Insurance

Below is a sampling of some of our consultants’ insurance cases and venues:

• California. Asbestos-related coverage.
• Kentucky. Property damage and business interruption.
• Louisiana. Bad faith refusal to bond construction project.
• Oklahoma. Bad faith claims: auto, life and business.
• Texas. Coverage and bad faith claims.
• Massachusetts. False Claims Act: disability coverage.
• Mississippi. Katrina coverage cases and bad faith claims.
• Florida. Insurance company suing an insured for fraud.
• Pennsylvania. Suit against a broker.
• Colorado. Corporation pursuing a bad faith claim.
• Illinois. Improper discounting of bills; bad faith claims.
• Alabama. “Vanishing premium” cases; bad faith claims.
• Washington. Case alleging bad faith by an excess carrier.
• Hawaii. Damage analysis in a bad faith case.

Our partners are frequently invited to speak at major insurance conferences, including the Defense Research Institute’s Insurance Law Division, ALFA International’s Insurance Law Roundtable, and “in-house” corporate presentations.

WE UNDERSTAND YOUR SPECIFIC NEEDS

We know that it is often challenging to defend insurance companies in front of a jury, but we also know that the picture is not entirely bleak. Jurors do hold values that can work in an insurance company’s favor if you and your witnesses know how to speak to those values.

We know that insurance companies and attorneys are often concerned about confidentiality in any kind of jury research, so we take many steps to protect client confidentiality.

We know you sometimes need immediate results. We design our jury research to provide you with an intense and immediate learning experience. We use state-of-the-art electronic technology to give you instant insights into how jurors decide your case. We are frequently able to give you solid answers to your strategic questions as early as the end of the research day.

WE PROVIDE COST-EFFECTIVE ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS

We customize every jury research to meet your specific needs. Whatever research design we use, our goal is always to answer your strategic questions and to help you empirically evaluate the risk of trial. Below are some recent client questions that we were able to answer:

• How strongly can we “attack” the plaintiff?
• How will jurors view the conduct of the company’s third-party adjustor?
• How do jurors view company claims handling, the company adjustor, and company policies and procedures?
• Will jurors believe the plaintiff committed suicide?
• How do jurors evaluate the denial of coverage determination?
• How do jurors evaluate the company’s reversal of its coverage determination (from denial to acceptance of coverage)?
• In a case involving a compelling bad faith claim, how do jurors evaluate the damage demand from an uncooperative and “shady” plaintiff?

Importantly, we are also able to show our clients that their questions are not always the same as jurors’ questions. For example, before a jury research in a bad faith case, the client was focused on proving whether the “insured” was occupying a vehicle (“occupying” was viewed as critical to whether UIM coverage extended to the injured party). With EDGE’s jury research, the client learned that this emphasis was absolutely wrong; jurors’ instincts led them completely away from the “occupying” issue. Failure to recognize the way in which jurors processed this critical issue would have led to disaster at trial.

What do we already know about how jurors decide insurance cases?

• Jurors understand that policyholder fraud/misconduct can hurt everyone.
• Jurors’ verdict decisions are motivated by fear rather than sympathy.
• “Attacks” on the plaintiff require careful consideration.
• Blaming or “scapegoating” a company employee can backfire on the defense.
• Jurors frequently misunderstand―to your detriment―basic concepts that attorneys and insurance company executives see as obvious.