FL - Former Adjuster named personally in bad-faith lawsuit.

[piloteer]

Question - Former Adjuster named personally in bad-faith lawsuit.

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? - Florida Venue

Years ago, I was directly employed with a large insurance company, working as a liability adjuster. I was NOT independently contracted, but was instead a permanent salaried employee. I quit working from the involved insurance company in 2013, and have not worked as an adjuster or within the insurance industry since that time.

Recently, I received a call from a defense attorney who is working on behalf of my former insurance company employer. He notified me that (in addition to the insurance company) I have been personally named in a third party "bad-faith" lawsuit. The claimant's personal-injury attorney filed the lawsuit, arguing that evidence pertaining to the claim was misrepresented, or something to a similar effect. I have not been served, nor have I seen a copy of the complaint to know what the specific allegations are, but I can say with complete confidence and certainty that absolutely no misrepresentation or "bad-faith" practices took place. The defense attorney stated that the allegations were flimsy and likely a tactic being used to leverage a settlement negotiation.

My questions are:

-Do I have any personal exposure due to being named specifically in the complaint? I wouldn't think so, but I am asking because the defense attorney couldn't say with 100% confidence that he knew for certain.

-Should I expect to incur any costs to defend myself due to being named?

I sincerely hope the answer is "NO" to both questions. I was employed and acting on behalf of my employer at the time of the claim being handled, as well as under it's direct supervision. Decisions to settle/deny and strategies undertaken throughout a investigation/negotiation are not necessarily made unilaterally. This particular claim received input and consensus on how to proceed in various phases (including the handling of evidence) from my manager and other adjusters. It just so happened that my name was on the file, and that my signature was on the correspondence to the claimant's attorney.

As a side note - I am in the process of buying a new home, and the last thing I need is for the mortgage application process to be complicated by having to disclose that I'm involved with a civil litgation matter. Seems very unfair.

What should I expect to come from this?

Thanks

 

[Zigner]

Your former employer may provide for your attorney. This may be the same as their current attorney or may be a separate attorney. If it's their attorney, make sure that you (not just the company) are an actual client of the attorney.

You may also wish to retain your own legal counsel. You will need to review this and make the decision when you have more information.

 

[piloteer]

Your former employer may provide for your attorney. This may be the same as their current attorney or may be a separate attorney. If it's their attorney, make sure that you (not just the company) are an actual client of the attorney.

You may also wish to retain your own legal counsel. You will need to review this and make the decision when you have more information.

Thanks for responding.

I guess at the core, my issue revolves around the question - how can I be held personally responsible and incur personal expense for an issue that arose out of actions performed while employed and on behalf of my employer? If this is a real possibility - then at least 99.99999% of all adjusters are working without the impression that such an exposure exists.

I would expect that either the complaint is amended to remove my name completely, or that the cost to defend/indemnify me is entirely on the insurance company.

Once again, the allegations are baseless and weak - which is why I do not feel I should have to invest a personal dime into defending my reputation.

 

[LdiJ]

Thanks for responding.

I guess at the core, my issue revolves around the question - how can I be held personally responsible and incur personal expense for an issue that arose out of actions performed while employed and on behalf of my employer? If this is a real possibility - then at least 99.99999% of all adjusters are working without the impression that such an exposure exists.

I would expect that either the complaint is amended to remove my name completely, or that the cost to defend/indemnify me is entirely on the insurance company.

Once again, the allegations are baseless and weak - which is why I do not feel I should have to invest a personal dime into defending my reputation.

Being "named" in a lawsuit doesn't necessarily mean that you are actually being sued. What you really need to clarify with the attorney is whether or not you are a named defendant, or merely mentioned in the lawsuit.

 

[piloteer]

Being "named" in a lawsuit doesn't necessarily mean that you are actually being sued. What you really need to clarify with the attorney is whether or not you are a named defendant, or merely mentioned in the lawsuit.

I assumed that because the defense attorney said that I would be personally served and that an answer would need to be filed on my behalf, it means I'm a named defendant.

 

[LdiJ]

I assumed that because the defense attorney said that I would be personally served and that an answer would need to be filed on my behalf, it means I'm a named defendant.

Then you are definitely going to want an attorney.

 

[piloteer]

Then you are definitely going to want an attorney.

I understand that - What I'm trying to better understand is whether or not potential exists for me to personally incur the expense in obtaining one, or if this is a no-brainer that the insurance company (my employer at the time) will provide defense on my behalf.

There is absolutely no disclosure or warning from the insurance company of there being potential for adjusters to incur costs at their own personal expense in these cases. Nobody would take the job if their own personal assets were on the line...

 

[piloteer]

Just to clarify - My role as an adjuster was to DEFEND our insured from claims of negligence. This insured did not feel they were totally liable for the incident being defended, and there was evidence in my possession that appeared to support their case. Apparently after reviewing the evidence, the claimant's attorney did not agree with my original characterization of it and is now trying to claim I acted in bad-faith by describing the evidence the way I did. This is not a matter of me being accused of altering evidence. This is a matter of the claimant's attorney not agreeing with my assessment of it, and use of it to support my liability analysis.

Why anyone would think I deserve to pay personally for defense of a service I provided as an agent of the insurance company is hard for me to accept.

 

[LdiJ]

Just to clarify - My role as an adjuster was to DEFEND our insured from claims of negligence. This insured did not feel they were totally liable for the incident being defended, and there was evidence in my possession that appeared to support their case. Apparently after reviewing the evidence, the claimant's attorney did not agree with my original characterization of it and is now trying to claim I acted in bad-faith by describing the evidence the way I did. This is not a matter of me being accused of altering evidence. This is a matter of the claimant's attorney not agreeing with my assessment of it, and use of it to support my liability analysis.

Why anyone would think I deserve to pay personally for defense of a service I provided as an agent of the insurance company is hard for me to accept.

I suspect that the attorney is hoping that you will NOT defend yourself, expecting that the company will handle it all, and then when the company gets let off the hook, that you will end up defaulting and getting stuck with the whole liability.

Your attorney can ask that the plaintiff be ordered to pay your legal fees in the same motion that he/she asks that you be dismissed from the case.

 

[piloteer]

I suspect that the attorney is hoping that you will NOT defend yourself, expecting that the company will handle it all, and then when the company gets let off the hook, that you will end up defaulting and getting stuck with the whole liability.

Your attorney can ask that the plaintiff be ordered to pay your legal fees in the same motion that he/she asks that you be dismissed from the case.

I guess that raises another point. I thought in FL, Bad Faith could only be presented in claims that exhausted policy limits in order to receive an excess verdict. This claim did not have a value of anywhere close to the policy limit, so I'm not even sure that an exposure honestly exists. Anyone know how that works?