Should the insurance attorney tell me the mediation?

[littleMike]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CT
Some time ago, I was involved in a car accident. The other party had injury. A law suit was already filed. Next month, a mediation is planned from my insurance attorney and other party's attorney. Do I have the right to know the mediation details from my insurance attorney, such as how much does the other party request? How much my insurance is willing to pay, etc.

If the insurance refuses to tell me, is it a good idea to contact other party's attorney. Thanks.

 

[JETX]

Do I have the right to know the mediation details from my insurance attorney, such as how much does the other party request? How much my insurance is willing to pay, etc.

Right to know?? No.
Would it be nice to know?? Yes.
Obligation for them to involve you in their negotiations?? No.

If the insurance refuses to tell me, is it a good idea to contact other party's attorney. Thanks.

NO!! You have NO right to involve yourself in their negotiations and your attempt to interfere would serve NO purpose.

 

[littleMike]

JETX, thanks for your quick reply. My insurance attorney told me that my case had estimated value under 1 million, and I have $1 million coverage. If the negotiation is broken, we will end up to court trial.

The insurance seems not willing to pay $1 million even other party is happy with this amount. If it goes to trial and I lose, it could mean my $1 million is not enough if the court award more than $1 million?

 

[ecmst12]

They have told you that the case is worth less then your coverage so of course they are not going to pay the limits. The other party would have had to suffer SERIOUS permanent disability or disfigurement, permanent inability to work, loss of limb, or death to warrent that kind of payment. Your insurance company knows what it is doing, so relax.

 

[las365]

Right to know?? No.

I disagree. OP is the person being sued, and he is the client of the attorney hired by his insurance carrier. As the client, he has the right to be informed of everything involved in the case. He has the right to attend the mediation if he wishes.

The carrier has a contractual obligation to provide an attorney for the insured. The carrier is not the client. The insured is the client.

 

[HappyWanderer]

While the insurance company attorney represents the insurance company, I think ethically and legally he ALSO represents the OP. I think he HAS to disclose and feel this is another senormemberitis issue on this forum. JETX, WTF? Do you have a citation for you theory?

 

[las365]

An attorney hired by the insured's insurance carrier to represent the insured represents the insured, not the insurance company. The insurance company is not a party to this case. The OP is the defendant, and it is he who is represented by the attorney.

 

[moburkes]

An attorney hired by the insured's insurance carrier to represent the insured represents the insured, not the insurance company. The insurance company is not a party to this case. The OP is the defendant, and it is he who is represented by the attorney.

The insurance company is likely a defendent.

 

[ecmst12]

If they think you might disclose anything to the other party (like you mentioned doing) they have plenty good reason not to tell you anything, for your own good.

 

[HappyWanderer]

An attorney hired by the insured's insurance carrier to represent the insured represents the insured, not the insurance company. The insurance company is not a party to this case. The OP is the defendant, and it is he who is represented by the attorney.

The question is more difficult than that. There are many articles on the internet about if an attorney has an inherent conflict of interest in this situation. Of course, the answer is no, otherwise the entire insurance industry needs to be revamped.

What happens if the "client" gives the attorney information indicating he violated the policy? (Like he was drinking.) Policy limits and all kinds of things make a difficult situation. While the attorney clearly represents the insured, the insurance company is not really out of the equation either.

 

[ecmst12]

Drinking is a violation of the LAW, not the policy. I have never seen a policy where drinking and driving will result in a denial of coverage.

 

[littleMike]

I was surpised to be told the agreement was made before the final deadline in next month, the insurance pays the policy limit, the case will be dismissed. The insurance works in my case. BTW, the injured person recovered well, at least from non-expert's view including insurance's attorney's eye, this was a 100% recover.

I guess my insurance cost will increase a lot, which probably I won't argue.

Happy holidays everyone.

 

[ecmst12]

Your insurance won't increase MORE just because they are paying the policy llimit.

 

[moburkes]

Your insurance won't increase MORE just because they are paying the policy llimit.

Thanks for that. It amazes me that people actually think that. If there was a $1 claim or a $300,000 claim, the surcharge is the same, for most companies. Otherwise, there is no surcharge for those companies which have a threshold before surcharging, until the payout exceeds that threshold.

 

[ecmst12]

I believe state law in PA says surcharging starts at $1100 payout on an at-fault claim....so whether they pay $1100 or 11000 or more, one accident means one surcharge. Less then $1100, no surcharge.