Life is a highway. Yes, it certainly is, and because of that, the law and cars seem like such a natural fit. After all, you have rule framework for driving a car on any given highway – just like you have rule framework for being a citizen, living in a given place, and pursuing happiness. The actual and metaphoric highways mesh.
Satisfaction Surveys are Just Big Lies:
Stephanie West Allen at the idealawg posts an insightful look at consumers’ responses to satisfaction surveys. Do clients tell the truth when surveyed about satisfaction? The brain knows and it might be telling. The study West Allen cites to notes that people often fail to tell the truth when responding to satisfaction surveys. There is an interesting adjunct to West Allen’s post which is the issue that our bodies and brains often know and react to things long before our conscience knows anything. Anyone who has read Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink” knows that the adaptive unconscious is usually far out in front of our laggard conscious minds when it comes to making determinations on anything. Therefore, the question that arises about people’s responses to satisfaction surveys is whether they are intentional or unintentional falsehoods.
Which brings me to a very important issue. Automotive News($) published a recent J.D. Powers survey involving only 5,752 consumers who had been involved in collisions and addressed their satisfaction about the repair experience. The survey results suggest that people are happier with the collision repair experience when using insurer “direct repair program” shops or when they have received a referral from an insurer. Part of the rationale given in the story in Automotive News for why consumers feel better about insurer recommended repair shops is that insurers investigate them and insist that they have the latest model equipment and best-trained technicians. Holy cats, is that a sell job, because it is absolutely untrue.
While insurers put things in these direct repair program documents that say a repairer has to have the right equipment and training, that’s all for show in the event the AG’s office or some other consumer protection group gets hold of them. The bottom line is the insurers could absolutely care less if you are using chains behind your repair garage to pull vehicles’ unibodies into alignment. Insurers only care about getting a repair job done as cheaply as possible, and, often, if they can twist the repairer to perform an unsafe, but cheap, repair, they do it. I would love to tell lawyers how many times I have seen insurance company representatives write an estimate of repair that calls for the “clipping” of the vehicle. Clipping is the industry slang for “cutting the car in half horizontally, throwing away the damaged half and welding a salvage yard total-loss half onto the consumer’s vehicle, and handing the customer the keys.” Ta-da! And guess, what folks? In the vast majority of states, that practice is not illegal. Unsafe? You bet. Illegal? No. And the insurers’ attitudes about practices like these? “No one says we can’t do it, and if it’s going to save us a buck, we’re going to do it.” and my personal favorite, “We don’t repair cars, we just pay to have cars repaired.” – even though insurers dictate how vehicles are to be repaired to collision repair shops every day of the week. If you are a collision repair shop that stands up for the consumer, insurers make your life a living hell. And, they make the lives of consumers who try to patronize the responsible collision repair facilities hell as well.
You can see, therefore, the complete lack of value of the J.D. Powers survey. The only reason those customers are satisfied with the insurer’s recommendation is because the insurers tend to leave shops in their “networks” alone and don’t play games with them by browbeating their customers, refusing to pay for necessary repairs, deliberately delaying sending an adjuster to review the damage for two or more weeks, and other lovely games. And why do they leave the network shops alone? Because those collision repair shops have signed documents that trade away many rights of the customers (unbeknownst to the customers), agree to use inferior parts, use salvage parts (including salvage airbags), and agree to fully indemnify the auto liability carrier for anything (negligence, intentional acts, diminished value, attorney fees, titling problems — oh yes, some of those clips are “front end” clips. That means the VIN on your dashboard is a salvage vehicle VIN and no longer matches the registration or title of your car.) Anyone who takes the insurer’s recommendation for a collision repair shop is asking for trouble.
Along those lines, Eric Turkewitz of the New York Personal Injury Law Blog posts about Anderson Cooper’sstory on Allstate Insurance and its aversion to actually paying claims No, really?
John Shortell of the BodyShop Solutions blog has an enlightening post called More From Inside Nationwide. A Manifesto That Threatens Termination for Appraisers Who Fail to Get With The Program about the realities of how insurers treat consumers, collision repair facilities, and their own employees. Shortell even posts an email from a person identified as Paul J. Connell, Materials Damage Claims Associate Director ratcheting up the pressure on claims personnel and body shops. Anyone who practices in the personal injury area will find Shortell’s post eye-opening. As a final thought, PI lawyers, are you aware that many insurers use the cost to repair the vehicle as the basis upon which they offer soft tissue bodily injury claims settlements? So, you can see the additional incentive insurers have to keep repair costs as low as possible.
Accidents:
In my day, babysitters earned about a dollar an hour. No one paid social security, worker’s comp., or insurance – but that’s probably changed. And if it hasn’t, maybe it should. The Orange County Personal Injury Lawyer blawg recounts a sad tale of a babysitter who hit another car killing someone while picking up his employers’ youngest child from school. Needless to say, the decedent’s family sued the babysitter but also sued the parents/employers. Vicarious liability isn’t anything new, but how many times do even lawyer parents, desperate for a night out, stop to think, “what are the potential ramifications of this employment activity?”
David Giacalone has some meaningful information for people involved in accidents who want to handle the matter without the assistance (and cost) of an attorney. DG must have a great sense of humor as the blawg is titled: “shlep - the Self-Help Law ExPress”. He also has an excellent post on how consumers can protect themselves in a used car purchase. Although, Giacalone’s post contains much useful information for buying vehicles, the gigantic problem with the whole used car world is that there are NO standards dictating how vehicles are permitted to be repaired and NO used motor vehicle standards dictating “lifecycle motor vehicle safety” throughout a vehicle’s lifetime.
J. Craig Williams from May it Please The Court reminds us that if you ski and get hurt, nurse your wounds and go home. Assumption of risk is still the word of the day on the slopes, and suing the ski resort just makes you look stupid as well as clumsy.
Just Pull over and Keep Your Mouth Shut:
Carpundit says it like it is, and I just love that. CP reminds sassy Harvard Law students that, in fact, Big Daddy Brother does have jurisdiction over any punk on the road and it really doesn’t matter if it’s a state road or a local one. CP’s tip of the day for drivers: “when you see the blue lights flashing, pull safely to the right shoulder and come to a complete stop. In the words of Chris Rock, If the police have to come and get you, they’re bringing an ass kicking with them.” Jamie Spencer does a neat job of digging through the law to find out if a client committed a traffic violation by performing a U-turn at a location posted only “No Left Turn”. I have to admit, trying to piece together state law and local ordinance is often a nightmare, and it makes for some wacky results. This is an interesting read over at the Austin DWI Lawyer blawg.
Go Green! The Green Business News brings us news about recent enactment of laws in the U.K. that require vehicle manufacturers to pay for the safe and environmentally appropriate disposal of motor vehicles. Autoblog reports that the President has finally drafted some fuel economy legislation which would allow regulators to demand higher mileage standards from automakers.
Government Officials We Think Have Drive or Have Job Openings
The AutoProhpet lauds Michigan AG, Mike Cox, for doing what every state should do — ban those stupid (and inaccurate) red-light camaras. Boy, talk about a total walk around the hearsay rule.
The Antitrust Review points out a bunch of job openings in that easy-to-parse-through land of antitrust law. In addition to which, the AR tells us that the European Court has upheld a Beer Cartel Fine. Look, if the U.S. can finally “free the grapes” and let wineries ship directly to consumers, then I think the European consumers should be entitled to “free the hops.”
Revelations (Oh, my goodness, it’s just what I wanted):
GAL of the Greatest American Lawyer has toyed with revealing his (and I do believe it is a “his”, although GAL may be more of a hint than one might imagine!) anonymous self. There was even a contest, closed yesterday, winners to be announced early this week. GAL begged not to be outted by those in the know until post-revelation. OK, I’ll give you all a real heads-up. It’s me! Why do you think I’m hosting this blawg review?
Also, anyone interested in what interests gay people in the world of automobiles must visit Gaywheels.com which bills itself as the “gay-friendly automotive resource”. The Truth About Cars has a fun dish on some woes at ToMoCo (you know, Toyota Motor Co.) involving “memogate“.
Vorsicht bei der Abfahrt (Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!)
Overlawyered keeps us up-to-date with warning labels the whole family can enjoy, while Jonathan B. Wilson comments on a Georgia Social Networking Bill designed to keep minors safe.
Joe Sherlock of The View From Behind The Windshield warns about property loss damage that can occur to your car just by going through an automated car wash.
Nicole Black of Sui Generis–a New York law blog warns of issues involving ethical issues involving NY’s lawyer advertising rules and their application to a home office. Diane Levin of Death and Taxes Blog talks about her thoughts on Associate Salaries.
Heresy (I prefer to take the bus, thank you very much):
“Blessed are the few of words, for they will be welcome anywhere.” Lawyers talk too much (just look at this Blawg Review!) If you don’t think so, marry one. Imagine if other professions bored spouses and friends with the minutiae of earning their daily bread, e.g. “Then I typed the letter “q”, then a “u” . . .” or “I put the strands of DNA, that I had previously teased from the extracting solution, into a test tube . . .” Honestly, how does the rest of the world stand us? But now I have a hero. His name is Donald A. Van Sullehem. And courtesy of the (new) legal writer, Here is his elegant response to a brief, and one which, if I weren’t so much of a coward, I would have written in some of my own cases.
Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reinstatement
Plaintiff has got to be kidding.
Respectfully submitted, Simpson & Moran, By Donald A. Van Sullehem, Attorneys for Defendant, Birmingham, Mich.
Basquette talks about why blogging isn’t for everyone in put down the blog and step away from the computer, ma’am… and Charles H. Green emphasizes the power and beauty of silence at the Trust Matters blawg.
By a whisker (as in, “I just missed that guy by a”):
Julian Ku discussed the hang-up concerning the words “annihilation” versus “genocide” in the debate over the mass killings of Armenians during the Ottoman regime in Turkey. Ken Adams of AdamsDrafting really splits hairs over the use of the words “termination” or “expiration” in contract drafting.
Warm and out of the wind (if it’s a convertible, the top is up):
The Wired GC takes aim at the Government Accountability Office for being miffed that the DHS counsel wants to review documents before production and be present at employee depositions. Stephen M. Nipper of The Invent Blog gives us the happy news that PayPal is trying to compete with Google’s new “Checkout” program by offering a $15 rebate on goods purchased from participating retailers. Luckily for us, some of those retailers include purveyors of law books and legal aids. Where the heck were these companies when I was in law school paying full bore for every book I had to use? Sox First continues to report that Citigroup has its hands full trying to defend itself against the allegations of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission that it engaged in insider trading and failed to manage conflicts of interest.
Grievances (Why the hell didn’t you fill up before we left?):
J. Daniel Hull of What About Clients?™ flares about whether lawyers are delivering real services to clients in an economy that now seems exclusively about selling services on a global level. Hull’s comments immediately reminded me of a fascinating discussion my friend Leon Polott of 5iTech and I had when we were the Chair and Vice Chair respectively of the Cleveland Bar Association’s International Law Section. At the time, Leon and I discussed the client zealous representation and potential ethical issues arising from the ever-present (and in use) bottle of Vodka on the meeting table in a Russian negotiation. At what point should there be a different code of conduct and professional responsibility for lawyers representing clients internationally?
S. Alan Childress points out the grandstanding, childish, and jerry-springerish activities that some judges have begun to exhibit in their occupation of the bench. While paid participants in the legal world continue to pay lip-service to concepts of professionalism and collegiality, the migration of the practice of law to the business of law rewards those who can draw the most dollars by their outlandish behavior.
My own grievance, of course, is that issues I care about are once again being upstaged by that minx, Anna Nicole Smith (aka Vicky Lynn Marshall). It’s bad enough that the U.S. Supreme Court deemed her dispute over her ancient deceased billionaire husband’s estate to be more review-worthy than a genuine issue over the denial of due process and question of the propriety of a state supreme court justice casting the deciding vote overturning a billion dollar consumer judgment against one of his supporters, State Farm. Now, the week I am hosting blawg review, she dies, leaving questions about the cause of death, the paternity of her new baby, and the quagmire of her former husband’s estate and her own. As a former probate, trust, and estate trial lawyer the latter is undeniably appealing to me. Nonetheless, couldn’t ANS/VLM have done this on someone else’s watch? I think I will have to take this personally.
Tune in Next Week
Blawg Review has information about next week’s host, and instructions how to get your blawg posts reviewed in upcoming issues.