Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> Structured Settlements 4Real
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Litigation: Structured Settlements 4Real
SPI's "Jaundiced" Facts Used to Solicit "Protection" Services for Plaintiff Lawyers
By John Darer
In an effort to solicit attorneys to retain it to protect them from legal malpractice liability Settlement Professionals (SPI) makes the following inaccurate statements:
"In Macomber v Travelers Property & Casualty Company and Lyons v Medical Malpractice Insurance Assoc. plaintiff attorneys have been sued for the harm sustained by their clients at the hands of defense-provided structured settlement brokers".
" Not surprisingly, the courts in the above-referenced cases have found the plaintiff attorneys liable because the defense-provided structured settlement brokers owed no duty to the plaintiff or his/her attorney"
- The caption of the first cited case was "Lisa Macomber et al. v Travelers Property and Casualty Corporation et al." 804 A 2d 180 (Conn 2002) 2000 Conn Super. LEXIS 1777 (Conn. Super Ct. July 10,2000) Download macomber_v. Travelers Conn. Supreme Court 9-3-02.pdf In neither the aformentioned or the original complaint filed in 1998 Download MacombervTravelersFederalClassComplaint1998.pdf is there evidence that the plaintiff attorneys were sued. Thus the Courts did not find them liable.
- In the Lyons case (286 A.D.2d 711 (2001), the plaintiff lawyers were sued. The complaint against the lawyers was settled. The courts DID NOT "find the plaintiff lawyers liable" .
- Further to Lyons, while the Defendants' argument that they owed no duty of privity to to the plaintiffs was persuasive to the trial court, the issue was overturned by the New York Appellate Division in the 2nd Department in September 2001. Here is an excerpt of the Court's decision.
?There are questions of fact as to whether the represented present value of the settlement package was a fraudulent, intentional, or negligent misrepresentation, and whether the plaintiffs? alleged reliance thereon was reasonable. Further, there was sufficient privity between the parties to support a claim for negligent misrepresentation. MMIA was aware that the alleged misrepresentation was going to be used for a particular purpose, the plaintiffs were a known party who allegedly relied on the alleged misrepresentation in furtherance of that purpose, and there was conduct by MMIA linking it to the plaintiffs and evincing its understanding of such reliance"
While I agree that it is a good idea for a plaintiff attorney to seek independent advice from their own qualified settlement consultants (indeed the practice is now encouraged under NY G.O.L. Sec. 5-1702). I do not agree however, with SPI's tactics in using inaccurate information (emphasized with yellow highlight and an irreverently diverted finger) to scare the attorneys into doing so.
Search Blog Directory: