Archive by Author

What is a Contract of Adhesion?

26 Oct

If you have a dispute with your insurance company, you may have heard your lawyer or public adjuster mention that your insurance policy is a “contract of adhesion.” Why is this important?

A contract of adhesion is a contract that was prepared solely by one party, and the other party did not have any chance to negotiate the terms. In the insurance context, all insurance policies are contracts of adhesion because the insurance company writes the policy and you – the policyholder – never have any chance to negotiate.


When your insurance company has all the bargaining power over your insurance policy terms and you get no say, the scale is tipped heavily in their favor. This “take it or leave it” type of contract is called a contract of adhesion. Photo credit Wikipedia.

When there is a misunderstanding between the parties who signed a contract of adhesion (here, you and your insurance company) and the dispute ends up in court, most courts* will rule in favor of the party who had no chance to negotiate the terms of the contract. This tendency is also called “contra proferentem,” or in layman’s terms, “interpretation against the draftsman” – the draftsman being your insurance company. It can also be called “contra-insurer.”

In other words, when you sue your insurance company over a misinterpretation of your insurance policy, the court is more likely to side with what you interpreted the contract to mean – as long the court thinks your interpretation is reasonable.

* California courts follow this principle. If you’d like to know if the courts in your state follow this principle, ask your attorney or public adjuster, or send me an email at


How Much Money do Insurance Companies Spend so the Laws Keep Them Rich (and Make Them Richer)?

2 Aug

Large corporations hire full time employees to go to Washington D.C. and attend every political event/hearing/meeting they can, with the hopes to influence the politicians who are writing our laws and regulations (in their favor, of course). These dedicated employees/spies/salesman are called Lobbyists.


In the United States, lobbying began here, in the the Willard Hotel lobby. So which came first – the lobby or the lobbyist?

There is a lot of debate about whether lobbying is fundamentally ethical, and some countries have severely resticted the activity (i.e. In the Netherlands a former government official cannot become a lobbyist and then lobby his previous government office.).

Lobbying is Big $ Business

Whether you think lobbying is a good idea or not, what is most concerning about lobbying is that all the money spent on lobbyists has the potential to taint and corrupt what might have started out as a neutral and noble concept (Isn’t that the truth with almost anything in life?). In the insurance industry alone, about $153 MILLION dollars was spent in 2016 to lobby government officials.

Should they Really Spend THAT Much Money?

Blue Cross/Blue Shield spent $19 Million just on their own, which when you think about the current status of Obamacare and potential reform to the American medical insurance markets which remains at stake, it isn’t a surprise. But isn’t that also more than a little annoying? I mean, these large insurance corporations are constantly telling us that they have sooo many expenses, so in order to keep our premium costs low, they don’t want to be approving too many claims or spending too much money, and then they turn around and spend $19 MILLION DOLLARS in ONE YEAR on their advocates in Washington D.C.

Think about that for a minute. NINETEEN MILLION DOLLARS. That could provide a lot of medical care for a whole lot of people (even at the current ridiculously high prices in the U.S.). And what exactly are they spending that exhorbitant sum on? You could fund an entire year’s salary for thousands of lawyers to plague every government representative, their staff, and even their mailmen. Is all that really necessary?

But maybe it is. It brings to mind the old adage heard from elders when they know someone has been up to no good, and yet that same someone is the loudest screamer when it’s time for reconciliation “Thou dost protest too much.”

What Are They Lobbying For?

Make no mistake, insurance company lobbyists are not spending all that money nobly advocating for better insurance coverage and lower premiums for Americans, they are advocating to keep their very profitable bottom line and protect their shareholders’ profits. 

If this feels troubling to you as an insurance policyholder, but you can’t quite pinpoint why – let me help you see it more clearly.

Insurance Companies Have a Deeply Troubling Conflict of Interest

The God Janus: Two-Faced

Two-Faced Roman God Janus – Is he double-dealing? (Credit Wikipedia)

In the last few hundreds years, there was a shift away from the concept of insurance provided to actually HELP people in their time of need, and toward insurance as a big money-making industry where profit rules and the shareholder is king. Today, American insurance companies spend millions upon millions on splashy advertising meant to convince you they are trustworthy, and then behind your back they spend millions upon millions of your premium dollars on lobbyists who convince YOUR government representatives that they should not enact laws to protect you from bad insurance company behavior.  It’s a masterful act of double-dealing, caused by the troubling conflict of interest a for-profit insurance company has between service to its policyholders and making profits for its shareholders. They only thing that protects you from this conflict is the LAW. And yet, your own insurance company is lobbying to keep those laws from being written.

Typically, lobbying is not an inherently bad activity, as long as certain ethical rules are followed. In the insurance industry, it’s deeply problematic.

To see the full list of monies spent by insurance companies, and see where your insurer stands in the rankings, go to

What Are Punitive Damages?

26 May

I’m originally from Michigan and I have family there. I was researching Michigan insurance law, and discovered that in Michigan, the award of punitive damages to policyholders who have been treated badly by insurance companies is not common – in fact, Michigan courts discourage it.

The Definition of Punitive Damages

The word “punitive” means “intended as punishment.” Punitive damages are the monies that a court (or jury) awards to a plaintiff (the person who brought the lawsuit) when the court wants to send a message to the defendant that they need to stop their bad behavior. When you hear reports of large court awards, such as in the tens of millions of dollars, that is probably due to the punitive damages.


Punishment comes in many forms. Here, some old school pain and humiliation. (Credit Wikipedia)

There is a lot of controversy about punitive damages, because when the court punishes a large corporation by imposing a large money judgment, that money goes to the plaintiff for that one case. People don’t know how they feel about  “punishment money” meant to deter future bad behavior being awarded to that one person who filed a lawsuit. There are arguments that this motivates plaintiffs to be greedy and file unsubstantiated or frivolous lawsuits. For more on this debate, see the famous McDonald’s hot coffee case.

Punitives Aren’t Perfect But Right Now, They’re All We’ve Got

You are probably already aware that the current American civil justice system is VERY expensive. If you are injured by a corporation and are looking to be compensated for your injury, the odds are severely stacked against you right from the beginning. Corporations have all the resources they need at their disposal to make sure you give up and just go away. They will offer you a ridiculously small amount of settlement money (or nothing) and force you to either give up or find a lawyer willing to take on your case for an amount you can afford.

This significant power imbalance is supposed to be kept in check by the laws of the United States – a combination of American civil court decisions and the laws written by legislatures. Do you feel like the laws of the U.S. are prioritizing your rights? Do you feel like you are treated with equal respect as the wishes of a large corporate entity? In the current United States climate, the answer is a resounding NO, and unfortunately our citizens have just “gotten used to it.” But it doesn’t need to be that way.


You vs. Giant Corporation – P.S. That army is also on their side – that’s their legal department (photo credit Wikipedia, “David and Goliath”)

The Creation of Punitive Damages – Why?

Punitive damages were created by the American courts in an attempt to equal that “playing field” between you and a giant, all-powerful corporation. This is done in two ways:

  1. The monetary reward of punitive damages creates motivation for your attorney (called a plaintiff’s or Consumer’s attorney) to take on an incredible, crazy amount of financial risk.
  2. The corporation who acted badly will think twice about their bad actions if they are facing a punishment of tens of millions of dollars.

1)  The Insane Risk of the Plaintiff’s Attorney

In the current climate, if you want to be fully compensated for an injury caused by a corporation, you have to locate a lawyer who is willing to take on your case and then file a lawsuit. This is problematic because the American legal system is incredibly time-consuming and very, very expensive. Why? Mostly because 1) our American courts are severely underfunded and overburdened (and therefore VERY slow – the full lifecycle of a court case from filing to end of appeals, is 7-10 years) and 2) when you are suing a large corporation, it is common strategy for them to drag the process out as long as possible with the hope that it becomes too expensive and burdensome for you, and you will be forced to either give up or settle for pennies on the dollar. Also, if you don’t have a stellar lawyer in your corner, the very clever corporate lawyers will crush you. Feeling intimidated yet?

As a result, unless you are independently wealthy and can pay the hourly rate of a lawyer for years of work (amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars), you need to find a contingency lawyer who is willing to take your case on and only be paid if they win. There are not that many contingency lawyers with those kind of resources and that level of confidence. They need to be very careful to select only the cases they really believe they can win, and those cases must be worth enough for them to gamble away 7-10 years of their lives. Choose the wrong case and you’ll be bankrupt.


The Madhouse – Is your plaintiff’s lawyer one step from being admitted? (Credit Wikipedia)

Punitive damages equal the playing field by creating an incentive for you and your lawyer to commit to the case for the long haul – even knowing that the odds are significantly stacked against you. If one thing goes wrong, the entire value of the case can be lost in an instant. And those clever corporate lawyers spend all the time and resources available to find that one thing.

2)  Punishing the Greedy Corporation So They Won’t Do it Again

The other reasoning behind punitive damages – and the primary reason cited by courts, is to punish the bad corporate actor so they are deterred from doing it again. This is why punitive damages can be so large. The Supreme Court allows punitives to be about 10 times the award granted to compensate you for what the bad action actually cost you over the years. So for example, if the bad action cost you $1million in losses over the years, a court can award an additional $10million in punitive damages.


Probably slightly more effective than a slap on the wrist (Credit Wikipedia)

The problem with these punishment awards is that modern American corporations are so large and profitable that a $10million punishment is easily absorbed into their multi-billion dollar budget. For example, in the famous McDonald’s coffee case, even if the $2.7million in punitive damages had actually been upheld (it wasn’t), this was only meant to represent two days of coffee sales. Why would McDonalds be concerned about a mere two days of coffee sales, considering that coffee is only one item on their extensive menus and there are 365 days in a year? That “punishment” was a very tiny slap on the wrist, and definitely not enough to stop them from doing whatever they please – including hurting more and more people just to make extra profit.

So, Do Punitive Damages Work?


This judge looks willing to punish evil doers, am I right? (Credit Wikipedia)

While punitive damages are a great idea thought up by clever judges, they are not having the effects they are meant to have. American consumers do not have an equal playing field against giant corporations – not even remotely close. Court created remedies like punitive damages are only helpful after the damage is done. To really help the consumer, American lawmakers need to write stronger laws, and those laws need to be enforced. Right now, there are not enough protective laws, and those that do exist are not being enforced by government agencies. The task of enforcement falls to the occasional brave plaintiff who files a claim and does not give up, and his crazy, risk-taking lawyer who cares enough about justice that they will face bankruptcy and ruin. The result? Consumers continue to be mistreated on a daily basis, and there is almost nothing they can do about it.

As you can see from the picture painted above, while punitive damages create incentive for consumers who have been hurt to find a lawyer able to stand up to giant, wealthy corporations (and creates incentive for that lawyer to do so), the consumer is still statistically bound to fail somewhere along the course of the claim, long before punitive damages can ever be awarded.

The noble creation of punitive damages cannot fully compensate for the lack of strong laws written by our elected senators and representatives, and then the actual enforcement of those laws.


The Seal of the State of Michigan

The Michigan Idiosyncrasy

Back to Michigan – What prompted this blog post was my discovery that the State of Michigan has a very confusing policy on punitive damages. While technically the Michigan courts will allow punitive damages to be granted, they clarified only “as compensation to the plaintiff, (but) not as punishment of the defendant.” Someone needs to tell Michigan that the very definition of “punitive” is “for punishment.”

See Peisner v. Detroit Free Press Inc., 104 Mich.App. 59, 304 N.W. 2d 814.


For the punitive damages rules in your state, see “Limits on Punitive Damages” – they provide a table listing every state.

%d bloggers like this: