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. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT