by John Darer CLU ChFC MSSC RSP CLTC
"Not every broker who gets introduced to a case by the casualty insurer is an adversary of the claimant. Some casualty insurers or excess carriers recognize the value that tax-free periodic payments bring to the settlement negotiation process, so they will invite a broker known to them to participate. This is to the great credit of these casualty insurers, as long as they have no intent to profit by the structure. If that broker will declare to the claimant that he or she has no financial ties to the insurer or gives no other consideration to it, and will agree to language in the settlement documents that the broker will not be released from negligence claims in handling the future payment transaction, and presents all quotes showing the actual cost to the defense, the broker should probably be acceptable to the plaintiff." Richard B Risk, Esq. November 29, 2002
Considering the time frame when this was published, and how the structured settlement industry has changed (for the better), it's an interesting concession that counteracts some of the overgeneralized rhetoric that has been published or hyped since from certain members of the Society of Settlement Planners, Inc, and others. While Risk is now a practicing lawyer in Tulsa, OK, at the time he published the article from which the above quote can be found, Richard B. Risk was a structured settlement broker who nobody would ever confuse to be on the side of the defense. Risk's statement implies that formal statements such as 4structures.com's Structured Settlement Affidavit, Creative Capital's CORA and similar offerings of other brokerages should be de rigueur.
Leave a Reply