(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of this car accident case and its proceedings.)
BRIEF FACT SUMMARY cont.
16. On or about April 13, 2009, Plaintiffs again requested an explanation for Defendant’s denial and unreasonable delay in settling Plaintiffs’ claims. At the same time, Plaintiffs submitted a demand for arbitration.
17. On April 30, 2009, Defendant sent a response to Plaintiffs’ April 13, 2009 demand, by making an unreasonably low settlement offer. Defendant then represented that the matter would be sent to Defendant’s counsel to consider Plaintiffs’ demand for arbitration, and said counsel would contact Plaintiffs shortly.
18. Subsequently, Plaintiffs relied on Defendant’s representations that the matter would be reviewed by its counsel, and communicated to Defendant that they considered compelling arbitration, but would wait for further communication from Defendant.
19. However, on May 13, 2009, Defendant again corresponded with Plaintiffs, not by way of counsel, but only to communicate that a new claims representative was assigned to handle Plaintiffs claim. Instead of forwarding the matter to counsel as Defendant represented, it merely assigned a new representative to the matter.
20. Clearly Defendant makes no intention of settling Plaintiffs’ claims, much less investigating the matter. Nearly half a year after Plaintiffs made their claim for benefits under the Policy, and after substantial negotiations, Defendant merely assigned a new claims representative in order to further delay payment of Plaintiffs’ claims.
21. In fact, Plaintiffs contacted Defendant and discovered that the new claims representative was an employee under the supervision of the previous representative. Not only bad Defendants’ previous claims representative misrepresented that its counsel would review the matter, but he then forwarded the matter to one of his inferiors.
22. To date, Plaintiffs have not received any further communication from Defendant with regards to their claims. At the time this Complaint is filed, it will have been over half a year since Plaintiffs made their first demand. Since such time, Defendant has clearly unreasonably delayed processing Plaintiffs’ claims and continue to drag the process along in order to pressure Plaintiffs to accept a lower settlement amount. (See Part 4 of 6.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.