day they're judged by whether they bring in enough premium to cover their losses. Auto policies are a great example of this. Lawyers have taken advantage of the system and are now causing settlements and awards to skyrocket, what we call nuclear verdicts. Yes people need to be compensated for their injuries and the negligence of others, but when someone gets $50M for an injury in an auto accident that should've only been $5M, that hurts all of us. Why? Because who funds the policies? All of us policy holders. And when the losses outpace the premiums, naturally the insurance company is going to raise the premiums for everyone to help fund those losses. So when you see someone with a huge multi million dollar award and think "Awesome, they stuck it to the insurance company!" what is really happening is they're causing all of our premiums to go up. And it's now getting to the point where small businesses (and working class people) can't afford their insurance and have to close up shop or sell to a larger company. Thus creating oligopolies and hurting us in the long run.
And who's winning? Insurance companies yes but the plantiffs lawyers who are running away with +50% of the settlements along with the defense attorneys. And who is losing? Us, because now are not only paying (through our premiums and denial of coverage) for the greed of the insurance companies, we have to pay for the lawyers greed who want a huge slice of the insurance pie.
I'm not trying to defend the insurance companies here, just want people to realize these huge settlements end up hurting us and it's not as black and white as we may think. And realize that there are other bad faith players in this game. Oh and there are some good people who work in insurance :)
Keep up the awesome work team and thanks for all you do!
For those wanting incisive analysis of the Gaza war and Ukraine, I'd recommend Rumble's videos; Napolitano covers things the msm fails to, interviewing Jeffrey Sachs, Scott Ritter and former CIA analysts. Separately Ritter has his interviews such as this one this week: https://rumble.com/v4n4d2x-scott-ritter-joins-on-putins-warning-to-nato-israel-crosses-irans-red-line-.html
Excellent program as usual and absolutely outrageous abuse of rights by corporations especially insurance companies! A corporate death penalty is way overdue.
Blessings to you Ralph for having the hutzpah to broadcast from the heart. Dave
thanks Steve for all your encouragement. D
Thank you William Shernoff for choosing to help consumers protect themselves when you probably could have made much more money working for the insurance companies.
Unfortunately that makes Mr. Shernoff the rare exception when it comes to lawyers.
How about an episode that explores changing how lawyers get paid.
We could have people not pay lawyers directly but instead pay into a fund based on their ability to pay and the fund pays lawyers a set fee for their services. This would level the paying field between consumers and insurance companies and other corporations when it comes to legal representation.
While some would argue that this would discourage the best and brightest from becoming lawyers, I believe the current way of paying lawyers discourages the best and brightest from becoming the kind of lawyers that Ralph and Mr. Shernoff are.
The current system promotes lawyers that are more interested in the money while the fund system would promote lawyers that are more interested in helping to protect consumers.
However, this would only address part of the problem. The lawyers would still only be able to do what the law and the government officials allow and the bad faith politicians would still be making and enforcing the laws to benefit the insurance companies.
What we need is for Ralph to lead a trailblazing political movement to change the way we pay for campaigns so we can vote for and elect small donor politicians that will make and enforce laws to help "consumers" of politicians protect themselves from the predatory and deceptive big money politicians that work for the insurance companies and other corporations.
The current system of financing campaigns results in politicians that work for the big money interests and discourages people like Ralph and Mr. Shernoff that would be working for ordinary citizens from running for office and making it more difficult for them to succeed when they do run.
If we keep voting for big money candidates we will keep getting big money legislators.
Demanding small donor candidates and enforcing that demand with our votes is Democracy 101.
If you say that making a demand and enforcing that demand with our votes won't work, then you are saying democracy won't work.
Please, Ralph, explain why democracy won't work or lead this effort to use the basic principles of democracy to save democracy.
DENY TIL THEY DIE Medical Insurance Companies are 🥷🏼☠️ GUILTY OF MURDER by PRACTICING MEDICINE WITHOUT A LICENSE ☠️🥷🏼
It was an honor to listen to Mr. Shernoff. When I was in law school, decades ago, I would study his landmark cases on insurance bad faith. After graduation, I often referred to his treatises to help me with my cases. Thanks for having him on.
I recognize the format and length of the episode made it difficult- if not impossible- for Mr. Shernoff to discuss many of the nuances of bad faith law, but there are a few general subject matters, which I believe deserve additional comment.
First, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, commonly referred to as “ERISA,” does not necessarily eliminate a person’s right to sue for bad faith when health insurance is paid through the employer. Bad faith suits are only prohibited when the employer is paying its employees’ medical bills out of its own pocket (“Self-insuring”). If, however, the employer is merely paying an insurance company a premium to provide health insurance coverage to employees, then the employees can still sue the insurance company for bad faith. This exception is significant: Most small businesses and even some larger ones simply pay premiums rather than self-insuring and therefore, bad faith law still applies.
I have to disagree with the recommendation that internet websites are a reliable source for identifying attorneys skilled and competent in bad faith law. I am fairly certain Ralph and Mr. Shernoff will agree attorneys, unfortunately, are notorious for exaggerating their skills and experience on their websites and paid advertisements. Some hold themselves out to be great trial lawyers, when, accurate evidence, would reveal they seldom- if ever- go to trial. Others, might advertise specialization in a variety of legal subjects, including insurance bad faith, when nothing could be farther from the truth. Some pay so-called professional organizations to certify they are great lawyers based on little more than the amount the lawyer pays the organization. The sad thing is the insurance companies know who the charlatans are even if the general public does not. So, if you hire an attorney who exaggerates his or her skills, you can bet the insurance companies will take advantage, knowing they can get off cheap.
It is not difficult to independently verify the accomplishments and experience an attorney claims he or she brings to the table. Besides reviewing what is being stated in paid advertisements, you have a right to interview the attorney when you meet. Don’t be afraid to bluntly ask the attorney to specifically identify the cases he or she has tried and/or appealed to higher courts. Then look up those cases on the internet or other public records to see what is true and what is not. If the attorney cannot identify many cases or the public record contradicts what is being advertised, then, a big red flag should go up.
There are other things you can do to protect yourself, but this comment is already too long so I’ll just say be resourceful and brave. Caveat emptor applies.
Thanks for allowing me to comment. I hope it will be of some assistance to my fellow listeners.
Sincerely,
Erik B. Thueson
best wishes to you Ralph a whole new legal field.
The Washington Post reported on March 29, 2024 in an article with the head line “U.S. signs off on more bombs, warplanes for Israel” the following:
“Last week, the State Department authorized the transfer of 25 F-35A fighter jets and engines worth roughly $2.5 billion, U.S. officials said. The case was approved by Congress in 2008, so the department was not required to provide a new notification to lawmakers.
The MK84 and MK82 bombs authorized this week for transfer also were approved by Congress years ago but had not yet been fulfilled. “
The closed deal included “1,800 MK84 2,000-pound bombs and 500 MK82 500-pound bombs.”
(https://wapo.st/3IXePPV)
Would you please in your next program have a short report validating that there was a 2008 approval by congress and an authorization approved by congress “years ago.” Thanks
I've heard (anecdotally) that home Insurers are leaving Florida and/or refusing to insure Florida residents in areas increasingly subject to hurricanes made more intense and frequent by global warming. What do those folks do when they can't even insure their homes let alone collect on a policy?
What a timely discussion. Homeowners right now are suffering from being dropped from their homeowners insurance policies if they've had even minor claims in the past, forcing them to go on 'hazard insurance,' increasing monthly mortgage payments by hundreds and even THOUSANDS of dollars with no recourse. Once you've been denied insurance by one insurer, the rest follow.
Not sure how this is even legal. There are laws against raising rents by more than X%, but how are there no laws against insurers to cap their immediate rate hikes or policy withdrawals??
I would like to subscribe. Please give me the PayPal option to pay for it.