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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT