ILNews

Looking forward: DTCI and the insurance industry

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

dtci-huelatThe Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana is a strong and diverse organization. Our members are involved in all types of litigation, and we enjoy the respect of our adversaries and the courts. However, when I look to the future, I see storm clouds gathering on the horizon because one of the industries our defense counsel represents has chosen a course that will ultimately cause damage to itself in the future. The industry I am referring to is the insurance industry. Specifically, many insurance companies have gone to the exclusive use of in-house counsel except in cases involving a conflict. Other companies have asked their defense counsel to accept files on the basis of an agreed defense figure that is far removed from the actual time and effort required to properly defend the insured and our client.

While budgets and billing guidelines are important tools to keep in check defense costs, some companies employ these guidelines in such a way that few defense firms can properly defend the insured and still make a profit. The result of all these burdensome obligations is that many fine firms are turning away from insurance defense assignments. And while there are still competent firms willing to handle insurance defense cases, the number is dwindling. At the same time, the number of young trial-worthy defense lawyers waiting in the wings is much smaller than it was 20 years ago. The industry is facing the likelihood of a shortage of experienced defense lawyers in the not-too-distant future.

Examples of burdensome billing practices include:

1. When an attorney bills for discovery-related work, the insurance company reduces the attorney-fee rate to a paralegal rate. In short, there is a $50 per hour reduction.

2. Many companies refuse to pay the law firm for the time, effort and costs to issue a subpoena for the production of records and documents, despite the fact that the law firm must pay its staff to type and produce the subpoena and motion to produce. The law firm must also incur the cost of the stationery and postage – none of which is reimbursed.

3. Lawyers must examine and review all pleadings, discovery and court-generated orders, yet many companies will not reimburse the attorney for the time to review such matters. For those companies that do reimburse for this fee, often it is paid at a paralegal rate.

4. Lawyers are asked to travel great distances. However, many companies refuse to pay the lawyer for the time and expense involved or will only pay a portion, even though the lawyer would not be traveling and incurring expenses if it were not for the activity on behalf of the company.

5. Authorized research and other related matters are routinely reduced by auditors who have no clue of the lawyer’s effort in a given area. While the law firm can always appeal a reduction, the time it takes to appeal is generally high and extremely disruptive of the lawyer’s practice.

It is difficult to understand why so many companies have chosen a path that makes it virtually impossible for its defense counsel to thrive, since the average hourly rate for defense counsel in Indiana is only $135 an hour. This is much less than the hourly rate for other areas of practice in Indiana and is significantly less than the national average hourly rate. Moreover, many in the industry have acknowledged that attorney fee costs have remained rather consistent over the years when compared to the premium dollar, that is, 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent. (For every dollar spent, only 2.5 to 3.5 cents are used for attorney fees.)

Let me also add that many fine companies do not employ burdensome billing practices that are destructive to the long-term health of defense firms and the industry they serve. Nevertheless, as long as the rest do employ them, we will continue to see a fast retreat by defense firms from this area of practice.

It is time for the insurance industry to sit down with its defense counsel and address the reality of burdensome billing guidelines, as well as the exclusive use of in-house defense counsel. The failure to act now will cause significant harm to the industry in the future and to the insureds the industry must defend.•

__________

Jerry Huelat is a partner in the Michigan City firm of Huelat Mack & Keppien. He is the 2013 president of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT