Two Steps Forward, One Step “Wayback”: Managing Information for Future Success

A guest blog by Carrie Cope of Schuyler, Roche & Crisham, P.C.:

There are times when the unwelcome discovery of a regulatory violation, such as the inadvertent issuance of an insurance policy in a state where the company isn’t licensed, can put an insurer between that proverbial “rock and a hard place.” While disclosure to the governing regulatory agency may be the company’s preferred plan of action to resolve the problem, management may be concerned that voluntarily disclosing it may result in a fine or penalty or uncover more than hypothetical worms under that proverbial rock. As a result, it’s not surprising that insurance companies approach resolving such problems with different strategies.

There are companies that closely monitor compliance laws and work as a team with regulators to solve any problems (my clients), those that believe they own the playing field and that flagrantly flaunt the rules (of these I have only heard fireside tales and whispered rumors), and those that fall somewhere in the middle. In an ideal (and mythical) world, insurance laws and regulations would always be perfectly clear and easy to apply, and human error would not exist. But we live in the “real” world, albeit one transformed by the ability to communicate in cyberspace.  (I admit, it’s a bit anachronistic to use “albeit” and “cyberspace” in the same sentence.) The fact is that many practical aspects of conducting the “business” of insurance have changed due to advances in technology.

In the past, disclosing a regulatory violation to one state’s regulator did not necessarily mean disclosure to all, allowing an insurer’s clean slate with one state to remain unsullied by a problem with another. As more information is stored electronically and accessibility to it increases, those days are now gone. For example, state insurance departments are now able to use an electronic system called “I-Site” that is a compilation of information from other regulatory databases. While it certainly makes sense that any regulator would want to ascertain whether an insurer’s problem in one state is part of a larger systemic problem, under some circumstances, having access to an insurer’s historical record in 50 states may hinder the resolution of some issues. Wading through mounds of information can slow any review process down. In addition, some historical information may be inaccurate or irrelevant to the problem being evaluated, but may still color the recipient’s perception of how an insurer approaches compliance issues.

Of course, increased access to information afforded by advancing technology has its benefits as well. We recently used a helpful source called the Internet “Wayback Machine” which provides access to the Internet Archive’s collection of web pages. We were able to provide support for a client’s position by obtaining historical information that had been lost.  Not surprisingly the mere availability of such information does not mean it can be used in court under all circumstances. In Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp., No.02 C 3293, 2004 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 20845 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 14, 2004), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois admitted evidence of what the plaintiff’s website looked like on a certain date where it was accompanied by an affidavit from an Internet archive employee authenticating copies of the website. However, in Specht v Google, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 2d 570(N.D.Ill. 2011),the court struck screen shots of the plaintiff’s website from the record because the exhibits had not been authenticated.

Creative problem solving has always been essential to vanquishing competitors in the business world generally and the insurance industry in particular, and having the right information at the right time is a key ingredient in both problem solving and risk evaluation.  Insurers that are able to access and manage information effectively will be better positioned to move forward in soft or saturated markets, as well as identify new insurance markets. It has long been said that the best predictor of future behavior is the past. Never before have we had better tools to access the past in order to plot our course forward. One challenge faced by all sectors of the insurance industry will be to keep pace with rapid advances in technology while managing the sometimes overwhelming flow of, and unlimited access to, information.

Pro Se Pro Ça: What to Expect When Litigating Against the Pro Se Plaintiff

From the January 2012 issue of the PLUS Journal – Authors Linda G Burwell and Terry W Bonnette look at considerations when trying a case against a pro se plaintiff.

The bad news: your client is being sued for discrimination by a former employee. The good news: the former employee is representing himself, so you assume that his case must be so weak that he couldn’t find an attorney willing to take it on. Now the really bad news: you’ve already made your first mistake.

In the past two years, approximately 230 employment related lawsuits have been filed in Michigan state and federal courts by plaintiffs, who have opted to represent themselves, known alternately as pro se or in pro per plaintiffs. Defendants may expect pro se litigation to move more quickly than traditional litigation; however, the reality is the plaintiff may be given more time because he or she is unfamiliar with the process. Defendants may expect minimal defense costs, because having a pro se plaintiff means the litigation will be relatively simple. The reality may very well be that the defendant can expect higher than usual bills for motion practice, because plaintiff is reluctant to stipulate to simple procedural matters and because plaintiff will not know how to comply with the court rules. Defendants may expect an easy win or early dismissal, but the reality is that you may find yourself in front of a judge who wants to afford the plaintiff every opportunity of succeeding. Even if the defendant’s expectations turn out to be right, by understanding why the plaintiff has chosen to go it alone, and by being prepared to manage the unexpected, you can help your client understand what is really happening.

There may be no single explanation for the seemingly swelling number of pro se suits, but several factors could be contributing. As with any number of conditions, the economy may be a factor. In trying economic conditions, large numbers of people lose their jobs. As more people lose their jobs, more people file employment-related law suits. Even assuming that the proportion of represented to unrepresented plaintiff’s remains constant, the more law suits that are filed, the more pro se plaintiffs there will be. As Michigan continues to be troubled by extraordinarily high rates of unemployment, extraordinarily high numbers of employment-related lawsuits are being filed-both by represented plaintiffs and by pro se plaintiffs.

In this type of environment, plaintiffs’ attorneys are privileged to be, and yet at the same time forced to be, highly selective in choosing the cases they undertake. Obviously, an abundance of potential cases affords plaintiffs’ attorneys the privilege of being able to select the most compelling cases. At the same time, these attorneys face the same economic conditions as everyone else. Resources are tight, and they simply cannot afford to invest limited resources where the potential recovery may be limited. Many plaintiffs are simply not able to find an attorney who will take their case at all. Moreover, as a general rule, potential plaintiffs in employment related cases tend to be unemployed, and do not have the financial resources to hire an attorney on an hourly basis. These plaintiffs may struggle to find an attorney who will take their case on a contingency basis because of the economics of the case.

The unreasonable expectations of many plaintiffs may also contribute to the number of pro se plaintiffs, and make for more litigious cases because they do not recognize the realistic value of their cases. Sexy suits where angry juries award plaintiffs seven figure punitive judgments are largely a matter of fiction. They make good movies and the occasional sensational news item, but the typical employment case comes with capped and limited damages, which may be either entirely discretionary or subject to statutory liquidation formulas. More typical employment cases, where available damages are in the low five and even four figure range, generally do not qualify as newsworthy events. As a result, potential plaintiffs are only familiar with the rare high profile jackpot cases, and cannot understand why attorneys might not take their cases.

The American Bar Foundation’s, Contesting Workplace Discrimination in Court: Characteristics and Outcomes of Federal Employment Discrimination Litigation 1987-2003 paints a more realistic picture of the landscape-as well as what a pro se litigant can expect. The American Bar Foundation’s findings suggest that 54% of all employment cases filed in federal court will settle, 18% will be dismissed, 16% will result in summary judgment, and only 5% will ever go to trial (others will be withdrawn, remain unresolved, or come to some other alternative conclusion). Where the plaintiff decides to go it alone, the plaintiff can still expect only a 5% likelihood of going to trial for a chance at the jackpot. On the other hand, 40% of employment cases filed by pro se plaintiffs will be dismissed, and another 24% will result in summary judgment. Without representation, there is no one to manage the pro se plaintiff’s expectations. 63% of the cases in which the plaintiff was represented by counsel reached settlement, whereas pro se plaintiffs reached settlement in just 24% of the cases.

Another contributing factor may be the sheer amount of information available to prospective pro se plaintiffs. Make no mistake, going it alone does not have to be lonely. For example, the web site for the Eastern District of Michigan provides the following:

If you are representing yourself without the benefit of an attorney, you are known as a PRO SE LITIGANT. “ Pro Se” is a Latin term meaning “for oneself.”

To assist you, we have written a booklet, Filing Your Lawsuit In Federal Court , which answers questions most frequently asked by individuals filing their own lawsuit. The online formsreferred to in this booklet are also available in the Clerk’s Office.

As a pro se litigant, you enjoy every right entitled to you under the law. However, pro se litigants are expected to follow/abide by the rules that govern the practice of law in the Federal Courts. Pro Se Litigants should be familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rulesof this court.

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/Information/ProSe/

 

PLUS members can read the full text of this article, and many others, in the PLUS Journal archive.

Learn CPR – It Can Save a Life

This morning the entire PLUS staff is taking the morning to be trained and certified on CPR and First Aid.

While it can be difficult to take a morning away from e-mail, phones, and meetings I would encourage each of you to take the time to learn this important skill. You never expect that you’ll be in a situation where someone requires emergency care, but it does happen. Be prepared to save a life – check out the American Heart Association’s website today and learn CPR.

Also, check out this video on hands-only CPR with a great disco soundtrack.

Edit: Check out these photos from today’s lessons.