There is a misconception that in a seatback failure the seat must “break.” Many times, a component part may break; however, it is common that a defective seat may not have any broken parts. The “failure” is the seating system’s failure to safely contain an occupant in the front occupant space. Weak seats may dynamically and rapidly yield rearward regardless of whether a part breaks.

The exact failure in a seatback is difficult to determine until the seat is detrimmed – the cushioning is removed to reveal the structure of the seat. Common failures include: rapid yielding which leads to collapse; recliner failure; seat track failure; failure of the bolts connecting the seat to the floor; a broken weld; an inadvertent latch; and a head restraint failure.

The “recliner” is the mechanism that adjusts the seatback. Some vehicles have single recliners although most newer cars utilize recliners on both sides of the seat (dual recliners). A recliner should provide sufficient rearward resistance in a rear impact. When a recliner fails, the seating system as a whole dangerously collapses.

An “inadvertent unlatching” failure is a design defect that leads the seat to disengage releasing the recliner mechanism result in a collapse of the seating system.

If the headrest is broken or pulled out in a rear-end impact, it should raise a red flag for a “head restraint” failure. The headrest should be designed in conjunction with the seatback to support the occupant and prevent the occupant from ramping. When the seat yields rearward and a front occupant loads the headrest, weak and defective head restraints may pull out or break. Another key piece of evidence is the head restraint “guide sleeves” – the plastic pieces at the top of the seatback where the head restraint prongs are inserted into the seatback. In a head restraint failure, the guide sleeves my break.

https://www.safetyresearch.net/blog/articles/nhtsa-ready-strengthen-seat-backs

The post Seatback Failures first appeared on Phoenix Insurance Bad Faith Attorneys | Policy Claim Lawyer Scottsdale, Arizona.

During the crash, if the driver’s front airbag properly deploys allowing the driving to walk away with minor injuries, but the front passenger airbag fails to deploy resulting in the adult passenger sustaining serious injuries, there has most likely been a defect in the PPS. Investigation begins with crash data retrieval “CDR” to determine if the subject collision was recorded as a “deployment” event and properly commanded the vehicle to deploy both airbags. If the CDR shows that the PPS has misclassified an adult front seat passenger as a child which results in a serious injury to the adult passenger, there is a potential claim for defective failure of the PPS provided that front passenger had on a seatbelt, had a reasonable seat position, and the CDR shows that the vehicle’s longitudinal delta-v was above the threshold for deployment for the airbag.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/571.208

The post Defective Passenger Presence System Causes Airbag Non-Deployment first appeared on Phoenix Insurance Bad Faith Attorneys | Policy Claim Lawyer Scottsdale, Arizona.

The problem with creating holes in the engine firewall or in the body of the vehicle for venting purposes is that many times manufactures fail to take additional steps to make sure these openings are fire safe. In fact, many times the material used to seal the openings are a combustible rubber or plastic which serves as fuel for the potential fire. Fire resistant materials have long been used in other applications, e.g., homes, and should also be used in vehicles. These materials allow air to pass through unless exposed to heat or flame, at which time they melt to seal the opening and prevent fire and smoke propagation.

Pre-pandemic there were nearly 170,000 highway vehicles fires every year in the United States. Although this is less than other types of fires, vehicle fires are more likely to result in fatalities. Vehicles fires kill nearly seven people every week; cause 1,300 injuries every year; and $1.1 billion in property damage every year according to the U.S. Fire Administration. With these statistics, it only makes sense that manufacturers would, at a minimum, use fire resistant materials when creating holes in the engine firewall and body of the vehicle for venting purposes.

The post Fire Propagation Defects in Survivable Crashes first appeared on Phoenix Insurance Bad Faith Attorneys | Policy Claim Lawyer Scottsdale, Arizona.

While these vans are convenient, they do not drive like a minivan. Drivers and passengers must use caution to minimize the risks associated with these vehicles. Some precautions include: (1) Passenger vans should only be driven by experienced, licensed drivers. Although not required in most states, a commercial driver’s license is ideal; (2) Drivers should be well rested and should not drive more than 8 hours per day; (3) Passenger vans should ALWAYS obey the posted speed limit or less depending upon weather and road conditions. Passenger vans require additional time to brake and cannot handle abrupt maneuvers like a car. Passenger vans are longer, heavier, and wider than a car, and require additional space to maneuver, turn, and change langes; (4) Passenger van tires should be inspected, including checking tire pressure, before each use; and (5) Passengers should fill from the front to the back. The driver should never allow the van to overfill with passengers. When the van is not full, passengers should sit in seats that are in front of the rear axle. Passengers should always wear seatbelts.

Ideally, every passenger van should also come equipped with driver assistance technologies including electronic stability control, forward collision warning, and lane assist. Indeed, if every auto manufacturer included these assistance technologies as standard equipment it is estimated that 94% of fatal crashes could be eliminated.

Vans should be designed and tested to ensure a reasonable level of stability because of their high center of gravity, wheelbase, and rearward overhang of the rear axle. This rollover stability testing should also address emergency maneuvering conditions and not merely be limited to perfect driving conditions. For years, automakers have known that readily available, economical, and technologically feasible design alternatives, e.g, crash avoidance technology, would minimize and eliminate risk of serious injury or death from handling defects and rollover instability of passenger vans. For example, in the early 1970s, engineers identified the instability problem and recommended adding dual rear wheels to enhance load capacity, and to improve traction and handling. However, auto manufacturers’ cost considerations took precedence over the potential to save human lives.

The risks presented by the inherent instability of large passenger vans is compounded when the manufacturer doesn’t take into consideration the crashworthiness of the vehicles. Occupant protection and containment is critical in a large passenger van. There must be adequate roof strength in case of a potential rollover crash. It is not simply the risk of crushing an occupant. If the roof structure collapses, the windshield and side windows can break out, which could result in the occupant being ejected. Likewise, if the side windows of a passenger van is made of tempered glass, it can easily fracture and breakout creating a risk of ejection and enhanced injuries.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/15-passenger-vans

The post Passenger and Cargo Vans Prone to Deadly Rollover Crashes first appeared on Phoenix Insurance Bad Faith Attorneys | Policy Claim Lawyer Scottsdale, Arizona.

JTF Aviation Holdings, Inc. v. CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP. CV19-0209-PR (9/18/20)

Arizona Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that a contractual limitations provision can preclude nonparties to the contract from asserting tort claims that do not arise out of the contractual relationship.

Arizona has not adopted the “closely related party doctrine” so contractual provisions cannot preclude nonparties to the contract from asserting tort claims that do not arise out of the contractual relationship. The president and sole stockholder of the corporation was entitled to sue the defendant after the expiration of a contractual limitations period.

https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2020/CV190209PR.pdf

Perdue v. La Rue, 1 CA-SA 19-0657 (9/3/20)

“Sham Affidavit” rule requires the trial court to disregard an affidavit filed in contradiction to deposition testimony, even if in a different legal proceeding, when deciding a motion for summary judgment.

Court of Appeals held that the trial judge correctly applied the “sham affidavit” rule and disregarded an affidavit by plaintiff in the civil case that asserted facts squarely contradicted by her deposition testimony in an earlier divorce proceeding. Summary judgment for the defendant in the civil case was affirmed.

https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2020/CV%2019-0657%20Perdue%20v.%20La%20Rue.pdf

Torres v. JAI Dining Services 1 CA-CV 19-0544 (9/10/20)

Arizona Court of Appeals vacated an $800K verdict against the Jaguar strip club and bar accused of overserving alcohol to a patron who later killed two people in an auto collision. The drunken patron had gone to his own home and gone to sleep. The drunken patron awakened and then got behind the wheel while still drunk. The Court of Appeals founds these facts constituted a superseding, intervening cause.

https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/court-of-appeals-division-one-published/2020/1-ca-cv-19-0544.html

Clayton v. Hon. Kenworthy, et al. 1 CA-SA 20-0086 (9/15/20)

On a special action, Court to Appeals reversed the trial court for a abuse of discretion. Trial judge had granted a defense motion to prohibit a Rule 35 neuropsychological exam from being recorded based upon an objection by the examiner. The defense examiner claimed that third-party observers or recording devices would “alter and impact the scientific reliability of the assessment process.” Court of Appeals held that the plain language of Rule 35 entitles the examinee to record the exam.

https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/court-of-appeals-division-one-published/2020/1-ca-sa-20-0086.html

Harianto v. State of Arizona 1 CA-CV 18-0446 (9/24/20)

Court of Appeals found that A.R.S. 12-820.02 gave DPS officers and the dispatcher qualified immunity. This case arises from the failure of DPS to stop a wrong-way driver on the freeway before he caused a crash. Harianto sued the State alleged the State was negligent in (1) failing to take appropriate measures including providing reasonable warnings to prevent wrong-way driving and related accidents, and (2) failing to adopt or implement any law enforcement standards to prevent such accidents. The trial judge granted the State’s motion for summary judgment based upon the State’s qualified immunity unless the State intended to cause injury or was grossly negligent.

Harianto’s argument was based on Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix, 188 Ariz. 183 (App. 1986). However, Court of Appeals stated the Arizona Supreme Court forbids considering vacated Hutcherson, even if it was vacated on unrelated grounds.

https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/court-of-appeals-division-one-published/2020/1-ca-cv-18-0446.html

E.H. v. Slayton (State) CR-19-0118-PR (8/4/20)

“[P]lacing a cap on the amount of restitution a defendant may be liable for in a plea agreement, without the victim’s consent, violates the right to restitution.” The Arizona Supreme Court held that any prior cases to the contrary are overruled. The Court also held that “A lawyer representing a victim has a presumptive right to sit in front of the bar in the courtroom during a proceeding where the victim’s constitutional or statutory rights are at issue.”

https://law.lclark.edu/live/news/44155-eh-v-slayton-p3d-no-cr-19-0118-pr-2020-wl

Ibarra v. Gastelum 1 CA-CV 19-0597 (7/23/20)

Jury verdict for defendant in this premises case was affirmed. Arizona Court of Appeals held that it was not error to refuse a negligence per se instruction based on A.R.S. 33-1324(A)(2) which provides: “A landlord shall . . . [m]ake all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in fit and habitable condition.” Court of Appeals held that the statute is not sufficiently specific to sustain a negligence per se jury instruction.

https://casetext.com/case/ibarra-v-gastelum

Heaphy v. Willow Canyon Healthcare DBA Pueblo Springs Rehab 2 CA-SA 2020-0001 (6/18/20)

Defendants sought medical records of the surviving statutory beneficiary in a wrongful death action. The trial judge ordered that the records had to be produced. Arizona’s Court of Appeals vacated the order, holding that the statutory beneficiaries had not placed their medical conditions at issue when bring their wrongful death lawsuit. Relevance is not sufficient to overcome privilege.

https://www.anylaw.com/case/shirley-heaphy-v-metcalf/court-of-appeals-of-arizona/06-18-2020/AW2e03IBvjaUG3RuaTtX

In re the Stephens Revocable Trust 2 CA-CV 2019-0102 (7/31/20)

Although the Arizona Adult Protective Service Act (“APSA”) requires an interested party to request the court’s permission to file a lawsuit for financial exploitation, the Arizona Court of Appeals held it was error for the trial court to deny that permission. The party was in fact an “interested party” under A.R.S. 46-456 and there was no competing interested party who might have been more appropriate to bring the claim.

https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/court-of-appeals-division-two-published/2020/2-ca-cv-2019-0102.html

The post Arizona Appellate Updates first appeared on Phoenix Insurance Bad Faith Attorneys | Policy Claim Lawyer Scottsdale, Arizona.

In Arizona, prior to May 2019, the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse was generally limited to two years from the child’s 18th birthday. In other words, an abused minor had until the age of 20 to file a lawsuit against the sexual predator or organization that employed or enabled the sexual predator.

Because many victims of child sexual abuse are not only traumatized physically but emotionally, these lawsuits often do not get filed within the first two years of adulthood. So, many victims lost out on the opportunity to obtain justice or to hold the abuser accountable.

This changed in May of 2019. ARS 12-514 allows a victim “twelve years after reaching eighteen years of age” to file a lawsuit, i.e., until their 30th birthday.

Section 12-514 – Civil action arising from sexual conduct or sexual contact committed against a minor; failure to report; statute of limitations; revived action after a criminal conviction; definitions

A. Notwithstanding sections 12-505, 12-511 and 12-542, an action for the recovery of damages that is based on either of the following shall be commenced within twelve years after the plaintiff reaches eighteen years of age and not afterward:

1. An injury that a minor suffers as a result of another person’s negligent or intentional act if that act is a cause of sexual conduct or sexual contact committed against the minor.

2. The failure to report pursuant to section 13-3620 sexual conduct or sexual contact committed against a minor.

B. For the purposes of this section:

1. “Person” means an individual, the united states, this state or a public or private corporation, local government unit, public agency, partnership, association, firm, trust or estate or any other legal entity.

2. “Sexual conduct” means sexual conduct as proscribed by section 13-1405.

3. “Sexual contact” has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-1401.

In addition, Arizona Governor Ducey signed into law a provision that also enables people OLDER than 30 years to file a lawsuit for their childhood sexual abuse. HOWEVER, THE TIME WINDOW FOR SUCH A LAWSUIT IS ONLY THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2020!

Basically, the Arizona Legislature recognized that there are many victims who are now more than 30-years old who may have cases against their abusers or the enabling organizations which ignored, and in some cases hid, the abuse. So, Arizona has briefly re-opened the courthouse doors for these victims to file lawsuits and seek justice.

However, as mentioned above, this is set to expire on December 31, 2020. If you were a victim of sexual abuse as a child and are over 30-years old, please contact our office (480) 874-2918 as soon as possible to ensure that your rights can be protected before the December 31, 2020 deadline.

Contact Us Now

The post Arizona New Law – Courthouse Doors Open For Child Abuse Victims Over Age Of 30 For Limited Time, December 31, 2020. first appeared on Phoenix Insurance Bad Faith Attorneys | Policy Claim Lawyer Scottsdale, Arizona.

It’s very common for the insurance company to call you the same day and in some cases shortly after the collision. The adjuster will act friendly and attempt to build trust. Most people involved in a collision are vulnerable and feeling awful, both mentally and physically. It’s comforting to have an insurance company call you so quickly. Some will even say “we are admitting fault for the collision.”

But then, inevitably, you will be asked for a “recorded statement.” The adjuster will tell you that it is standard practice for anyone making a claim even if fault is admitted. Most people involved in a collision think it is an opportunity to tell “my side of the story to help my claim.” It’s NOT. I do NOT allow my clients to give recorded statements. And, I have never seen a recorded statement “help” a claim although I have seen plenty that hurt. If you are asked to give a recorded statement, you should politely decline.

Next, the insurance adjuster is going to request that you sign a medical authorization so that the insurance company can get your doctors paid. Again, this is a tactic. It will be a blanket authorization. It will be unlimited in time and scope. Do you really want to give an authorization to an insurance company so that it can obtain your medical records from any and every medical provider that you have ever seen in your life? I do NOT allow my clients to sign authorizations for the insurance company absent a confidentiality agreement or court order limiting the authorization to those records relevant to the injuries sustained in the collision. Again, if you are asked to sign blanket authorizations, you should politely decline.

This brings up what I consider the insurance company’s most egregious tactic. The insurance company, immediately following a collision, will offer a quick, nominal settlement in return for a signed or verbal release of your claim. Think about it – the insurance company offers you a quick $1,000 to $3,000 simply to walk away before you’ve even seen a doctor or received any treatment. Tempting? It’s very tempting and the insurance company knows that it is taking advantage of someone in a vulnerable position. Someone who has just been in a traumatic event can still be in shock and shouldn’t be making legal decisions like signing away their rights. Remember that most people involved in a collision usually do not realize the full extent of their injuries for days or longer.

Several years ago, before this quick settlement tactic fully developed, State Farm Insurance Company had a document called, “The Do’s And Don’ts Of A Minor Car Accident.” This document stated: “Don’t assume there aren’t injuries . . . Even low-impact collisions can cause injuries, some not appearing until days after the accident.” Of course, this great advice from State Farm disappeared about five years ago for some reason.

I am seeing a lot of this quick-hit settlement practice from most insurance companies here in Arizona. I’ll give you two examples of cases I have dealt with recently. The first case is the typical situation. Young man involved in a rear-end collision on Friday. He clearly had no fault for being rear-ended. He had never been in a collision before and had never made an insurance claim of any kind before. Geico called him soon after the collision. According to him, it was a nice adjuster who truly seemed to be concerned about his well-being. Geico’s adjuster spoke to him in length on the phone. She persuaded him to give a recorded statement. At the time she was speaking to him, he said he was experiencing pain between 6 to 8 on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the most severe pain he had ever felt. He told her that he would follow up with his doctor the following week.

Soon thereafter, Geico’s adjuster ended the recorded statement. However, she did not end the conversation. In fact, this young man did not realize that she had stopped recording the phone call. The Geico adjuster indicated that she had run his expected treatment through her computer and the treatment would cost about $750.00. According the young man, the Geico adjuster then offered the $750.00 as an advance payment towards his future medical bills. The problem is that the Geico adjuster told him that he would need to give his permission for getting paid the “advance.” So, Geico turned the recorder back on and verbally stated a full and final release of ALL claims. The young man who had just been in a collision, knew nothing about insurance claims, and had no idea what was going on, simply affirmed the verbal, recorded release for $750.00.

The next day the young man could barely move because his injuries were so severe. His medical bills were going to be several thousand dollars. When he contacted Geico to pay the additional bills, Geico basically told him “so sad, too bad” because you released everything for $750.00.

Can an oral contract to release be valid? Sure. Is this “release” an adhesion contact? Yes. Is Geico’s conduct in inducing the settlement fraudulent? Probably, but it is difficult to prove because Geico did not record the entire conversation and argues that it honestly handled the young man’s personal injury claim. And, this is now no longer just a personal injury (tort) case. It is a contract case between Geico and the young man. In contact cases, attorneys’ fees can be awarded. Geico litigated a similar case in Texas a couple years ago. Not only did the Texas court uphold the release, it awarded Geico $10,000 for attorneys’ fees. So, there is an obvious risk when contesting these despicable quick-hit settlement releases.

My second case is much more unusual and also has a much happier ending. It involved another collision. Although my client had never been in a collision before and had never made a claim before, he was older and more experienced. The at-fault carrier (Allstate) called him the day of the collision. He refused to give a recorded statement. Allstate did not give up. Allstate eventually offered $1,600 to settle the claim. There was back pain, but it didn’t seem too bad at the time. My client was tempted, but discussed it with his wife. Thankfully, they decided to wait. No settlement check cashed. No release signed.

During the next few days, the back pain grew worse. It became excruciating. His legs started to go numb. His family doctor sent him to get an MRI. The MRI showed a herniation because of the collision. It was severe and required neurosurgery. He suffered permanent disability. Allstate unsuccessfully tried to get a quick-hit settlement for $1,600 on a claim that was eventually valued at over $600,000. Can you imagine how devastating it would have been to his family had he accepted Allstate’s quick-hit settlement offer?

Insurance companies are not on your side. Insurance companies are not good neighbors. Insurance companies don’t really care about you. The opposing insurance adjusters believe it is their job to settle claims as quickly and for as little as possible. No matter how nice or kind they sound, their loyalty is to their insurance employer not the injury victim. There is nothing fair about it. Please, even if you do not hire an attorney, do not give recorded statements to the opposing insurance company and absolutely do not sign personal injury releases without at least being checked by your family doctor. Of course, the best practice is to hire an attorney to look out for your interest and with the goal of protecting your rights.

The post The Insurance Industry Quick-Hit Settlement first appeared on Phoenix Insurance Bad Faith Attorneys | Policy Claim Lawyer Scottsdale, Arizona.

The average state employee in Arizona pays $44 per month for health insurance premium, far below the state’s contribution of $557 per month. To put it another way, a typical state worker pays only 7% of their monthly premium.

The report – originally conducted by the Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation – additionally indicates that only 10 other states pay a higher premium toward health-insurance than Arizona. The numbers are drawn from trends that occurred throughout 2011 – 2013.

Some circumstances like spouses or children add to Arizona state employee’s personal contribution– 11 percent in most cases. Despite the increase, it’s worth noting this figure is still well shy of the national average of 16 percent.

State workers benefit from their robust coverage in a variety of ways, particularly out of pocket expenses. Residents purchasing health care through a private-sector employer or elsewhere are ultimately paying more.

Some health plans for Arizona state employees cover 94 percent of medical expenses, marginally better compared with the national average of 92 percent. AZ state provisions even top the ‘platinum’ plan through the Affordable Care Act, covering 90 percent of overall medical expenses.

Health care is proving to be quite the boon for state workers, even enticing more people to look internally for work. While the state’s decision to expand Medicaid eligibility per federal health care regulations continues to be fiercely debated, little mind has been spent on altering the current state of Arizona worker benefits.

Original story reported by AZ Central.

The post Better Health Care Provided to AZ Workers first appeared on Phoenix Insurance Bad Faith Attorneys | Policy Claim Lawyer Scottsdale, Arizona.

All of this is a result of an accident which occurred in 2007. Jared Wolfe suffered soft tissue damage in an accident when another individual, under the influence of drugs and alcohol, struck his car. The individual driving was insured by Allstate for a $50,000 limit.

Wolfe requested $25,000 in damages to cover his medical costs (well within Allstate’s policy limits), but Allstate refused and counter-offered $1,200. Wolfe filed a suit against the driver for damages. After hearing the evidence, the  jury awarded him $15,000 in compensatory and $50,000 in punitive damages. Allstate paid the $15k, but refused to pay the $50,000 because the driver’s policy does not cover punitive damages. In other words, Allstate completely ignored what was in its insured’s best interest when it forced this claim into litigation.

The driver assigned all his rights in the matter over to Wolfe, who was then able to file an insurance bad faith claim against Allstate. After hearing the evidence, the jury in the new case again awarded Wolfe the $50,000 award. Allstate in true “Delay, Deny, Defend” form of course appealed. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will determine if such an assignment is allowed under Pennsylvania law.

Allstate is arguing that allowing anyone other than the policyholder to file an insurance bad faith claim will start to shift towards “overcompensating” for injuries. Allstate’s protestations ring a little hollow when you consider the details of the current case. Allstate is refusing to pay out an amount that was within the policyholder’s original limits; which was twice awarded to the injured party by two separate juries. It is difficult to see how Allstate can make its argument with a straight face. Allstate completely ignored what was in the best interest of its insured, i.e., Allstate’s insured faced punitive damages for driving under the influence, when it made a low-ball offer of $1,200 to an injury victim with a legitimate claim. Allstate also ignored an offer that was half of its insured’s policy limits. After all these years and the “outing” of its McKinsey documents, Allstate amazingly continues to follow its corporate policy of “profit over people.” Fairly compensating injury victims and taking into consideration what is in the best interest of the insured over Allstate making money is not “overcompensating injured plaintiffs.” It is doing what Allstate should have done in the first place.

If you ever have issues or problems dealing with insurance companies, do not hesitate to get in touch with a skilled insurance bad faith attorney today.

Source: http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/denied_disability/wrongly-denied-disability-claims-insurance-bad-faith-16-20018.html

The post Allstate Taking $50,000 Bad Faith Claim to Supreme Court first appeared on Phoenix Insurance Bad Faith Attorneys | Policy Claim Lawyer Scottsdale, Arizona.

Jennifer Neumeyer, whose husband passed away due to pancreatic cancer back in 2011, found out only after his passing that his life insurance policy had been cancelled earlier when they had missed a single $9.60 payment. She had never received any warning messages or cancellation notices, which led her to think that the company deliberately withheld information from them knowing that they could use it to get out of paying the $120,000 premium.

Being caught in dire financial straits, she was having a hard time finding someone to help her fight. When she attempted to appeal the state’s decision to withhold payment on the life insurance policy, the hearing was postponed because she did not have legal representation. According to Neumeyer, it was highly recommended to her by the Maine Public Employees Retirement System that she obtain a lawyer.

Some insurance companies count on things like this, where individuals become discouraged or simply let it slide until it is too late. You absolutely cannot let that happen. There are almost always legal options out there. Similarly, there is almost always someone willing to fight for you if you have a legitimate claim as long as you get an attorney involved early on when the claim is initially denied.

If you or a loved one are being taken advantage of by insurance companies’ unfair business practices, please do not hesitate to get in touch with an experienced attorney immediately.

Source: http://www.pressherald.com/2014/07/21/augusta-woman-faces-setback-in-life-insurance-appeal/

The post Self-Representation in Insurance Cases is a Rough Road first appeared on Phoenix Insurance Bad Faith Attorneys | Policy Claim Lawyer Scottsdale, Arizona.