Can Allstate legally do this, or are they blowing smoke?

[liirogue]

I fully realize that any and all advice offered here is not official legal advice. No need to put disclaimers, I understand this from the outset.

About 3 years ago, my husband was involved in a minor fender bender in Chicago on his way to move back to Oklahoma. Oklahoma is where we now live. The lady in the back of the taxi that he rear ended is now suing my husband/his insurance company.

Allstate, his insurance company at the time, called him today and told him he had to appear for some meeting on May 23rd. They said they will pay for a plane ticket, but nothing else. We cannot afford a hotel, we cannot afford for him to take off work, and since he just started a new job, it is very likely he cannot take off. Whoever he spoke with on the phone told him, in no uncertain terms, that if he did not show up that Allstate would cease to be a responsible party in the lawsuit and that any judgment in the plaintiff's favor would fall solely on him.

He paid all of his insurance premiums. His insurance was up-to-date at the time of the wreck, and always has been. Can they really pull this, or are they just using scare tactics?

[Freddy the Pig]

The only way to answer your questions is to read your insurance policy.

The standard, unamended Insurance Services Office automobile insurance policy provides for reimbursement for all reasonable expenses and up to $200 a day for loss of earnings incurred to attend hearings or trials at the insurer's request. Conversely, you do indeed have a duty to cooperate with the insurer, and they can deny coverage if you don't.

Ask Allstate for a copy of your 1998 policy if you don't still have it.

[Random]

Even with a disclaimer, this is too specific for me to touch. I just can't give legal advice over the internet. (Illinois is my state, and even though I could make a pretty good guess about what is going on, guessing on limited imformation is never a good idea.)


In a general sense, insurance policies often require the insured to cooperate in the defense of claims made, at risk of losing coverage. I have no opinion on whether your husband's policy has such a clause. I also have no opinion on what might happen if someone fails to appear at a mandatory Cook County arbitration hearing, which is called nonbinding, but sometimes becomes binding if a party fails to appear. I have even less of an opinion about what might happen if someone fails to show up at a vaguely-described "meeting".

[constantine]

First of all, this sounds like a crappy situation and I'm sorry you are stuck dealing with this.

Second of all, I know you understand that no one here can give you legal advice, but I am obligated to say that I a cannot give you or anyone else legal advice about this topic.

With that said, a few points. I cannot comment on the laws governing insurance in Illinois because I'm not familiar with those laws (and--for the reasons Random stated, couldn't even comment if I did know those laws.)

But I can offer you some practical advice. First of all, I would suggest getting every document you can that could be related to this incident. Track down a copy of your old insurance policy. If there is a police or accident report or something, then get that too.

Second, in practical terms, I would look into whether he can fly up the day of the "meeting" and fly back that night, so no need for a hotel. I have flown from Tulsa to Chicago and it is a quick flight.

Third, I would call someone at the insurance company back and ask, politely but firmly, for them to clarify what is going on. Is this an arbitration hearing, a mediation, what is it?

Regarding the difficulties in taking a day off work, I sympathize, but I think he needs to find a way to take that day off. Obviously I don't know anything about his employment situation, but this lawsuit is a big deal, and it's important for him to be there for this meeting. If there is absolutely no way to make it on that particular day, then he could talk with the insurance company about getting the meeting rescheduled.

[JillGat]

Originally Posted by Random

Even with a disclaimer, this is too specific for me to touch. I just can't give legal advice over the internet. (Illinois is my state, and even though I could make a pretty good guess about what is going on, guessing on limited imformation is never a good idea.)


In a general sense, insurance policies often require the insured to cooperate in the defense of claims made, at risk of losing coverage. I have no opinion on whether your husband's policy has such a clause. I also have no opinion on what might happen if someone fails to appear at a mandatory Cook County arbitration hearing, which is called nonbinding, but sometimes becomes binding if a party fails to appear. I have even less of an opinion about what might happen if someone fails to show up at a vaguely-described "meeting".

Why did you respond to this post at all if you cannot give advice, make a guess and have no opinion? Just curious.

[Campion]

Originally Posted by JillGat

Why did you respond to this post at all if you cannot give advice, make a guess and have no opinion? Just curious.

Objection, constitutional right of privacy, and I instruct the witness not to answer.

While I agree that Random's post was quite, ah, subtle, I read it as suggesting certain questions the OP should ask her husband's insurance company regarding the nature of the meeting.

Of course, I make no recommendation to the OP regarding the situation, as I am not her lawyer, she is not my client, and I am not licensed in any jurisdiction relevant to her quite interesting problem.

Should she desire an attorney, who will respond to her questions with actual legal advice, she could consider calling the Chicago Bar Association. Not a bad idea, actually, because questions about insurance law come up frequently, and one of the lawyers may be able to help for a reasonable price (check out the Call-A-Lawyer program, for example, which has a call in date for this weekend).

Best of luck to the OP.

[DrDeth]

Does Il have an Insurance Comm or similar that regaulates and oversees the industry in that State? If so, calling them might get results.

[The Great Sun Jester]

Well, they most certainly DO! But at this point it'd be more helpful as a resource for your policy provisions that were in force in 1998.

If you want Allstate to defend this case for you, you will need to cooperate with them. But I'll second the advice to talk to them about your situation and see if there is an alternative to your husband's physical presence. Can they use a tele/video conference? I'd be surprised if they didn't have a facility in Oklahoma and Chicago. Also the insurance-interrogation-day-from-hell scenario is a possibility where he flies in early and flies out late.

The alternative to NOT going is that he may miss a LOT of work attending court in Illinois at his own expense and paying any awarded damages out of pocket. I suggest he go, cough up for a motel if he has to and watch his following distance a little more carefully.

[Random]

Originally Posted by JillGat

Why did you respond to this post at all if you cannot give advice, make a guess and have no opinion? Just curious.

Well, I had a few reasons. The main one was to avoid a situation where either (a)the post was completely ignored (Freddy's reply wasn't there when I started writing mine); or (b) the only replies that there ended up being were uninformed, or contained bad advice. While I couldn't give advice, I could try to forestall the bad advice that we sometimes see in GQ on legal questions by making the general comments that I did.

Beyond that, I'm going to take Campion's advice.

[Random]

That should have read "...completely ignored without explantion..."

[Omniscient]

Just curious where everyone is getting the date 1998?

By my math this happened back in 2002, maybe late 2001. I'm guessing she'd need the policy's contract as of that date.....not 1998. Maybe I'm just being nitpicky here.....

IANAL, so I have no advice. What I would rocommend though is getting as much info as humanly possible. Call the Insurance company and get a very clear understanding of what is happenning and what will be expected of you. Call the Chicago Bar and determine what additional resources might be available to you. Read that contract with a very close eye.

I don't see much incentive for Allstate to want to put the squeeze on you in this regard however, seems to be in their best interest to solve this before things get ugly too.

A general question for the laywers in the mix would be what recourse does Allstate have against you? They were your insurance company, so as long as you weren't in violation of your policay at the time, I see no reason why your actions now could invalidate their responsibility here. I could be wrong, and a laywer would have to address it, but the insurer puting unreasonable demands to you (who is apparently no longer a customer) as a backdoor out of a liability claim seems pretty unjustifiable.

Of all your concerns, you shouldn;t be too bother with trying to get out of work. This is a legal matter which employers are going to be inclinded to cooperate with, explaining the situation as you have here should make any reasonable manager allow the time away. Any unreasonable manager would probably be setting himself up for a wrongful termination suit.

Anyways, I can't give any concrete advice, just the general suggestion of accumulating as much information as possible. Good luck.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Omniscient

Just curious where everyone is getting the date 1998?

By my math this happened back in 2002, maybe late 2001. I'm guessing she'd need the policy's contract as of that date.....not 1998. Maybe I'm just being nitpicky here.....

IANAL, so I have no advice. What I would rocommend though is getting as much info as humanly possible. Call the Insurance company and get a very clear understanding of what is happenning and what will be expected of you. Call the Chicago Bar and determine what additional resources might be available to you. Read that contract with a very close eye.

I don't disagree with any of this. (the date mistake seemed to originate in one reply that evreyone afterwords just took without though.)

A general question for the laywers in the mix would be what recourse does Allstate have against you? They were your insurance company, so as long as you weren't in violation of your policay at the time, I see no reason why your actions now could invalidate their responsibility here. I could be wrong, and a laywer would have to address it, but the insurer puting unreasonable demands to you (who is apparently no longer a customer) as a backdoor out of a liability claim seems pretty unjustifiable.

Of all your concerns, you shouldn;t be too bother with trying to get out of work. This is a legal matter which employers are going to be inclinded to cooperate with, explaining the situation as you have here should make any reasonable manager allow the time away. Any unreasonable manager would probably be setting himself up for a wrongful termination suit.

Under some circumstances, an insurer can avoid its duty to defend and indemnify if the insured fails to cooperate in his defense. That makes sense. How is the insurer's attorney supposed to put on a defense at trial without a witness, or without pretrial discussions with the insured about what really happened? Also, attendance at pretrial arbitrations or depositions by a party to litigation is often required by court rule, on pain of default (or other sanction) for nonappearance. There's nothing the insurance company can do to avoid that.

As for what Oklahoma law mat say about wrongful termination, I have no opinion, but I know which way I'd be betting on this issue, and it's the opposite of what you said.

[Random]

Arg. "without thought."

[Campion]

Originally Posted by Omniscient

IANAL, so I have no advice.

<snip>

Of all your concerns, you shouldn't be too bothered with trying to get out of work. This is a legal matter which employers are going to be inclined to cooperate with, explaining the situation as you have here should make any reasonable manager allow the time away. Any unreasonable manager would probably be setting himself up for a wrongful termination suit.

Let us know how that wrongful term suit comes out. Seriously, there is so little in the OP about the situation (including information about the job, its requirements, etc., or the work history), that this statement (bolding mine) is insupportable. IAAL, but not yours.

As to the insurance company, you have a duty to cooperate with them. If you don't cooperate, they don't indemnify. Simple as that. (Says I, holding my breath waiting for the insurers to come in and explain it better.) There's nothing in the OP about the insurance company behaving unreasonably, so it doesn't seem rational to suggest that you don't need to cooperate with them. I recognize that one man's unreasonable is another man's just the way things are, but from an objective standpoint, there's nothing unreasonable about requiring the insured to attend a meeting (particularly if it's actually a mediation or arbitration).

[The Great Sun Jester]

Originally Posted by Campion

As to the insurance company, you have a duty to cooperate with them. If you don't cooperate, they don't indemnify. Simple as that. (Says I, holding my breath waiting for the insurers to come in and explain it better.)

Breathe. Darn you for saying in 7 words what we try to say in fewer than 7 pages.

[liirogue]

Thanks everyone for the info you have provided. The reason we are so shaky on the job thing is he just started this job, and he is working through a temp agency. In addition, Oklahoma is a "right to work" state, which means you can be fired for any old reason.

I spoke to the Allstate agent that called us yesterday. While he was not exactly helpfull, he did tell us my husband could fax a letter stating why he needed this meeting to be rescheduled, and they might be able to get a continuance. He also said we could get it done in one day.

Thank you everyone again. Some very interesting points were brought up that we had not thought of.

[Omniscient]

Originally Posted by Campion

Let us know how that wrongful term suit comes out. Seriously, there is so little in the OP about the situation (including information about the job, its requirements, etc., or the work history), that this statement (bolding mine) is insupportable. IAAL, but not yours.

I wasn't really speaking literally there, a bit of poetic overstatement if you will. Probably not a smart wording in a thread with laywers talking about legal stuff. I understand we're not exactly talking about actionable equal opportunity/whistle blower type matters here.

The upshot of what I was saying, is that I'd be very surprised that too many employers would take to rigid a stance on a situation like this. Its seems making an employee choose between his job and an unfavorable legal outcome would probably not be in anyone's best interest.

As to the point of what is "unreasonable". While I don't think Allstate requiring their customer to appear at this hearing is the least bit unreasonable, to expect them to do so at substantial financial cost would be. Based on Freddy the Pig's comment, I'd assume that it's reasonably likely that this issue is addressed in the contract. It's also probably reasonable to expect Allstate to provide the documentation where it states that they are not responsible for parking/meals/lost wages before making the trip if thats what they are asserting.

[Campion]

Originally Posted by Omniscient

It's also probably reasonable to expect Allstate to provide the documentation where it states that they are not responsible for parking/meals/lost wages before making the trip if thats what they are asserting.

I would be utterly shocked if the contract required an insurance company to pay these kinds of things, which are not generally considered "costs of suit" or "costs of defense." Having said that, it is certainly reasonable to ask for a copy of your contract with your insurance company. Expecting that they will pay for your lunch as well as your lawyer to defend you against allegations that you injured someone else is unrealistic. But read the contract -- YMMV.

[Shodan]

Chiming in with a second to Indigo's suggestion about a teleconference.

Regards,
Shodan

IANAL. You are not my client. In fact, we probably aren't even having this discussion. Void where taxed or prohibited. YMMV. Nothing in this post is to be construed as legal advice, ipso facto, non compos mentis, Gallium in trinite partum divisio est, e pluribus unum, so help me God.

[vetbridge]

Originally Posted by Omniscient

Just curious where everyone is getting the date 1998?

And you call yourself Omniscient?

[Omniscient]

It was rhetorical.

[Freddy the Pig]

Originally Posted by Omniscient

Just curious where everyone is getting the date 1998?

I think I, um . . . fantasized it.

Let's see . . . 2005 - 3 = 2002. I have trouble keeping track of what year it is.

Originally Posted by Campion

I would be utterly shocked if the contract required an insurance company to pay these kinds of things, which are not generally considered "costs of suit" or "costs of defense."

Consider yourself shocked. Expense reimbursement is part of the industry standard Personal Auto Policy. It's not a "cost of defense" per se, but rather a "supplementary payment" included with your liability coverage.

[Campion]

Originally Posted by Freddy the Pig

IConsider yourself shocked. Expense reimbursement is part of the industry standard Personal Auto Policy. It's not a "cost of defense" per se, but rather a "supplementary payment" included with your liability coverage.

Huh. Learn something new every day. I guess when you said, "read the contract," there was a reason for it.

[The Great Sun Jester]

Originally Posted by Campion

Expense reimbursement is part of the industry standard Personal Auto Policy. It's not a "cost of defense" per se, but rather a "supplementary payment" included with your liability coverage.

And to clarify: these costs are not typically deducted from the liability limits shown on your policy. So if you are good for $100,000 in Bodily Injury damages, and your defense costs and such are $40,000, you are still good for $100,000 in BI settlements. We 'eat' the other expenses in exchange for the honor & privilege of serving you, the consumer.





what?

[Freddy the Pig]

And I must say, if I were running an insurance company (I work for one, but I don't run it!), this is one of the last places where I'd want to nickel-and-dime my customers. If my policyholder is testifying in a lawsuit, with tens of thousands of dollars at stake, I want that person well fed and well rested!

[Random]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Chiming in with a second to Indigo's suggestion about a teleconference.

Regards,
Shodan

If it's really just a meeting, this is a great idea. If it's a deposition, a teleconference won't work, although a videoconference might (they're allowed, but there are cost and other issues to address).

If it's an arbitration, which is where most Cook County fender-benders are sent, that won't be allowed. (or at least, I'm not aware of any provision for that and have never heard of it being done.)

[Balthisar]

Let me reiterate the teleconference idea -- do you know how much a sedan would cost if every bozo I worked with in Michigan had to fly to Mexico for a friggin' meeting with me?

[Random]

Sigh. The odds of this being just a meeting are fairly low. I know that's the word the OP used, but as articulate as she is, I don't think she has a whole lot of familiarity with the legal process, and she's getting the information second-hand.

The first clue? Allstate and its attorneys are, I submit, familiar with telephones. They aren't about to pay for a plane ticket for this guy (which the OP says they offered to do) just because they want to chat with him. So if the OP follows this suggestion and raises the idea of a teleconference, Allstate's response is not going to be "Great idea! We never thought of that!"

As I've hinted (and now will come right out and say), this "meeting" is either a court-sponsored arbitration hearing or a deposition. No, I don't know that for sure. But I can't see any other reason why Allstate and its attorneys would want to cart this guy to Chicago at significant expense on a fender-bender case.