Recently in Settlement Category

By Kirk Sloane B.A.(Hon), LL.B.

Lawyer, David Share Associates, Lawyers

Many disability claimants have heard or read about the following scenario: your disability insurer calls you on the phone, sends a representative to your home, or sends a letter proposing a lump sum payment to "buyout" either the future of your disability claim, a disputed portion of unpaid past benefits, or both. In many instances a buyout can be a desirable outcome, but a disability claimant needs to understand the ramifications of such a payment, have confidence that the proposed deal makes sense, and that the proposal is the best available option. Using experienced legal counsel can be an invaluable tool in assessing whether a buyout is the right thing to do and to ensure that the best deal possible is obtained.

 

One of the first considerations for an individual already receiving benefits is to determine the likelihood of the claim being terminated if the buyout proposal is rejected. Some insurers use the fear of a claim termination as a tactic to convince the claimant to accept a reduced amount. If the claim may truly be on the verge of a termination, however, there needs to be an assessment of the potential costs of a lawsuit and the likelihood of winning or losing the lawsuit. Those factors are essential in arriving at a sensible buyout figure.

 

Another important piece of the puzzle is to have a realistic assessment of the nature, extent and potential duration of a claimant's disability in order to make appropriate adjustments to the total future expected disability payments. In addition, a disability claimant needs a thorough understanding of the concept of the "present value" of future benefits in order to calculate the true value of the investment power of a proposed lump sum payment of future benefits.

 

When it comes to a buyout during litigation, the cost and risk factors for further litigation and the potential outcomes are much more prominent factors than in the claim context. In summary, buyout strategies can be complex and it is critical that a disability claimant utilize a lawyer with expertise in dealing with disability claims in order to ensure a satisfactory outcome.

By Janice Grevler  B.A., L.L.B.

Associate Lawyer, David Share Associates, Lawyers

 

In recent years, the vast majority of civil actions that are commenced are settled prior to trial.  While there are opportunities for settlement throughout the course of a lawsuit, the process of mediation provides a highly beneficial opportunity for settlement discussions and, ultimately, resolution of a claim.

 

Mediation is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution.  In a mediation,  a neutral third party - the mediator - helps to facilitate settlement discussion so that, hopefully, the parties are able to reach a resolution of the lawsuit.  The mediator has no authority to impose a settlement on either side. 

 

While previously, under the Rules of Civil Procedure, mediation was a mandatory part of litigation within the first few months of litigation, currently, mediation is only required within 90 days after an action is set down for trial (in other words, relatively late in the proceeding).

 

However, effective January 1, 2010, mediation will, once again, become mandatory early on in a lawsuit. 

 

"New" actions:

 

According to the new Rules, mediation will be mandatory in all "new" actions (commenced on or after January 1, 2010) in Ottawa-Carleton, the County of Essex (Windsor) and Toronto.  In particular, according to the new Rules, mediation must take place within 180 days (3 months) of the filing of the first Statement of Defence.  The parties may extend the time for mediation on consent or by court Order following a motion.

 

"Old" actions:

 

With respect to "old" actions (those commenced before January 1, 2010), according to the new Rules, mediation must be held by June 30, 2010.  Again, the parties may extend the time for mediation on consent or by court Order.

 

What does this mean for you? 

 

While we have always strived to move our cases towards resolution with minimal delay, the new Rules regarding mandatory mediation will assist in moving your lawsuit forward more efficiently, and with even less delay, than may have previously been the case.  For one thing, while defence counsel previously may have been reluctant to schedule a mediation in any given case, he or she will likely be more inclined to agree to scheduling a mediation given that such is deemed mandatory (with only few exceptions). 

 

While it may be necessary to agree to a short delay in scheduling mediation in order to allow more time to prepare the case for settlement, obtain documents, or wait for a particular mediator-of-choice who may not be available for several months, we are optimistic that the new regime will assist in swifter resolutions within personal injury and disability litigation.

 

By David Share L.L.B.

President, David Share Associates, Lawyers

What sort of insurance product would you market to the Canadian public when you read about the aging demographic and the gap in health care services?   Long Term Care Insurance may be the answer, and in theory this type of coverage seems to make a lot of sense.

This type of insurance is supposed to provide protection if you need to enter a long term care facility or will require special medical care at home, for services, such as the following:

  • nursing care
  • rehabilitation and therapy
  • personal care (help with activities of daily living like dressing, eating etc)
  • homemaking services (meal preparation, cleaning, laundry)
  • supervision by another person

The big question, though is will it come through when you need it?  

Many claims will no doubt be paid, but where there is a question about entitlement, or where a level or interpretation or analysis is required to decide on whether benefits will be paid, the ambiguity and fine print in the insurance policy or contract will come into play, and there will be claim denials.

The bottom line for Canadian consumers is to get good advice on whether such insurance makes sense for you, and in the event that you have it and your claim is denied when you most require the financial support such policies are supposed to provide is to find lawyers with the expertise to assist you and your family recover what you are entitled to.

By Kirk Sloane B.A.(Hon), LL.B.

Lawyer, David Share Associates, Lawyers

 

You did the responsible thing and bought life insurance for your family.  One would think that the life insurance company will do the right thing and pay when the claim is made. Not necessarily:

In the case of Heath Ledger, the trustee for his estate was forced to file an action against the insurance company for failing to pay on a $10M insurance policy purchased by Ledger. The life insurance company had been delaying payment while it investigated the possibility that Ledger committed suicide or failed to disclose certain information about his mental health when he originally applied for the policy. The action has since been settled out of court.

Most people lack the experience and foresight to know that they should document their communication or conversations with insurance agents and claims adjusters.   This can create a situation where the insurer may claim that they were not advised of medical conditions which would affect the policy risk.

If you are buying insurance, be sure to detail all of your medical conditions in your application if it requires it.  You should also document all correspondence, email and telephone conversations with the agent and any other person who is related to the insurance company who talks to you when you are about to purchase a policy.    Detail all of the medications which you are taking or have taken in relations to your medical condition and disclose it to the agent and in the application.   In the absence of a detailed record of all the information provided to the insurance company, there is a great deal of room for denial of the insurance claim.

Most trustees, executors and beneficiaries should expect that if death occurs in the first two (2) years of the policy, that the policy will be investigated for misrepresentation by the insured.    If you are the insured, a beneficiary, or a trustee or executor, make a policy file and keep all records in the file, including a copy of your beneficiary designation.

In order to avoid a situation where the policy lapses for non-payment of the premium, you should set up automatic payments from your account so that the policy is in force at all times. Even if an insurance company is prepared to reinstate a lapsed policy, it will very likely have an impact on how they handle an eventual claim and whether or not there will be investigation and the potential denial of payment.

 

 

By Janice Grevler  B.A., L.L.B.

Associate Lawyer, David Share Associates, Lawyers

 

There's no doubt that internet-based social networking has shrunk the world in which we live, and has allowed us to stay connected with others, near and far.  These social utilities provide a plethora of otherwise-unavailable information to keep our "friends" (real or web-based) informed of our whereabouts, our activities and, even, our daily status. 

 

Yet the benefits of staying "connected" can have drawbacks when the information attainable on the world-wide web is used for more than social networking and is, instead, utilized for the purposes of defending a personal injury or insurance lawsuit.

 

Those who have profiles on Facebook, MySpace, Twitter or other social networks, and who are involved in litigation, should be forewarned that insurance companies too have begun to employ the internet for their own benefit.  We have witnessed this phenomenon over the past many months.   On the basis of information obtained on social networking utilities, we have seen defence counsel argue that various Plaintiffs in personal injury or disability actions are not as disabled or injured as they have claimed.  What may seem to be a harmless comment to update one's "status" on Twitter or Facebook, or to communicate with a friend on his or her Facebook wall, may ultimately be used against the author where he or she is involved in litigation.  While investigations of the Plaintiff (including surveillance) have long-since been used by Defence counsel and insurance companies alike, these tactics are now incorporating searches on various social networks to look for clues about the Plaintiff's day-to-day life.  At its worst, any such "clues" may be taken out of context by a Defendant who seeks to portray a seemingly harmless comment or photograph in an unfavourable light to the detriment of the Plaintiff's claim.

 

To eliminate or minimize the risks that a Plaintiff will encounter in the course of litigation, he or she should keep in mind the following tips related to social networking:

 

  1. Consider removing your Profiles from social-utility networks pending the outcome of your litigation.  If you are not prepared to do so, know that information about you on these sites may be used against you;

 

  1. Ensure that you employ the maximum privacy settings possible, including not allowing others to view your friends list on Facebook,  so as to limit the access that outsiders have to information about you;

 

  1. Be aware that, on Facebook, even where your settings are "private", non-friends may still gain access to information about you by reviewing the profiles, photographs and walls of your friends (especially those whose settings are less "private") for information that may pertain to you.  Investigators will endeavour to retrieve information about you by accessing your friends' profiles;

 

  1. Be wary of photographs and videos that you upload to your Facebook or MySpace profile, as well as your friends' photographs on which you are "tagged".  A picture is worth a thousand words and may be used by a Defendant, out of context, to undermine your personal injury or disability case.  Untag yourself on photographs posted by others, or ask your friends to remove photographs of you that could be used against you.  Know that a friend who is "tagged" in your photo album will, in turn, provide his or her friends with access to your album, unless the strictest of privacy settings is selected;

 

  1. Keep in mind that every time you make a comment on Facebook, whether it be on someone's wall or photograph or as part of a group, your note may be easily accessible to investigators.  Keep such postings to a minimum and be cautious about commenting on anything that you would not like raised in the course of your lawsuit;

 

  1. Similarly, investigators can easily ascertain to what "Events" you have accepted invitations over Facebook (whether they be social, recreational or other events), thereby becoming informed of your activities and social calendar.  Keep this in mind;

 

  1. As tempting as it may be to change your Status on Facebook or Twitter regularly to reflect the goings-on in your life, we recommend that you not do so.  Through a personal injury lawsuit, it is optimal for the Plaintiff's lawyer to control, or at least be aware of, information about the Plaintiff's daily life that is provided to the Defendant.  The Plaintiff's lawyer will not be aware of, and won't have control over, information gleaned from Facebook or Twitter Status Updates.  A seemingly benign Status Update, for example, such as "Peter had a great time with his friends at the park today", can be used to undermine a Plaintiff's claim that he has lost enjoyment of life owing to an accident.  The Status Update, of course, does not indicate for how long Peter was out at the Park, how much pain medication he ingested that day, whether he required assistance with transportation to and mobility at the park, whether his outing caused an exacerbation in his symptoms thereafter and whether this is the first time Peter has socialized since the accident.  Taken out of context, therefore, the comment can have consequences for Peter in the course of his lawsuit.

 

So, in short, what can you take from all of this?  Be cognizant of the information you are sharing with anyone on-line, even where it appears that you have control over the reader.  Think before you speak on social networks.  Only say or reveal information that you are amenable to sharing in the course of your lawsuit.  And, definitely, speak to your lawyer if you have any question about how your participation on social networking utilities can impact on your case.

By David Share L.L.B.

President, David Share Associates, Lawyers

Over the past several years a large number of Critical Illness Insurance policies have been sold to Canadians either through private policies sold directly to them, or through group policies provided through employers or associations.    These policies are designed to pay a one-time lump sum benefit to an individual suffering from an illness set out within the policy.    The great misconception that members of the public have regarding these policies is that the benefit is paid out on the simple confirmation of the diagnosis of one of the listed illnesses.   

While payment may frequently be made without a significant fight with the insurer, rejection of such claims appears to be on the rise.   Claim denials are based on a number of potential factors, but we are seeing denials based on two principal areas:  1) The illness diagnosed does not appear to meet the criteria as defined in the policy; and 2) An allegation regarding a negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the individual's health status at the time the policy was applied for. 

If your claim for payment under a Critical Illness policy has been declined, you should contact a lawyer to discuss the possibility of challenging these decisions.   Our firm has years of experience in dealing with disputed insurance claims.  Familiarity with policy wording and underwriting requirements is crucial if you are to have any chance of success in disputing a claim rejection.

By Leanne Goldstein B.A., LL.B. 

Associate Lawyer, David Share Associates, Lawyers

 

An expression of contrition and remorse, an apology can go a long way to healing the emotional wounds that fester in the face of wrongdoing. While an apology cannot undo harm that has been caused, it is a way of showing respect and it is an acknowledgement that another individual has emotions that deserve consideration. Children are taught from a very young age to apologize for wrongdoing and to acknowledge the effects of their negative actions on others.

 

Unfortunately, the proliferation of litigation in recent times has resulted in an adult society that has shunned the simple apology in fear that it will result in an admission of liability or recrimination. Individuals and corporations are often advised by legal counsel to avoid issuing an apology in cases of alleged wrongdoing.

 

Doctors and Hospitals for instance, are often cautioned against apologizing for medical errors in order to avoid litigation. They will go to the extent of avoiding all communication with patients in regard to a medical error in order to avoid the possibility that anything said in explanation of what occurred could surface in a law suit.

 

Ironically, the failure to apologize is sometimes what spurs litigation. Some victims of medical errors commence litigation to seek the answers that they have not received because the doctors and hospitals have been instructed not to communicate with them.

 

Other litigants are motivated by a desire that there is recognition of the wrongdoing or to ensure that the mistake does not reoccur. It is highly probable that many of these types of litigants may not have commenced litigation had they received an apology.

 

South Africa embraced the concept of "apology" with the adoption of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the 1990's. The Commission was created shortly after the abolition of Apartheid and conducted hearings in which victims of violence and human rights abuses could come forward and tell their stories. Perpetrators of the violence and human rights abuses were also encouraged to come forward, admit to their wrongdoings and offer apologies for their actions.

 

The Commission was vested with jurisdiction to grant amnesty to perpetrators if the crimes committed were politically motivated, proportionate, and there was full and complete disclosure. Approximately 15% of the perpetrators were granted indemnity from criminal and civil prosecution. In 1998 the Commission presented a report which detailed and condemned the abuses that had been committed.

 

Although the outcome and efficacy of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has been debated by many, the fact that Democracy was attained in South Africa post Apartheid without civil war is likely in part testimony to the value of acknowledging wrongdoing and rendering an apology.

After an outbreak of Listeriosis the food-borne illness, caused by the bacterium Listeria monocytogenes, Maple Leaf Foods conducted a very public campaign in Canada. The company CEO held press conferences, ran advertisements on television and in newspapers and posted an apology on the company web site. Instead of being condemned for opening itself to potential lawsuits, the company has been lauded for its effective communication with the public.

On April 15, 2009 a bill (The Apology Act) was introduced in the Ontario Legislature that provides that an apology made would not be admissible in a civil proceeding and would not constitute an admission of liability.

 

It is not uncommon in our practice to encounter clients who are extremely distressed by the fact that the person or company who caused their injury has never apologized to them or acknowledged their wrongdoing. They will express the fact that they are unable to heal emotionally because of the anger they feel towards those that have caused their injuries. In advocating for our clients, we endeavour to imbue litigation with the human element and attempt to persuade those that we are litigating against that they are dealing with individuals whose emotions are deserving of consideration and respect.

 

If this legislation is passed, it will be a positive step in recognizing that the victims of wrongdoing are not motivated solely by compensation but are often motivated by the genuine human need for compassion, understanding and the recognition of wrongdoing when it has occurred. 

By Steven Muller LL.B, J.D, LL.M.,

Vice-President, David Share Associates, Lawyers

 

What does Heath Ledger and Britney Spears have in common? Their life and disability insurance companies delayed payment of legitimate claims worth millions of dollars. Competent specialised lawyers were retained to fight their entitlements.

 

ReliaStar Life Insurance Company, owned by ING America, refused to pay Heath Ledger's death benefit of $10 million dollars to his 3 year old daughter, Matilda Rose. The 28 year old star of Brokeback Mountain and The Dark Knight is now the winner of the Golden Globe and Oscar posthumously. Ledger was found dead in his New York apartment in January 2008 some seven months after taking out the policy where his daughter Matilda is the beneficiary. The New York medical examiner ruled an accidental prescription drug overdose of painkillers and other medicine: alprazolam, diazepam, doxylamine, hydocodone, oxycodene and temazepam. Despite the ruling, ReliaStar suggested Ledger committed suicide or lied on his insurance application when he said he never used illegal drugs showing bad faith in applying to the policy. ReliaStar refused to pay claiming the policy was voided.

 

Prior to approving the application, Reliastar didn't ask for Ledger's physicians' records. Post claim the insurance company asked for names of doctors, psychiatrists and all kinds of records. The estate hired a lawyer on behalf of Matilda and sued ReliaStar claiming punitive damages and contending that the insurer acted in bad faith in its refusal to pay the Ledger policy. ReliaStar in January 2009 agreed to a confidential settlement rumoured to be around $10 million. The insurer appears to have attempted to engage in post claims underwriting in order to delay payment to Matilda.  

 

Britney Spears hasn't been as fortunate with her insurance dispute. In 2005, Spears sued eight international insurance companies including Liberty, AXA and QBE to recover $9.8 million in damages for their refusal to pay her for losses she sustained when her European concert tour in 2004 was cancelled because of a knee injury. Spears paid more than $1.3 million in insurance premiums on contingency insurance, a form of accident and illness insurance for celebrities, to cover abandonment, postponement and cancellation of performances for her 2004 Onyx Hotel Tour through the United States, Canada and Europe. 

 

Spears underwent a medical examination for her insurers on February 5, 2004 and Dr. Drazin concluded that she was "in sound health and free from disease" and "in fit condition" for the Tour. Unfortunately for Spears, she failed to note on the questionnaire that five years earlier she had an orthopaedic surgery on her left knee and had fully recovered subsequently performing hundreds of times since the surgery. In March 2004 Spears injured her left knee during a performance and cancelled two shows. Spears was examined the by the insurers doctor and cleared to perform further shows. In April 2004 Spears provided an explanation at the request of the insurers for the omission in the 2004 questionnaire. After April 2004 the insurers extended the policy from August 10, 2004 to August 15, 2004 and accepted premiums despite Spears acknowledging that she made a mistake on the 2004 questionnaire. On June 11, 2004 Spears had surgery for her injury that took place on June 8, 2004 while shooting her music video "Outrageous". Ultimately Spears was diagnosed with a floating cartilage and cancelled her summer tour of 2004. Despite Spears insistence that many of the insurers knew of her pre existing problems because they insured her for the Tour 2000 with disclosure at that time, Spears insurers are dragging their feet in paying this legitimate claim. 

 

Whether you're a celebrity or not, being denied your claim is stressful for you and your family. Insurers delay as a matter of course. Able counsel may reduce the delay and help resolve your life insurance claim and disability insurance claim.

By Janice Grevler  B.A., L.L.B.

Associate Lawyer, David Share Associates, Lawyers

 

Those who have struggled with their insurance companies for months, or even years, in pursuit of disability benefits that had been denied or terminated, will often experience a range of additional "benefits", both financial and non-monetary, when their cases are ultimately settled.   Here are a list of some of the types of gains that our clients have told us they have experienced following the settlement of their Disability Claims:

 

  • Financial Peace of Mind:
    • A claimant and his or her family frequently face dire financial consequences when the claimant is disabled from working and, then, deprived of the disability benefits on which they had expected to rely.  A lump sum settlement of a disability claim brings the financial security of knowing that the individual and his or her family will be financially secure as they move forward. 

 

  • Disability Benefits for the Future: 
    • If a case does not settle and, instead, the litigation proceeds to trial (Court), a Court cannot order disability benefits into the future.  Rather, the Court's award of disability benefits can only relate to past amounts owing (arrears).  While a Court could declare that the individual is disabled and therefore should be reinstated on the insurance policy, future benefits will not necessarily flow into the future if, for example, the insurance company then decides to, again, deny or terminate benefits.  By settling one's long-term disability benefits case prior to trial, the claimant can receive a lump sum payment that includes disability benefits for the future.  This, of course, is often an attractive benefit of settling these types of cases prior to trial. 

 

  • Re-Focusing on Healing:
    • Following the onset of a disability and then the denial or termination of disability benefits, an individual's life will often become focused on his/her battle with the insurance company.  The settlement of one's case allows the claimant to completely centre his/her efforts and energy on physical and mental healing.   Without distraction, the individual can work on improving his/her health so that, ideally and wherever possible, he/she can accomplish a complete recovery and return to work.

 

  • Terminating One's Relationship with the Insurance Company:
    • While receiving a lump sum payment from one's insurance company may improve one's opinion of the insurance company (albeit slightly), the individual who settles his case with the insurance company is typically relieved to sever the relationship after the case settles.  Finally, he is no longer at the whim of the insurer.  The insurance company can no longer, for example, request his medical records or send him to see physicians of the insurer's choice at their discretion.  It is little wonder that the termination of the relationship between insured and insurer is frequently met with contentment and relief on the part of the individual.

 

  • Increased Understanding of One's Medical and Employable Status:
    • In the course of a long-term disability case, one's doctors are approached to provide their records, reports and opinions.   Since the individual's disability has come under attack by the insurance company, the disability and medical information itself frequently become the focus of disability lawsuits and settlement discussions.  So, in comparison with what may sometimes be rushed medical appointments, the litigation process often draws out and clarifies for the individual exactly what one's doctors are saying about his/her diagnosis, treatment and prognosis.  Similarly, the settlement of these cases often gives the individual clarity as to whether it is medically advisable to engage in one's own occupation or even any occupation. 

 

  • Closure and Validation:
    • Finally, after a sometimes lengthy struggle with one's insurance company, a lump sum settlement can bring with it a sense of validation and closure.  Great satisfaction comes from knowing that an insurance company that had, for so long, denied one's legitimate entitlement to long-term disability benefits, is now agreeing to pay the benefits in dispute and settle the case.  To experience a "wrong" being corrected by a "right" (the settlement of a case) is, our clients have said, extremely rewarding!!

 

  • Feeling Supported:
    • Where an individual is represented by an experienced, effective and compassionate law firm, she/he should feel a sense of support and encouragement in knowing that she/he was not alone throughout the litigation process.  This, we have heard from clients, is in and of itself helpful, especially after feeling "victimized" by an insurance company.

 

When contemplating the potential settlement of a case, therefore, it is not just the monetary gains that will inevitably flow from this milestone.  Rather, there are a host of additional benefits that the individual may experience ... as a new page is turned and the individual moves on to the next chapter of his or her life.

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Settlement category.

SABS is the previous category.

Subjective complaints is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.