Cathy Roper, CPA/ABV, CVA, CFE, CGMA’s Post

I tried a case last week that I wouldn't normally handle. Why did I take this particular case? The way Progressive Insurance treated their own policyholder rubbed me the wrong way. The case involved Nate, a recent law school graduate who reached out to my firm after he broke his thumb at the joint in a car crash. The pain wasn’t debilitating but affected his quality of life, especially when he was active. Nate had faithfully paid his car insurance premiums to Progressive, month after month.  When he got injured, he trusted that Progressive would treat him fairly. Considering that my client had suffered an objective injury, had surgery, went to physical therapy, and had chronic pain in the now-arthritic thumb, I hoped the case would settle pre-suit.    Progressive, however, took the position that Nate's pain and loss of full range of motion had little value. They first offered $1,870, then $5,000.   Nate was forced to file a lawsuit. For the next 506 days, Progressive refused to increase its settlement offer of $5,000.00. My client was forced to go through: • written discovery, • his own deposition, • a second-opinion expert examination, • a frivolous interlocutory appeal, • a corporate rep deposition, and • preparing for a trial.    A couple months before trial, Progressive increased its offer to $25,000.  But by this time, our case expenses had increased substantially, and Nate’s pain had only gotten worse.   At trial, we explained to the jury that Nate wasn’t here for his medical expenses or paycheck losses but for what had been taken from him in the form of quality of life. Three years after the crash, he still lived with daily pain.   At trial, Progressive’s counsel told the jury that my client was living the dream, claiming there was nothing Nate couldn't do now that he could before the crash.    Fortunately, the jury saw through the defense's arguments and returned a verdict of $175,000.00. Gus Lazares and I got this photo with Nate right after the verdict.   This trial was never going to make headlines, but I think it was an important verdict.  Every day in America, hard-working folks faithfully pay insurance premiums to protect them in their time of need. And every day, insurance companies refuse to treat their own policyholders fairly in “small cases” because they know that most lawyers will not incur the time, energy and expense to go try a “small case".   But if you’re a lawyer who believes that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, these are cases that need to be tried. That's the only way insurance companies will realize they cannot mistreat their own policyholders simply because they have “small claims”.

“Thank you for not obliterating the opponent.” This is what my client’s daughter said to me. I had represented the girl's mother in a divorce case. The daughter thanked me for both working hard for her mother and taking care of her father. That made me want to cry. In family law, the focus so often ends up on the details of the conflicts, the history of who wronged who. That leads to everyone overlooking the most crucial elements of the case: the people involved—especially the kids caught in between the couple. We do not handle cases. We represent real people. People who are part of families. They are mothers, fathers, and children. A parent can’t obliterate their opponent in a divorce and expect to be able to still co-parent after. Hurting your ex hurts your child. We can truly serve our clients only when we show compassion for the people on both sides of the table and understand that the family system will live on beyond the case.

Faith over Stress #europeanleadership