by John Darer CLU ChFC MSSC RSP CLTC
The civilized world of structured settlements as a settlement tool is occasionally hampered by the relics and remnants of a bygone era which include certain business practices by certain structured settlement brokers and certain claims adjusters that could ultimately be harmful to the settlement process on the instant case, future cases and the insurance company they represent.
Today established structured settlement industry practice involves more than one broker or settlement planner (generally one for each side) with each being compensated out of commissions on the placement of the "qualified funding asset". Greater education of the roles each side plays within the structured settlement industry and clients of its participants, has fostered the general success of this industry model with all stakeholders. Indeed this practice has, in my experience, now been accepted by most of the major insurance companies who see the long term value to them. Doesn't it make logical sense that greater satisfaction by all stakeholders will increase the likelihood of success in using structured settlements as a tool to facilitate settlements?
More education seems needed. I occasionally hear of the misguided argument that "my client will not permit me to work with you because of how this case went down with the plaintiff attorney". For those that this applies to, AND THEY KNOW WHO THEY ARE, what have you achieved?
- If the purported mission of your posture is to "get back at the plaintiff attorney" it fails because the case settles at no less quantum and the plaintiff attorney or plaintiff law firm makes no less money. Take that to who YOU report to.
- By being vindictive you only succeed in hurting the "poor bastard" who, like you, is trying to earn a living. If you pride yourself on being a "vindictive bitch" or son of one, then bravo!
- Consider, that "poor bastard" is likely a qualified expert whose skills might be needed to help
- conclude the case effectively. There are numerous cases where the resolution of your case involves intricate settlement planning details that go beyond your simply cutting a check in exchange for a release.
- The same "poor bastard" could very easily be someone qualified to work on your cases. Why shortchange yourself and your company? Is it your business practice to "hump" other potential experts, such as the economist, the nurse, the life care planner, in the same way? Quit being anti- social! Word really does get around.
- Your myopia has left you in a position where you will likely lose the effectiveness of the structured settlement tool on future cases with that plaintiff attorney and his or her network. As they say more people talk about bad experiences than good ones.
- If you happen to work for an insurance company that has a direct or indirect financial interest in the commissions from a transaction where you and/or your company benefit from the "poor bastard's" work product, YOU are leaving BOTH YOU AND YOUR COMPANY wide open for self dealing and perhaps more. Isn't settlement supposed to be about avoiding litigation?
This is an equal opportunity blog. Structured settlement firms and structured settlement consultants that work for unenlightened insurers and/or adjusters need to enlighten their clients as much as those who work on plaintiff cases. Those that do not, do so at their future peril.
This post is not directed at any one particular individual, company or entity. The primary interest of this author, who has considerable experience with all types of stakeholders, is an interest in improving the settlement process.
Leave a Reply