Paying attention to detail can save you embarassment! Common sense? Well…
The Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) claims to be only serving the plaintiffs’ interests yet according to one of its web pages dealing with the consequences of "Ignoring Structured Settlements", and how the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) can help you, it appears that the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) is interested in saving insurance adjusters "total cost per claim" and helping their "under-writing(sic) bottom line"! Doesn’t that seem like a conflict of interest? It’s certainly conflicted with the Society of Settlement Planners’ ( SSP) mission statement which is "to assist injury victims, claimants and attorneys in resolving their legal financial claims, and to advocate the injury victim’s right to choose settlement planning advisors and financial and guarantee providers.".
With the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) having a large turn out at the upcoming Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) meeting in Seattle next week they must hope that no ATLA attendees have seen this.
If you’re going to have a web presence at least have someone proof the content of your website on a regular basis or you may find yourself or your organization suffering from a credibilty problem.
…and while they’re at it, how about a disclosure or white paper on the factoring issue that has been called for now for quite sometime?
Another thing to "factor" in is that the list of Structured Settlement annuity providers on the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) website is disturbingly inaccurate. 7 companies (one actually listed twice…bringing the total to 8!) are no longer in the business of undewriting structured settlements!
How credible is a resource if 36% of it is inaccurate?
Update 7/10/2006: Whatever it was, one blog post and the SSP vendor Structure Online removed the conflicted web pages (now listed as under construction) just in the nick of time before the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) meeting in Seattle this week. Would’ve loved to have been a fly, high on the wall. Someone’s obviously reading and listening which is good. Hopefully a lesson has been learned and next time I’m sure someone will be instructed to proofread the web pages before confusing messages go out to the public.
Leave a Reply