CONTACT US
Phone, Fax and Email Directory

ATTORNEYS
Meet the B&W Attorneys

GOLF!
Information about our Annual Golf Tournament

NEWS
Keep up-to-date with the latest from Barrett & Worden

UNANIMOUS JURY VINDICATES INSURANCE CARRIER

In a case which the Plaintiff Smith’s nonpayment of premiums forced the carrier to deny first party coverage for a death claim, a King County jury strongly vindicated the carrier’s actions when, after only a half hour of deliberation, it returned a complete defense verdict on both coverage and bad faith issues. In a situation where sympathy cut against the insurer, Colleen Barrett was able to show the jury both that the carrier’s claims personnel had done a prompt, fair, and reasonable investigation, and that Plaintiff had no coverage for her tragic loss.

Plaintiff Smith and her husband were insured by the carriers who had set up an automatic payment plan through their bank. Unfortunately, they failed to keep funds in the account to make those payments, and unfortunately an underinsured motorist killed Mr. Smith after the policy had been cancelled for nonpayment.

The accident occurred in the mid-west, returning from a graduation ceremony. Afterward, Ms. Smith made a claim for policy limits, asserted there had been money in the bank to pay, and asserted she never got a cancellation notice.

A claim representative investigated and discovered that (1) the Smiths had insufficient funds to pay the premium, (2) the carrier had sent the required cancellation notice, and (3) the accident happened at a point in time when there was no coverage. Under those facts, the terms of the insurance policy and the dictates of Washington law the carrier was compelled to deny coverage.

Plaintiff’s lawsuit compelled Colleen to devise a trial strategy that defused the jury’s natural tendency to sympathize with the Plaintiff’s plight.

First, Colleen showed the fairness of the carrier’s investigation by presenting the State people who actually made the decisions. When the jury was able to view those decisions as being made by real and conscientious people rather then by a corporation, the jury was better able to make a fair and correct decision, despite sympathy for the Plaintiff’s loss.

Second, Colleen used the Plaintiff’s own contradictory statements and claims to cast doubt on her credibility and to show that Plaintiff was responsible for the lack of coverage. For example, in her complaint, Plaintiff Smith alleged that the carrier had been paid. But when Colleen uncovered bank records that proved the opposite, Plaintiff then shifted her testimony to allege that the carrier had not given proper notice and had not properly investigated the claim.

Colleen brought out those contradictions and others. The jury made the difficult, but correct, decision and found for the carrier.