After two years of rumors, the word on the street is that Forge Consulting, LLC President John T. Bair 
is purportedly behind a plaintiff's rights in structured settlements bill that has been introduced by New York Assembly member Rory I. Lancman (25th District), who is also "Of Counsel" to Morelli Ratner, PC, a leading plaintiff firm in New York City.
is purportedly behind a plaintiff's rights in structured settlements bill that has been introduced by New York Assembly member Rory I. Lancman (25th District), who is also "Of Counsel" to Morelli Ratner, PC, a leading plaintiff firm in New York City.
The purported bill would allegedly require:
-a plaintiff to retain his or her own broker in a structured settlement purchase and for the broker to receive 50% of the commissions
-preclude a P&C insurer from purchasing an annuity from an owned or affiliated life carrier.
X——————————————————
If this bill does in fact exist it is flawed because it does not deal with abusive factoring industry business practices because there is where the biggest plaintiff issue lies. Surely Mr. Lancman, who is involved with a leading plaintiff firm must be aware of the abusive advertising by such companies to New York State residents who are structured settlement recipients? Mr. Bair surely is.
X——————————————————–
A plaintiff or plaintiff attorney seeking independent advice IS a good business practice. But, is it necessary to spend the legislature's time on something to mandate common sense? They should be doing so regardless of any laws. The commissions should be negotiated.
X———————————————————
Think with the purported proposed law you're sticking it to the PC insurer and protecting your client? Think again! Precluding a PC insurer from purchasing an annuity from an owned or affiliated carrier is a case of "careful what you wish for". One thing that attorneys for tort victims must understand is that by eliminating one annuity issuer from consideration you are now denying your client the possibility of having the "full market access" that so many structured settlement brokers like to tout. It's not something that I would want for my client if I was their lawyer.
- Suppose the eliminated annuity issuer is the most competitive and nobody else will match?
- Suppose the eliminated annuity issuer is rated A+ Metropolitan Life Insurance Company or Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York?
X——————————————————-
I know I know plaintiff lawyers… you may have read or heard about Macomber v Travelers and/or Spencer v Hartford and been fed the facts and the propaganda- you're thinking "how can I trust these people?" If one was in your shoes (and I have worked with some of you) one could make a good argument that if the affiliated carrier was the only choice AND it was uncompetitive that such a limitation was unreasonable. But if there is a wide selection available why eliminate a choice? If your case has large quantum, the eliminated annuity issuer could meet your client's diversification needs. If your attorney fee is to be structured it is possible that the eliminated insurer could have met YOUR diversification needs. If you have a structured settlement on very large infant case in the Bronx you might not be able to meet the Court's diversification rules!
X———————————————————-
The fact is that some of the PC insurers affiliated life companies have the most competitive rates. If such a situation arises and Lancman's purported bill becomes law, how are you going to tell your client that they cannot obtain the best rate, or that not getting the best rate is good for them? Would it not make more sense for the legislature to simply deal with an unreasonable and untolerable scenario in which the PC insurer limits the choice to a single affiliated annuity issuer, in situations where that issuer is not competitive and put the majority of the legislature's focus on setting regulations and standards of practice to govern advertising, approach and solicitation to consumers on structured settlement transfers?
X—————————————————-
Think about this Mr. Lancman and New York State assembly persons, New York State requires licenses for the following professions
real estate professionals
security guard
hearing aid dispensers
notary publics
hair stylists and barbers
and the medical professions
If a barber "trims too much" hair in your $30 haircut (or even $300 one) chances are it will grow back. If a factoring company uses false and misleading advertising to induce a consumer to "trim too much", of the consumer's long term personal financial security, the money may not grow back. It is therefore essential that there is a professional licensure requirement and that there are enforceable rules for solicitation by individuals and companies to gullible people to make life impacting financial decisions. Where's the symmetry?
X———————————————————-
New York State assembly persons and plaintiff lawyers should exercise caution. Some settlement consultants, like Forge Consulting, have promoted themselves as "champion of the qualified settlement fund" and have in the past promised "full market access" to plaintiffs when the reality is that there may be limited market access as a result of using a qualified settlement fund on a single claimant case.
Leave a Reply