Sonja Cotton & Associates’ Post

Assisting Clients in Filing Insurance Claims with LexGurus 📌 Introduction: Welcome to LexGurus, your trusted ally in the realm of legal assistance. In this post, we delve into the crucial process of helping clients file insurance claims. Offering valuable insights and guidance to legal professionals and attorneys seeking to advocate effectively on behalf of their clients. 🔹 Understanding Insurance Claims: Filing an insurance claim can be a complex and daunting process for clients. At LexGurus, we understand the intricacies of insurance law and provide comprehensive support to legal professionals in guiding their clients through the claims process. 🔹 Initial Consultation and Assessment: The journey of filing an insurance claim begins with an initial consultation and assessment of the client's case. LexGurus assists legal professionals in evaluating the merits of the claim, identifying applicable insurance policies, and providing expert guidance on the best course of action. 🔹 Gathering Necessary Documentation: Central to the success of an insurance claim is the collection of necessary documentation to support the client's case. LexGurus offers support in gathering medical records, police reports, witness statements, and other crucial evidence to strengthen the client's claim. 🔹 Navigating Insurance Company Procedures: Insurance companies often have complex procedures and requirements for filing claims. LexGurus assists legal professionals in navigating these procedures, ensuring that all necessary forms are completed accurately and submitted within the prescribed deadlines. 🔹 Advocating for Fair Settlements: In many cases, insurance claims involve negotiations with insurance companies to reach a fair settlement. LexGurus provides guidance and support to legal professionals in advocating for fair compensation on behalf of their clients, ensuring that their rights are protected throughout the process. 🔹 Litigation and Appeals: If a fair settlement cannot be reached through negotiations, the case may proceed to litigation and appeals. LexGurus offers comprehensive support to legal professionals throughout the litigation process. 🔹 Future Post Preview: Stay tuned for future posts where we explore the latest developments and current news in the realm of insurance claims. From legislative updates to industry trends. 🔹 Conclusion: In conclusion, LexGurus is committed to providing unparalleled support to legal professionals in assisting their clients with insurance claims. With our expertise and guidance. You are required to fill a form there on the website.Www.nomosots.in   #outsource #virtualassistant #virtualassistance #freelancer #personalassistant #legal #law #lawyer #lawyers #attorney #lawfirm #lawyerlife #justice #lawschool #lawstudent #advocate #Lexgurus   Blog: https://lnkd.in/dgA3gs2w Form: https://lnkd.in/dEByq56N Contact: https://lnkd.in/dr9sAkEH  

There is one question that matters most in P&C litigation management: 1. Has the insurer CEO, CFO, or COO asked claims leadership to reduce legal expense? If the answer is no, then no one understands the long-term gameplan of the company. Instead, everyone's focused on this month's legal invoice, and tomorrow's invoices continue to grow exponentially. If the answer is yes - the CEO, CFO or COO has committed to litigation change - then the company is empowered to answer questions 2-4: 2. What data does claims management need to understand the litigation problem and start considering solutions? 3. What support do adjusters need to offload the administrative tasks so they can focus on strategically resolving cases? 4. What incentives do insurance defense attorneys need to truly align with their insurer clients on winning rather than creating compliant billing entries. Everyone knows insurers should stop cutting insurance insurance defense lawyers' invoices today. Save 100% of unnecessary work instead of 5%. Invoice cutting is costing insurers far more than its saving them. Stop asking attorneys to do work and then cutting their bills. Just ask them to do the right work, pay them for it, ask them to stop doing the wrong work, and don't pay them for it. Most insurer CEOs, CFOs, or COOs have not commited to stopping legal system abuse, and thus claims management has not been empowered to answer questions 2-4. They're stuck trying to cut invoices. Ask your CEO if we're ready to stop legal system abuse.

Lawyers are Eating Insurance Episode 5: The P&C Litigation Process in Under 10 Minutes The national P&C insurance market prioritized litigation in 2024. That means that the broader P&C ecosystem is being called on to support claims leaders, adjusters, and attorneys in their journey to rebalancing the scales of justice. In 2025, we'll see significant advancements in P&C litigation. Every day we're briefing these key partners on the litigation process. Although everyone's talking about litigation, virtually no one is providing any detail into the processes that have led to these issues. National P&C insurers have been leveraging some of their most talented folks, including business analysts, data analysts, tech leadership, and consultants . P&C insurers are asking these professionals to support claims and litigation leaders to find out how adjusters and defense attorneys can get back to what they do best: litigation resolution (instead of litigation management) and insurance offense (instead of insurance defense). If you're new to P&C litigation, I put this together for you, and there will be more to come. If you've been in litigation for a while, you can probably skip to 6 minutes in where I share some of the most fascinating questions raised by Taylor Smith in his industry leading Suite 200 report on claims litigation. https://lnkd.in/gN6eaaGE

Not long ago, I embarked on a road trip from Austin, Texas to Orlando, Florida and counted over two-hundred personal injury law firm billboard advertisements along I-10 to the Florida Turnpike. Roofing Contractors had the dubious distinction of landing in second place as we passed each town, followed by Buc-ees which provided needed services - roadside gas and pit stops in a clean, friendly environment. Social Trend Researchers would suggest a variety of reasons for the increasing litigation trend. The fact is, the U.S population has an increased propensity to sue following an accident or a perceived breach of an insurance contract when lawyers can secure litigation funding for in many cases misadventures that benefit law firms and the unregulated litigation funding actors. Tort costs once was a fraction of United States GDP, has increased over three-fold in the past 50 years, now hovering significantly above two percent and expected to continue growing in the near term, further contributing to inflationary premium increases on many P&C lines of business. This is a topic that has flown below the radar far too long and an area that deserves increased State Legislative attention to protect both consumers and businesses already under significant economic pressure. APCIA's Whittle offers an important perspective: Litigation-financing disclosure is crucial. The judicial system would benefit greatly by ensuring the disclosure of third-party litigation financing, which can contribute to higher claims and thereby drive insurance costs up, APCIA's James Whittle says. "Courts are a part of government, not a marketplace. We should know who's involved and why. The courts need to know that to do their jobs," Whittle says.

Let’s continue our series on different types of lawyers. Today, we are talking about plaintiffs’ attorneys. In industry parlance, plaintiffs’ attorneys usually refer to those attorneys who handle personal injury, employment cases for the employee, product liability, etc. on behalf of individuals. Many plaintiffs’ attorneys see their job as a calling representing the little guy. I want to add a quick editorial. Plaintiffs’ attorneys sometimes get a bad rap as “ambulance chasers” just like defense attorneys sometimes get a bad rap as working for the big bad insurance companies. It is very easy to over generalize. But here’s the thing. There are people who get injured due to someone else’s negligence or illegal conduct and deserve to be compensated just as there are those who attempt to treat a lawsuit as the lottery. There are good reputable attorneys and bad attorneys. But to paint them all with the same brush is really unfair and should be avoided. Plaintiffs’ attorneys operate under a very different business model than defense attorneys. Defense attorneys usually bill by the hour (or what we call the billable hour). Plaintiffs’ attorneys usually bill on contingency. This means that they get paid only if the client wins and that payment is generally a percentage of the award plus expenses. This also means that the attorney may have to advance all of the up front costs. There are a few business models in this area. Some plaintiffs’ attorneys are very selective in what cases they take. They may limit themselves to a relatively few high value cases. Other firms may take a lot lower value cases. And there are different variations on this. With this type of business model, generally attorneys “eat what they kill.” In other words, where a general insurance defense attorneys might be on salary or other guaranteed payment, a plaintiff’s attorney may get a percentage of what the firm makes in fees on a case. There are relatively few barriers to entry. A young attorney right out of law school can hang a shingle and get right into this area of the law. Some of the issues are: (1) making sure you know how to litigate a case (which you can learn); (2) getting clients; (3) getting funding for your first cases (see comments below). In most cases, especially with personal injury, there is some kind of insurance at play. This means that a plaintiff’s attorney really needs to understand coverage and insurance. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will also need to learn various industry-specific issues like medicine to handle injury cases, safety regs and practices for product cases, employment law for employment cases, etc. Just as with insurance defense attorneys, if you want to litigate cases, this is a great area to get into. You will litigate everything from maybe a pre-suit demand to appeals. Any other thoughts David Goodman, Christopher Earley, Darl Champion, James Frogale, and anyone else?

From an intellectual, legal analyst, perspective, the question is did the federal District Court have the right to stop O’Neal from claiming no liability coverage existed under Allstate’s policy by issuing the injunction orders from the beginning. O’Neal v Allstate Indemnity Insurance Company Inc. et. al. Case No. 20-cv-00743-LCB, (ND. Ala). The answer is absolutely not because the court determined it had no subject matter jurisdiction when the case was dismissed without prejudice on 12/04/2020. Id. The court determined that it could protect its jurisdiction against O’Neal wrongfully claiming no liability coverage existed through the injunction orders. But that was incorrect according to the prior DPS decision. The purpose of these articles is to educate more so than to continue complaining about what happened because people need to know about subject matter jurisdiction relative to what a court could decide in any case. Id. Could the federal court validate protecting its own jurisdiction against O’Neal filing a complaint that states fraud against Allstate according to the prior DPS decision. The answer is absolutely not because Allstate is a foreign corporation in Alabama. By itself, Allstate could be sued before the federal court. The Morris Bart law firm could also be sued with Allstate because both are foreign corporations in Alabama. The federal court should hear the lawsuit because the Defendants are foreigners. No liability insurance coverage existed according to the DPS. Therefore, the injunction orders should not have been issued. Whether the federal court had jurisdiction for O’Neal to sue the City of Huntsville or not is the next question. The answer is yes according to Title 42 USC. Section 1983. Federal law provides a state actor can be sued for violating a constitutional right. Moreover, federal law provides for the City of Huntsville to be sued for falsifying liability coverage existed together with Allstate and the Morris Bart law firm. Title 42 USC. Section 1985(1)(2). The federal constitution guarantees everyone a right to access the courts for civil redress. In this case, the defendants all falsified liability insurance coverage existed to obtain the injunction orders. Id. Therefore, Judge Burke improperly threatened O’Neal against filing any additional pleadings against the Defendants within the attached transcript excerpt for the above reasons. Id.

I am excited to share that I was selected to participate in RPC- law firm's First Year Workshop! It was an incredible experience that provided me with valuable insight into the world of international commercial law. The day started with a presentation from Partner Rathi Thiagamoorthy, who highlighted RPC's impressive work with clients like Google, Meta, and McLaren. I was particularly fascinated by their role in defending Google against Epic Games' anti-competitive claim. Ms Thiagmoorthy also delved into the firm's vision, mission, and work culture, showcasing the diverse areas they cover, including commercial and financial disputes, retail, insurance, regulations, tech, and media. Throughout the workshop, I had the opportunity to interact with RPC trainees Elliott Davis, Rebecca James, Lucas Johncey, and Hannah Kendall. They shared valuable strategies for crafting strong training contract applications. We also participated in an engaging session on Insurance Policy, exploring risk transfer for consumers, and the workings of Lloyd's of London. It improved my knowledge of commercial terms in the insurance landscape. The session then transitioned to RPC's role in insurance litigation, including claims, coverage and recoveries for businesses, insurers, reinsurers, brokers, and financiers. The day concluded with a session on commercial awareness led by William Monaghan and Matthew Ward. They shed light on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues within the commercial landscape and provided a helpful list of resources for further development. To put our newfound insurance knowledge to the test, we were divided into groups and presented with a fictitious case. We acted as advisors to an insurance company facing a claim from their customer. We had to strategise a defence considering various factors: litigation costs, the policy's limit of indemnity (maximum payout), and the customer's reputation. Based on this analysis, we then proposed alternative dispute resolution (ADR) strategies to potentially mediate the case towards a faster and more cost-effective resolution. A huge thank you to RPC for this invaluable opportunity and to everyone who made it such a valuable learning experience!

Defense and Litigation: The Hidden Data Breach Cost Nearly every "data breach scare" post is going to include a discussion of "defense costs" or "attorneys fees." These discussions aren't wrong. Over 2023, litigious plaintiff firms brought more class action data breach lawsuits than we'd seen before. A law.com report noted that the monthly average of data breach class actions for August 2023 was 44.5, compared to the 2022 average of 20.6. (It's gated so giving you the description from the internet). Here's the kicker - the legal system has been taking these pretty seriously. In a lot of cases, courts might decide that the plaintiffs don't have "standing" which is the fancy-schmancy term for "got really hurt directly from the data breach so are allowed to ask for money." Here's the "BUT": Even if the case gets thrown out, the breached company still has to pay the defense costs for as long as the litigation goes on. This could be a really long time. Now, you might say, "It's fine. I have insurance. They'll pay." Since the "duty to defend" under an insurance policy relies on what the lawsuit says for the insurance company to pay. The duty to indemnify (paying damages) rests on the trial's outcome based on proven facts and a jury/judge decision. The reality is this: even if your insurance company picks up all - or just some - of these costs. You're still going to pay for these lawsuits either through: 1) Time spent gathering information for lawyers 2) Time spend talking to your insurance company 3) Premium hikes going forward 4) Deductibles 5) Percentage of settlement depending on various factors While a lot of these suits may be "nuisance" lawsuits, they're going to be expensive ones, especially if you *could* have done more to protect the data and didn't.

Problem statement: a lot of P&C litigation money is going to lawyers resulting in higher loss ratios, resulting in higher premiums. Solution statement: offer a self-settlement tool that doesn't charge 35-40% + settlement costs. This solution lowers loss ratios resulting in lower insurance premiums and provides a better claimant experience for the majority of personal injury claims. You're cutting out a massive claims cost by using Claimbrite. i.e. do you really need to hire a lawyer for a sprain or most soft tissue or minor hard tissue issues? I definitely wouldn't so, imo absolutely not for most of them. Claimbrite is nice new alternative that leaves both sides slightly dissatisfied ;). Is that not how successful negotiations work? We don't represent either side, just make the process transparent and charge a flat rate for the favor. You can settle directly through our platform depending on which carrier or business. It's interesting promoting this company that I'm working on. I bought my first car about 18 months ago. Been on GPT, YouTube, etc. and chatting w/friends and what not trying to figure out maintain it etc. It's been a lot of fun owning a car. But what if I get injured in a car crash where it's not my fault? It's a real concern - could happen any day. I haven't had any issues, but friends have. We've already helped a few people with such issues. Or say a shelf in a store falls on you? Same thing. Not good but what do you do? From working in insurance, I didn't fully know what to do until I started Claimbrite. I also don't love conflict - first son, Midwestern - whatever, I don't like it. Luckily, Claimbrite is non-adversarial in case an accident with an injury occurs. I just want people to have a less adversarial option to be made whole again without the delays in getting reimbursed or leaving money on the table. What's crazy? In some parts of the country like 5 boroughs or south Florida, as high as 90%+ people for some LOBs, hire attorneys. Just feels off, given the demands of the tasks at hand. 35-40% commission every time that happens, even for minor injuries - one of many reasons insurance rates are going up. We're like a turbotax for personal injury claims. Not a CPA firm - so if it's too complex, probably not a fit, but for the 90% of personal injury claims that aren't complex, we're here to help.

Analyzing the Surge in Top Verdict Amounts: Insights from 2021 to 2022 The National Law Journal’s latest release highlights the top verdicts of 2022 in U.S. courts (https://lnkd.in/g6t5eVCz PDF 2.6MB). Dive into intriguing cases, from a Florida bar’s $95.5 million liability over patron’s involvement in a deadly crash to a welcome to the California hotel’s $60.5 million claim over failure to use reasonable care when checking on guests. Yet, our focus shifts to the sweeping changes in verdict totals between 2021 and 2022, and the outlook for 2023. Analyzing 2021 data, workplace negligence led the top 100 verdict causes, amassing an astonishing $302 billion. Intellectual property disputes followed, averaging $3.7 billion. High-ranking also were motor vehicle incidents, product liability, and transportation cases, totals of $2 billion, $651 million, and $730 million. In 2022, workplace negligence reclaimed the top spot, with a staggering $30.8 billion. Intellectual property held second place, with a significant surge to $18.7 billion. Product liability, motor vehicle incidents, and intentional torts saw substantial upticks, reaching $13.1 billion, $2.4 billion, and $5.7 billion, respectively. These escalations stem from factors like the COVID-19 pandemic, which triggered a surge in lawsuits. Additionally, general inflation and rising costs contributed. The trend of claimants seeking larger damages in civil suits and juries’ growing willingness to grant substantial compensations played a significant role. Projections for 2023: - Rise in Compensation: Courts show an inclination towards granting larger compensations across various suits, indicating a notable trend towards higher verdict amounts. - Pandemic’s Influence: COVID-19 significantly impacted the legal sphere, leading to an upswing in filed lawsuits. This surge may be attributed to challenges arising from the pandemic, restrictions, and business closures. - Intellectual Property’s Ascendancy: The surge in average verdict amounts for intellectual property cases underscores the increasing significance of intellectual property rights in today’s economy and business landscape. - Risk for Businesses & Insurance: Heightened verdict amounts pose greater risks for businesses, potentially making securing insurance coverage and driving up insurance premiums more challenging. - Inflation’s Role: The overall rise in inflation and the costs of goods and services likely contribute to the increase in compensation amounts in civil lawsuits anticipated in 2023. - Complexity of Civil Cases: The rise in average verdict amounts may be linked to the mounting complexity of civil cases, necessitating more specialized and costly legal services. - Societal Sentiment & Legal Culture: The heightened readiness of juries to grant substantial compensations reflects shifts in societal sentiment and legal culture, influenced by various socio-cultural and political factors.