My Insurance Adjuster Called Plaintiff's Attorney!

[HarvestMechanic]

I am currently being sued by my neighbor regarding an issue with a waterway that flows from my property into his. On the advice of a local lawyer, I called my insurance agency (Foremost Insurance Group) and was told that they would hire a lawyer to represent me, which they did.

However, not long after I retained this new lawyer, I received word that the adjuster from Foremost actually contacted the plaintiff's attorney and informed him that I was being represented by a lawyer paid for my insurance company. Soon after that, the plaintiff's lawyer changed the wording in his complaint such that my insurance company no longer feels it is able to legally pay for my legal representation!

My question: Did my insurance adjuster actually have the right to contact the plaintiff's attorney, or should that have been handled by the lawyer representing me and paid for by my insurance? If the adjuster did NOT have this right, what recourse do I have?

Thanks for any insight that this group may provide.

 

[MrProducer]

I would take a wizz in that waterway you speak of. At least it'll get him to stop whining about rainwater in his yard!

 

[joshb]

This question should be directed towards your attorney. He knows more about this.

 

[brooks]

The adjuster has the right.

Your company send you a reservation of rights letter?

 

[gambrinus]

Lawyer up cowboy. You're about to go for a ride!!

 

[Guest]

define a waterway?

Could it be classified as flood, therefor no coverage?

need better details.

 

[moneymaker1]

The plantiff's side was going to find out you were being represented by your insurance company somehow or other, so, if they were told by someone other than your adjuster, could they not have done the same thing? (How's that for a run-on sentence?)

 

[ECP]

If you present a claim to your insurance carrier they are well with in their rights to contact all involved parties to obtain information on the liability claim. Assuming you have an HO3 here is the language that applies.

SECTION II – LIABILITY COVERAGES
A. Coverage E – Personal Liability
If a claim is made or a suit is brought against an "insured" for damages because of "bodily injury" or "property damage" caused by an "occurrence" to which this coverage applies, we will:
1. Pay up to our limit of liability for the damages for which an "insured" is legally liable. Damag-es include prejudgment interest awarded against an "insured"; and
2. Provide a defense at our expense by counsel of our choice, even if the suit is groundless, false or fraudulent. We may investigate and settle any claim or suit that we decide is appropriate. Our duty to settle or defend ends when our limit of liability for the "occurrence" has been exhausted by payment of a judgment or settlement.

 

[HarvestMechanic]

Thank you, ECP, for your response. I found it both helpful and informative.

I remain concerned about the fact that my insurace company communicated with the plaintiff's attorney. The original complaint brought against me was for monetary damages for a specific amount that just happened to be most of what my policy would cover. When the plaintiff's attorney found out that I was being represented by a lawyer paid for by my insurance company, he then amended the complaint and changed the wording such that the plaintiff would no longer seek "damages" but instead "equitable relief and court costs." After he submitted the amended complaint, my insurance adjuster informed me that they would no longer be able to pay for my legal representation since "damages" were no longer being sought.

So here is my next question: Are my insurance company and the plaintiff's lawyer correct in the idea that my insurance company is no longer required to provide my legal counsel? I've talked to a local lawyer who told me that in his opinion "equitable relief" DOES in fact constitute "damages" since money is indeed being sought, even though it's not a specified amount. He also referenced Massachusetts General Laws Title 22 Section 176D, saying that this language does indeed require the insurance company to cover me in this case, supposedly defining "equitable relief" as being the same as "damages". I am not a lawyer and the language of the law confuses me somewhat.

Here is another interesting point: Another lawyer I've been in contact with told me that in the combined 65 years of experience of his firm, he has never seen a plaintiff's lawyer try to remove the defendant's insurance agency from the case. His theory behind this (which I agree with): The plaintiff's case is both frivolous and fraudulent. The main point behind the complaint seeks to prove that the pond on my property is causing problems with the septic system on the plaintiff's property. This accusation is simply false for technical and geographic reasons I won't go into here. However, proving that this accusation is false (proving my innocence, in other words) would require the retention of environmental engineers and specialists that the insurance company would be able to pay for but I, as an individual, cannot afford. The theory is that the plaintiff's attorney is well aware of the fraudulent nature of the plaintiff's case; removing my insurance agency's coverage from the picture is going to make it nearly impossible for me to afford to adequately defend myself.

At this juncture, I am at a loss for what to do. Should I retain a separate lawyer to go after my insurance company to represent me in this case? What other recourse do I have?

 

[shepnerd]

I dont do P&C, so cant speak to the insurance side of this, but I used to do a lot of litigation years ago. I've tried over a hundred cases personally in small claims and been party to 3 times that in state court.

And I'm not a lawyer, but IMO you need to counter sue this guy ASAP. And put each and every thing you can think of in the complaint that could cost him money, INCLUDING your attorney fees, time at your hourly rate (which you wont get), all fees associated with defending the claim and list them out in detail- make it sound expensive. Personally, I'd name the lawyer in the suit for bringing the frivolous claim (again, not very winable, but will definitely scare him), but thats just me. Just scare the bejezus out of them, let them know they stand to lose something if they lose.

They are bullying you and they only way to deal with a bully is to punch them in the face.

Not sure about the rules in your state, but I'd start discovery requests too. You can ask them a bunch of questions they are required to answer, and I'd list a LOT of stuff to eat up the lawyers time.

You just gotta push back on this stuff and you can do a lot of it yourself with a little advice and gumption. If they really know they dont have a claim, then just the fear of loss on their end will probably get them to drop the case. Just make sure you lawyer up before it goes to court if you cant get them to back off. You should NEVER walk into a courtroom without a lawyer.