More tips for National Consumer Protection Week:
How to look up an insurer, including complaint history and disciplinary actions
How to look up an agent, insurance agency, or broker, including complaints and discipline
And how to find the company financial statements that show how your insurance company is doing.
We're the insurance regulator for the state of Washington. Not in Washington? Here's a map with links and contact info for every state's insurance regulator.
Jumat, 09 Maret 2012
Kamis, 08 Maret 2012
Consumer tips: How to look up complaints, available health plans and rate hikes
More tips for National Consumer Protection Week:
-Look up the number of consumer complaints against specific insurance companies
-Buying health coverage on your own? Here's how to find a health plan in your area
-And see if your health plan wants a rate increase.
(We're the state insurance regulator in Washington state. Don't live in Washington? Here's a handy map with links and contact info for your state's insurance regulator.)
-Look up the number of consumer complaints against specific insurance companies
-Buying health coverage on your own? Here's how to find a health plan in your area
-And see if your health plan wants a rate increase.
(We're the state insurance regulator in Washington state. Don't live in Washington? Here's a handy map with links and contact info for your state's insurance regulator.)
Rabu, 07 Maret 2012
Direct Buy Auto Warranty ordered to stop unauthorized insurance sales in WA
For the second time in less than a week, our office is ordering a New York-based company to stop selling unauthorized insurance in Washington state.
This time it's a company called Direct Buy Associates, Inc., although it also does business under several similar names, including Direct Buy Auto Warranty, Direct Buy Warranty, and DirectBuy Warranty. The order also includes AHMT Corp.
Direct Buy Associates and AHMT -- with have adjacent offices on a street in Brooklyn -- do business through websites like directbuyautowarranty.com, directbuywarranty.com and directbuyautowarranty.net. The companies have also listed mailing addresses that include a mailstop in New Jersey, a virtual office in New Jersey, and a European headquarters in Cyprus.
In 2011, we began getting complaints from Washington consumers who had bought plans from these companies. The plans, sold since at least 2009, purported to cover vehicle repairs. The companies sold at least 57 such plans to Washingtonians. At least one Washington consumer who paid the fees monthly was charged international transaction fees from Cyprus.
None of companies or principals named in the order are authorized to transact insurance in Washington. Nor are they registered here as service contract providers.
Our order requires the companies to send copies of the order to all their Washington customers, and to report to us all premiums they've collected for business here.
The order also names a number of individuals, including Albert V. Hakim, Michael A Hakim, R.D. Frazier, Jon Braidsworth and Robert Harrington.
This time it's a company called Direct Buy Associates, Inc., although it also does business under several similar names, including Direct Buy Auto Warranty, Direct Buy Warranty, and DirectBuy Warranty. The order also includes AHMT Corp.
Direct Buy Associates and AHMT -- with have adjacent offices on a street in Brooklyn -- do business through websites like directbuyautowarranty.com, directbuywarranty.com and directbuyautowarranty.net. The companies have also listed mailing addresses that include a mailstop in New Jersey, a virtual office in New Jersey, and a European headquarters in Cyprus.
In 2011, we began getting complaints from Washington consumers who had bought plans from these companies. The plans, sold since at least 2009, purported to cover vehicle repairs. The companies sold at least 57 such plans to Washingtonians. At least one Washington consumer who paid the fees monthly was charged international transaction fees from Cyprus.
None of companies or principals named in the order are authorized to transact insurance in Washington. Nor are they registered here as service contract providers.
Our order requires the companies to send copies of the order to all their Washington customers, and to report to us all premiums they've collected for business here.
The order also names a number of individuals, including Albert V. Hakim, Michael A Hakim, R.D. Frazier, Jon Braidsworth and Robert Harrington.
Costs in Cases Where There are Multiple Defendants
Lawson v. Vierson, 2012 ONCA 25 (C.A.)
How will a court apportion costs where both the plaintiff and a co-defendant fail to accept offers to settle/contribute?
Lawson was in two motor vehicle accidents seven months apart. The actions were consolidated and proceeded to trial. The first defendant, Hart, offered to settle for $300,000. The second defendants, the Viersons, offered to settle or contribute by making a $100,000 payment to Lawson. Lawson’s offer was $1,250,000.
The jury found the injuries suffered were separate and distinct, and made separate damages assessments for each accident. The net amount awarded against the Viersons was $7,926.71 and $344,260.37 against Hart. The trial judge awarded Lawson costs of $482,000 apportioned 35% against the Viersons and 65% against Hart. The Viersons appealed.
At issue was the interplay of the costs consequences of r. 49.10 and r. 49.11. Rule 49.11 provides that where there are multiple defendants “alleged to be jointly or jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff in respect of a claim and rights of contribution or indemnity may exist between the defendants, the costs consequences prescribed by rule 49.10 do not apply to an offer to settle”.
The Court of Appeal held:
[49] In the circumstances of this case, it is significant that the combined Viersens and Hart offers exceeded the Lawsons’ recovery. The reason that the combined total exceeded the Lawsons’ recovery was because of the Viersens offer. When the Viersens offer is viewed in context rather than in isolation, it is therefore apparent that the offer was a genuine and generous offer to settle and, particularly when taken together with the Hart offer, complied with the spirit of rule 49.10. In these circumstances, the Viersens offer is the type of offer that, as contemplated by rule 49.13, ought to be given considerable weight in arriving at a costs award.
[50] Further, the trial judge appears to have discounted the fact the Viersens offer far exceeded the amount of the award made against them. Although the allegation of joint and several liability meant that pursuant to rule 49.11 the presumption of costs consequences in rule 49.10 did not apply, it would not, as the trial judge found, have been “impossible” or “negligent” for Ms. Lawson to have accepted the Viersens offer. The claim of joint and several liability that made the Viersens offer non-compliant with rule 49.11 was not made out at trial. In light of the jury’s award, the Viersens offer can, therefore, only be seen as having been very reasonable. Contrary to the view expressed by the trial judge, it would have been no more impossible or negligent for Ms. Lawson to have accepted the Viersens offer, than for any plaintiff to accept an offer to settle for an amount substantially less than the amount claimed. Given the outcome at trial, an accurate assessment of Ms. Lawson’s claim was that there was no joint and several liability. As a result, accepting the Viersens offer would not have prejudiced the claim against Mr. Hart and, therefore, would have been the correct decision.
Justice Rouleau awarded costs against the Viersons up to the date their offer was served equal to 35% of Lawson’s costs incurred to the date of the offer. The Viersons were entitled to their partial indemnity costs from the date of their offer payable by Hart since their offer was also an offer to contribute.
Although this case may have somewhat unusual circumstances, I suggest that those defending cases where there are multiple defendants should take it into consideration when making offers.
- Tara Pollitt
How will a court apportion costs where both the plaintiff and a co-defendant fail to accept offers to settle/contribute?
Lawson was in two motor vehicle accidents seven months apart. The actions were consolidated and proceeded to trial. The first defendant, Hart, offered to settle for $300,000. The second defendants, the Viersons, offered to settle or contribute by making a $100,000 payment to Lawson. Lawson’s offer was $1,250,000.
The jury found the injuries suffered were separate and distinct, and made separate damages assessments for each accident. The net amount awarded against the Viersons was $7,926.71 and $344,260.37 against Hart. The trial judge awarded Lawson costs of $482,000 apportioned 35% against the Viersons and 65% against Hart. The Viersons appealed.
At issue was the interplay of the costs consequences of r. 49.10 and r. 49.11. Rule 49.11 provides that where there are multiple defendants “alleged to be jointly or jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff in respect of a claim and rights of contribution or indemnity may exist between the defendants, the costs consequences prescribed by rule 49.10 do not apply to an offer to settle”.
The Court of Appeal held:
[49] In the circumstances of this case, it is significant that the combined Viersens and Hart offers exceeded the Lawsons’ recovery. The reason that the combined total exceeded the Lawsons’ recovery was because of the Viersens offer. When the Viersens offer is viewed in context rather than in isolation, it is therefore apparent that the offer was a genuine and generous offer to settle and, particularly when taken together with the Hart offer, complied with the spirit of rule 49.10. In these circumstances, the Viersens offer is the type of offer that, as contemplated by rule 49.13, ought to be given considerable weight in arriving at a costs award.
[50] Further, the trial judge appears to have discounted the fact the Viersens offer far exceeded the amount of the award made against them. Although the allegation of joint and several liability meant that pursuant to rule 49.11 the presumption of costs consequences in rule 49.10 did not apply, it would not, as the trial judge found, have been “impossible” or “negligent” for Ms. Lawson to have accepted the Viersens offer. The claim of joint and several liability that made the Viersens offer non-compliant with rule 49.11 was not made out at trial. In light of the jury’s award, the Viersens offer can, therefore, only be seen as having been very reasonable. Contrary to the view expressed by the trial judge, it would have been no more impossible or negligent for Ms. Lawson to have accepted the Viersens offer, than for any plaintiff to accept an offer to settle for an amount substantially less than the amount claimed. Given the outcome at trial, an accurate assessment of Ms. Lawson’s claim was that there was no joint and several liability. As a result, accepting the Viersens offer would not have prejudiced the claim against Mr. Hart and, therefore, would have been the correct decision.
Justice Rouleau awarded costs against the Viersons up to the date their offer was served equal to 35% of Lawson’s costs incurred to the date of the offer. The Viersons were entitled to their partial indemnity costs from the date of their offer payable by Hart since their offer was also an offer to contribute.
Although this case may have somewhat unusual circumstances, I suggest that those defending cases where there are multiple defendants should take it into consideration when making offers.
- Tara Pollitt
How to file a complaint against an insurance company
Having trouble getting an insurance claim paid? Waiting months?
We can often help. We're the insurance regulator for the state of Washington state, and we field thousands of calls a year from folks having trouble with claims. Last year, we got consumers $8 million in previously-denied or delayed claims.
There are two ways to reach us:
Important note: If you don't live in Washington state, contact your state's insurance regulator. Here's a handy map with contact info.
We can often help. We're the insurance regulator for the state of Washington state, and we field thousands of calls a year from folks having trouble with claims. Last year, we got consumers $8 million in previously-denied or delayed claims.
There are two ways to reach us:
- Our toll-free hotline: 1-800-562-6900.
- Or file a complaint 24/7 with our online filing application.
Important note: If you don't live in Washington state, contact your state's insurance regulator. Here's a handy map with contact info.
Senin, 05 Maret 2012
It's National Consumer Protection Week - March 4-10
Have you ever had your insurance claim denied or maybe you filed a claim and received less than you thought you deserved. Ever have trouble reading an insurance policy? If you're reading this now, you know about the Office of the Insurance Commissioner and the services we provide. But you probably know a handful of people who've never heard of us.
This week (March 4-10) is National Consumer Protection Week. Tell a friend about our consumer services and follow us on Facebook.
More than 500 people a month file complaints with us. Last year alone, we recovered more than $8.5 million for Washington state insurance consumers who had their claims denied or delayed.
Just in last few months we helped:
This week (March 4-10) is National Consumer Protection Week. Tell a friend about our consumer services and follow us on Facebook.
More than 500 people a month file complaints with us. Last year alone, we recovered more than $8.5 million for Washington state insurance consumers who had their claims denied or delayed.
Just in last few months we helped:
- A Redmond consumer get a $29,000 health insurance claim paid
- A Lake Stevens consumer collect an additional $2,553 on an auto claim
- A Rochester consumer get a $7,574 refund on their auto warranty
- A Sammamish consumer get their homeowners policy reinstated
Jumat, 02 Maret 2012
New York company ordered to stop selling unauthorized insurance in Washington
Update (June 1, 2012): The order has been rescinded. UCAA participated in an investigation of this program and provided information showing that the company had committed no violations.
Our office today ordered the United Consumer Awareness Association to stop selling unauthorized health insurance in Washington state.
The company, a not-for-profit entity incorporated in Missouri, appears to have its home office in Syosset, New York.
The company, which is not licensed to solicit and sell limited-benefit medical insurance in Washington, nonetheless sold policies to 44 Washingtonians.
The order takes effect immediately. The company has the right to demand a hearing.
Our office today ordered the United Consumer Awareness Association to stop selling unauthorized health insurance in Washington state.
The company, a not-for-profit entity incorporated in Missouri, appears to have its home office in Syosset, New York.
The company, which is not licensed to solicit and sell limited-benefit medical insurance in Washington, nonetheless sold policies to 44 Washingtonians.
The order takes effect immediately. The company has the right to demand a hearing.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)