Defeating The Third Party Time Limit Settlement Demand

istock_000016351137xsmall-2

It’s the most common arrow in the quiver of plainfiffs’ lawyers when it comes to dealing with insurance companies:  the time limit settlement demand.  It’s used as a multi-purpose tool  against insurers to 1.) force an early settlement of the underlying third party  claim; 2.) prevent the insurer from conducting a full investigation into the underlying claim; 3.) drive a wedge between the insurer and its insured; and 4.) set up assignment of a follow-on bad faith claim in the event of an excess verdict in the third party claim.

Here’s how insurers can successfully defend against this tactic every time:

Document Receiving The Demand, And Immediately Request An Extension To Respond

This seems a rather obvious suggestion, but in practice it is overlooked as many times as utilized,  in my experience.   The failure to document receipt of the time limit settlement demand will not be of any help, and it exposes the insurer to the allegation of sloppy claims handling and inattentiveness to the claim.   If it arrives, when it arrives, acknowledge it in writing to the Plaintiff’s lawyer.

Especially when the time limits demand arrives early in the claims investigation, a written request for extension to respond to the demand should be made in writing immediately.  And of course, any refusal by plaintiff’s counsel to agree to the extension should be documented as well.

Document The Investigation Which Must Be Done Before Responding

While not strictly necessary, it is extremely helpful to identify with as much specificity as possible  the nature and extent of investigation you would like additional time to complete.    Providing these specifics will prevent any claim that the insurer is merely requesting additional time to delay paying the claim.

Obviously, the proposed investigation steps should be followed, and the results documented in the claims file.  Requesting an extension to investigate the claim and then failing to do the investigation exposes an insurer to bad faith exposure for  unreasonable delay.

Document Any Attempts By The Plaintiff’s Lawyer To Delay or Obstruct The Investigation

It happens.  Some zealous advocates are not content with merely refusing a request for an extension; in order to manufacture insurer delay the insurer will find that it is unable to get medical authorizations promptly, or unable to schedule the claimant’s examination under oath, to name two.  It is important that the claims file document accurately document responsibility for delay, or for expiration of the time limit demand, especially if the plaintiff’s lawyer is being either not helpful or worse, obstructing the investigation.

Keep The Insured Apprised, And Document That

In order to discharge the fiduciary duty an insurer owes to its insured in defending him or her in a third partly claim, the insured must be included and involved in communications involving the claim.  This is especially true where the insurer refuses to settle the underlying claim within policy limits, theoretically exposing the insured to an excess judgment.

An insurer does not have an obligation to settle non-meritorious or questionable claims within the insured’s policy limits.  However, if the insurer decides not to respond to a time limit demand, or refuses to settle a claim,  that should be communicated to the insured in advance of the time limit demand deadline, and the specific reasons for the insurer’s course should be provided to the insured.

Dual Benefits

All of the above steps will not only be of use in defending a follow – on bad faith claim should it come down the road, but it will lead to better results, and allow for proper investigation, of the underlying third party claim.  For more information on how to effectively rebut and defend against third party time limit settlement demands, reach me at chaddick@dmclaw.com or 717-731-4800.

Advertisements

Author: CJ Haddick

C.J. Haddick is a Director with the law firm of Dickie, McCamey, & Chilcote, PC, based in Pittsburgh, Pa. He has advised and represented insurers in insurance coverage and bad faith litigation for more than a quarter of a century, and written and spoken throughout the United States on insurance coverage and bad faith prevention and litigation. He is Managing Director of the firm's Harrisburg, Pa. office. Reach him at chaddick@dmclaw.com or 717-731-4800.

8 thoughts on “Defeating The Third Party Time Limit Settlement Demand”

  1. All time demands, as noted, need to be documented and dual diaried, i.e. adjuster diary and supervisor diary with response due date noted. I would strongly recommend that if an extension is needed that any initial or subsequent responsive letter detail the reason(s) for the requested extension and any phone conversations that may have taken place with the plntf atty after receipt of the time demand. Computer documentation should reflect the same.

    Like

      1. Thanks CJ. Time demands in Florida are a minefield. One of my responsibilities before retirement was the review, documentation and diarying of all time demands and CRNs.

        Like

  2. CJ: This appears to be written from a pre-litigation point of view. These suggestions also apply during litigation, though assigned Defense Counsel should be taking these steps, as well as others. Perhaps, that is your next post!

    Like

    1. Craig, thank you for taking time to leave a comment. I agree with you completely that proper tactics in responding to time limit demands should be adhered to during litigation as well. Best, CJ

      Like

  3. Having worked in the Florida “mind field” casualty environment for close to 30 years, I agree with all of the suggestions. Our guidelines include a process where a manager reviews and logs each demand, sets a Roundtable diary (well within the time expiration date) with the manager and/or VP to ensure a timely and proper response, and to provide immediate communication to the insured of the settlement opportunity. While most attorneys are not inclined to provide extensions as they want to put the pressure on the carrier, I find that involvement of defense counsel on concerning claims where you are not inclined to tender limits usually gives us the best result in obtaining an extension and the items we require to fully evaluate the claim. But, the best course of action is proactive handling prior to receipt of the demand with full investigation and requesting information on the instant and prior claims and conditions in advance.

    And, let’s not forget the early demands embedded within disclosure requests alleging their client sustained “serious injury” (without any supports) and demanding an immediate tender of “all limits” even before they know what limits are available. Managers need to also review and monitor disclosure responses and have a specific letter ready to address these early unsubstantiated demands.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s