LevonP
11-30-2008, 12:05 PM
Every insurance customer expects excellent service. You fork over premiums in the hope that you never have to pursue a claim for property damage or bodily injury.
But if an accident or catastrophe occurs, you also want your insurance company to respond to you promptly, courteously and efficiently. You trust that your case will get a fair hearing based on the facts, not on your status in the community.
We've stated previously that former Superior Court Judge Michael Joyce's conviction on insurance fraud and money laundering charges demonstrates that no one is above the law.
But questions linger about why Joyce's claims for injuries he said he suffered in an auto accident on Aug. 10, 2001, were fast-tracked by two insurance companies.
Ordinary folks are perturbed that Joyce's claims apparently received special treatment because of his role as a judge and his potential influence on insurance cases that come before Superior Court.
State Farm, which insured the motorist who rear-ended Joyce's car, paid Joyce $50,000. Erie Insurance paid him $390,000 in additional benefits that Joyce sought, claiming the other motorist was underinsured.
Erie Insurance has said it will seek restitution from Joyce. State Farm is still reviewing its options.
Restitution perhaps will reassure consumers who have gotten the message repeatedly from the insurance industry that we all pay when people rip off insurance companies. The Coalition Against Insurance Fraud claims that such crimes cost the industry $80 billion a year. Founded in 1993, the coalition lists as members most major insurance companies, including Erie Insurance and State Farm.
Those who followed the Joyce trial will recall that the defense attacked Shelane Buehler, the woman who started the investigation by making an anonymous complaint, as the "architect from hell" and the "liar from the lake." Buehler was Joyce's former fiancee, but that relationship is irrelevant. In fact, the Coalition Against Consumer Fraud, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and the FBI all encourage consumers to report suspected insurance fraud. We hope that the attempt to taint Buehler won't discourage others from reporting suspected fraud.
A revelation from the Joyce trial was the acknowledgment from Erie Insurance employees that Joyce received a speedy settlement not just because of his title of "judge" but because of the possible benefits that title might convey to the company.
While Joyce's claim was pending, he would have had to recuse himself from any cases involving Erie Insurance in Pennsylvania Superior Court. "I thought he was more likely than some of the other judges on Superior Court to be sympathetic to the insurance industry," Ted Miller, an Erie Insurance lawyer, testified. Joyce had written a key ruling in 2000 that was generally perceived as being favorable to the insurance industry, Miller said.
From Erie Insurance's perspective, that reaction can be seen as a business decision. But the state court system is supposed to be fair and impartial. No judge should curry a reputation as being "sympathetic" to business interests over consumers, and vice versa.
In addition, neither Erie Insurance nor State Farm has adequately explained why it did not seek an independent medical review of Joyce's claims.
We'll be interested to see if Superior Court or the insurance companies feel a need to restore trust in their institutions.
We hope they will consider it.
But if an accident or catastrophe occurs, you also want your insurance company to respond to you promptly, courteously and efficiently. You trust that your case will get a fair hearing based on the facts, not on your status in the community.
We've stated previously that former Superior Court Judge Michael Joyce's conviction on insurance fraud and money laundering charges demonstrates that no one is above the law.
But questions linger about why Joyce's claims for injuries he said he suffered in an auto accident on Aug. 10, 2001, were fast-tracked by two insurance companies.
Ordinary folks are perturbed that Joyce's claims apparently received special treatment because of his role as a judge and his potential influence on insurance cases that come before Superior Court.
State Farm, which insured the motorist who rear-ended Joyce's car, paid Joyce $50,000. Erie Insurance paid him $390,000 in additional benefits that Joyce sought, claiming the other motorist was underinsured.
Erie Insurance has said it will seek restitution from Joyce. State Farm is still reviewing its options.
Restitution perhaps will reassure consumers who have gotten the message repeatedly from the insurance industry that we all pay when people rip off insurance companies. The Coalition Against Insurance Fraud claims that such crimes cost the industry $80 billion a year. Founded in 1993, the coalition lists as members most major insurance companies, including Erie Insurance and State Farm.
Those who followed the Joyce trial will recall that the defense attacked Shelane Buehler, the woman who started the investigation by making an anonymous complaint, as the "architect from hell" and the "liar from the lake." Buehler was Joyce's former fiancee, but that relationship is irrelevant. In fact, the Coalition Against Consumer Fraud, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and the FBI all encourage consumers to report suspected insurance fraud. We hope that the attempt to taint Buehler won't discourage others from reporting suspected fraud.
A revelation from the Joyce trial was the acknowledgment from Erie Insurance employees that Joyce received a speedy settlement not just because of his title of "judge" but because of the possible benefits that title might convey to the company.
While Joyce's claim was pending, he would have had to recuse himself from any cases involving Erie Insurance in Pennsylvania Superior Court. "I thought he was more likely than some of the other judges on Superior Court to be sympathetic to the insurance industry," Ted Miller, an Erie Insurance lawyer, testified. Joyce had written a key ruling in 2000 that was generally perceived as being favorable to the insurance industry, Miller said.
From Erie Insurance's perspective, that reaction can be seen as a business decision. But the state court system is supposed to be fair and impartial. No judge should curry a reputation as being "sympathetic" to business interests over consumers, and vice versa.
In addition, neither Erie Insurance nor State Farm has adequately explained why it did not seek an independent medical review of Joyce's claims.
We'll be interested to see if Superior Court or the insurance companies feel a need to restore trust in their institutions.
We hope they will consider it.