Basically, there are three ways in which you can be taken advantage of by your insurance company and/or your insurance agent:
 
1. The cost of the policy is misrepresented;
2. The type of coverage sold to you is misrepresented; or
3. The insurance company unreasonably denies payment of your claim.
 
Many may think that since the dollar amount of the loss is small, the case is not worth taking. That is not so. Though some cases are small in dollar amount, they are still well worth pursuing! To help consumers, our Legislature has enacted a statute that provides for the awarding of treble damages, costs, and expenses of the case, as well as attorney fees.
 
If you believe that you have been taken advantage of by your insurance company or agent,
we are here to help you. Please call 412.391.2515 and ask for Ken Behrend.
 
Over the years, our law firm has handled hundreds of cases against insurance companies. This extensive experience helps in determining whether you have a claim, and if you do, what course of action should be taken. Not all cases need to go to court, but sometimes they do. If your claim cannot be settled out of court, our law firm is ready and prepared to go to court and try your case in front of a jury. In fact, other lawyers send their insurance cases to our law firm to be tried by us in court.
 
When it comes to paying a claim, insurance companies are supposed to be working with you in good faith to attempt to find coverage! Unfortunately, the claims process takes on an adversarial feel and seems like the insurance company is fighting against you. We can help you through the claims process. If the insurance company is unreasonable in either denying the claim or offering a small amount of money compared to the loss, then a law suit may have to be filed.
 
Both the insurance company and the insurance agent are licensed by the Insurance Department of Pennsylvania, and as such they have an affirmative duty when selling the policy to be truthful and honest to you. Also, when they deliver the policy to you, if the policy that they give to you is different than the policy you requested, the duty is on their head to explain to you the differences. We often see that an insurance company will say in denying a claim that the company did nothing wrong, and then they blame you by saying it is your fault since you did not read the policy and discover that the they failed to provide the coverage you requested.
 
This is not the law. To the contrary! Since an insurance company and the insurance agent have an affirmative duty to disclose the terms and costs of coverage, you have no obligation to read the policy to discover that they failed to give you the right coverage. If you have not read your policy, maybe you glanced at it and put it in a drawer or some other safe place, and now perhaps you wonder what your policy actually says. Moreover, very few people are able to understand the terms of an insurance policy. Instead, they do what most reasonably do: They rely upon the agent and the company to tell the truth and to choose a policy that meets their needs.
 
The following are types of auto policies:
 
FULL TORT: You should have "full tort" coverage. By buying this coverage you take away from the company a confusing and costly reason for denying coverage that can be difficult to overcome.
 
UIM: You should purchase underinsurance/uninsurance coverage that at least matches the amount of your liability coverage. This coverage is sometimes referred to as "UIM" coverage. The purpose of this coverage is to protect yourself if someone hits you who either has no insurance or has a small amount of coverage.
For example, you may get into a serious wreck and your injuries would be in excess of $200,000. If the other driver has $30,000 of coverage, first you collect $30,000 from his insurance company. Then, second, you look to your own company for the rest of the money under your UIM coverage. But if you only bought $50,000 of UIM coverage, you can only collect an additional $50,000, even though your injuries are worth over $200,000. If you had purchased in excess of $200,000 of UIM coverage, then you would have provided yourself with full protection.
Therefore, for example, if you have liability coverage of $300,000 and UIM coverage of $50,000 you should increase your UIM coverage to match you liability coverage of $300,000.
 
STACKING: If you own more than one car you can "stack" your benefits. This means in the UIM situation above, if you had two cars with $300,000 UIM coverage, you can "stack" the benefits and have $600,000 of UIM coverage available.
 
FIRST PARTY BENEFITS: You can purchase "first party" medical coverage and wage-loss protection coverage. "First Party" simply means that your insurance company pays your medical bills and wage-loss caused by an auto collision, up to the dollar amount of coverage that you purchased.
 
MEDICAL COVERAGE: As to medical coverage, it is recommend that you buy the maximum of medical coverage that you can. For example, many agents will say you have medical insurance at work so you do not have to purchase very much medical coverage and they sell you, say, $10,000 of coverage. However, how the bills are paid under a health plan at work is very different than how the medical bills are paid under an auto insurance policy. The auto insurance procedures are much simpler and direct and when you are hurt, the last thing you need to deal with is the additional requirements and paperwork from a health insurance plan.
 
WAGE LOSS: As to wage-loss protection, again you should buy as much as is practical for you. That is, when you purchase auto insurance you are protecting yourself from the tragedy of a serious injury and your inability to work while recovering, or worse you may never be able to return to work. As such, you should take into consideration your finances, your family obligations, and how long you can survive without wages as part of your decision as to the dollar amount of wage-loss you purchase. Again, having a steady check while you are injured and unable to work, helps immensely.
 
We have handled hundreds and hundreds of cases. Sometimes the decisions after a trial are appealed. Besides trials, we have also successfully handled cases on appeal. Listed below are some of our Appeals Court victories in insurance cases we have had on behalf of our clients over the years:
 
 

       Agliori v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 879 A.2d 315 (Pa. Super. 2005)
       Dilworth v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,418 F.3d 345 (3d Cir. 2005)
       Drelles v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 357 F.3d 344 (3rd Cir. 2003)
       Drelles v. Manufacturers Life Ins. Co., 881 A.2d 822 (Pa. Super 2005)
       Gray v. MetLife et al., 146 WDA 2004 (Pa. Super. 10/05/04)(unpublished)
       Knouse v. General American Life Ins. Co., 391 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 2004)
       Lesoon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 898 A.2d. 620 (Pa. Super 2006),
             allocator denied, 912 A.2d 1293 (Pa. 2006)
       Mohney v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 5468, 93 Fed. Appx. 391 (3d Cir.
            2004)(unpublished)
       Mohney v. U.S. Credit Life Ins. Co., 838 and 917 WDA 2008 (Pa. Super. 7/01/08) (unpublished),             appeal denied, 373 WAL 2008 (Pa. 12-10-08)
       Pekular v. Eich and State Farm, 513 A.2d 427 (Pa. Super. 1986), appeal denied, 533 A.2d 93
           (Pa. 1987)              
       Toy v Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 863 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2004), affrmd, 928 A.2d 186
           (Pa. 2007)
       Tran v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 408 F.3d 130 (3d Cir. 2005), rehearing en banc denied (July 25,
            2005)
       Bishop's Inc. v. Penn National Inc. Co., _ A.2d _, 2009 (Pa. Super. 2009), appeal denied, 533 A.2d 93

* Insurance Fraud
* Misrepresentation
* Lost Money 
* Lost Property 
* False Policies 
* Misinformation
 
 
Don't see your issue listed?
Call us with your questions!