Allstate engaged in the practice of law and committed legal malpractice where its claims adjuster contacted a woman whose car was struck by an Allstate-insured driver, told her that she didn't need to hire a lawyer and advised her to sign a settlement and release, the Washington Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision.

The court stopped short of holding that Allstate engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, but said if the company continues with its claims practices it must meet the standard of care for a practicing attorney.

"Allstate's claims adjuster's conduct fell below that standard when she advised the [plaintiff] to sign a release of liabilities, did not properly advise [her] that there were potential legal consequences of signing a settlement check and a release of all claims or refer [her] to independent counsel, and did not fully disclose the conflict of interest she presented," the majority wrote.

This is the first state supreme court to rule on Allstate's controversial practice of discouraging the involvement of lawyers in the settlement process.

Karen Koehler of Bellevue, Wash., called the decision a "tremendous victory for consumers." Koehler chairs the insurance section of the Washington State Trial Lawyers Association.

Charleston, W.Va., attorney James Peterson said that the ruling "upholds the position that plaintiffs' attorneys have been advancing all along - that Allstate is practicing law." Peterson is lead counsel in a nationwide class action currently seeking certification in federal court in Illinois.

Allstate is facing contempt charges in Missouri -- with a $25,000-a-day fine -- and now it can't sell new auto policies in Florida, in part, because it wants to protect a report written by a corporate consultant.

Allstate has said those documents -- along with others that Florida regulators are seeking in their investigation into how the company sets insurance rates and pays claims -- are trade secrets.

What's so important that Allstate would risk so much?

According to an attorney who has seen the report from consultant McKinsey & Co., it advises Allstate on how to improve profitability: pay less on claims and take a longer time to pay those claims.

''The documents describe, in graphic terms, a scheme devised by Allstate and McKinsey & Co. to essentially turn the business of insurance into a zero-sum game,'' said David Bernardinelli, a Santa Fe, N.M., plaintiff attorney involved in a case against Allstate. He says he is the only person outside Allstate to have seen the report.

An Allstate spokesman didn't return a call seeking comment late Wednesday.

In the early 1990s, the corporate consultant advised Allstate to get tough with policyholders. Consumers who didn't accept a settlement offer from Allstate would have to fight in court to get their claims paid.

''This is the new insurance world that was created by McKinsey for a lot of insurers,'' Bernardinelli said.

Indeed, McKinsey did work for other companies, including State Farm. This insurer said it hasn't used McKinsey's services for more than a decade, according to a State Farm spokesman.

How did Bernardinelli get the report? In 2001, he was litigating a case against Allstate. He learned of the report and demanded to see it.

Allstate refused, claiming it contained trade secrets. It provided the same rebuff to the subpoena from Florida's Office of Insurance Regulation this week.

Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL June 21, 2005; Page A1 The rising cost of medical-malpractice insurance has hit many doctors, especially surgeons and obstetricians. But one specialty has largely
shielded itself: Anesthesiologists pay less for malpractice insurance today, in constant dollars, than they did 20 years ago. That's mainly because some anesthesiologists chose a path many doctors in other specialties
did not. Rather than pushing for laws that would protect them against patient lawsuits, these anesthesiologists focused on improving patient safety. Their theory: Less harm to patients would mean fewer lawsuits. Over the past two decades, anesthesiologists have advocated the use of devices that alert doctors to potentially fatal problems in the operating room. They have helped develop computerized mannequins that simulate real-life surgical crises. And they have pressed for procedures that protect unconscious patients from potential   carbon-monoxide poisoning. All this has helped save lives. Over the past two decades, patient deaths due to anesthesia have declined to one death per 200,000 to 300,000 cases from one for every 5,000 cases, according to studies
compiled by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academies, a leading scientific advisory body.

Joanne Flournoy ( Joanne R. Flournoy)and Matt Flournoy ( Matthew C. Flournoy) have a lighted out door Bocce Ball Court in their back yard in Marietta Cobb County Georgia. The Bocce Court is 60 feet long and 12 feet wide. The surface is granite dust. 

We recommend that you read the Bocce Rules and Definitions, and then watch the 21 short Bocce Instructional Videos linked below before you play. The 21 short Bocce Instructional videos average only 13 seconds in time. The total time of all 21 videos is only 265 seconds or 4.4 minutes.

21 Short Bocce Instructional Videos created by Joanne Flournoy ( Joanne R. Flournoy) and Matt Flournoy (Matthew C. Flournoy) on September 3, 2006 in Marietta Cobb County Georgia.

(Click on each to view):

1. Introduction to Bocce (18 seconds).

2. Bocce Court (11 seconds).

3. Bocce Balls (22 seconds).

4. Palino, the target ball (7 seconds).

5. Object of Bocce Ball (11 seconds).

6. Foot fault line (10 seconds).

7. Bowling the Palino (12 seconds).

8. Bowling the first Bocce Ball (9 seconds).

9. Bowling the second Bocce Ball (13 seconds).

10. In Team versus Out Team (17 seconds).

11. Bowling the third Bocce Ball (16 seconds).

12. Green Team is In and Red Team is Out (10 seconds).

13. Ok to hit the Palino with Bocce Balls (10 seconds).

14. Ok to hit Bocce Balls with other Bocce Balls (15 seconds).

15. Red Team is In and Green Team is Out (8 seconds).

16. One point frame scoring (20 seconds).

17. Two point frame scoring (13 seconds).

18. Three point frame scoring (9 seconds).

19. Four point frame scoring, the maximum points possible per frame (10 seconds).

20. Scoring after each frame (12 seconds).

21. Scoreboard, first team to score 11 points wins the Bocce game (12 seconds).

Every year Matt Flournoy ( Matthew C. Flournoy) and JoanneFlournoy ( Joanne R. Flournoy) host the Marietta Kiwanis Club Bocce Party at their Home in Marietta Cobb County Georgia. Here is the link to the Marietta Kiwanis Web site for this annual event.

On Saturday Night 6-16-2007 Matt Flournoy and Joanne Flournoy hosted the Annual Marietta Kiwanis

Club Bocce Party at thier Home in Marietta Cobb County Georgia. This Year Joanne and Matt produced a Mini Movie called "Bocce Party for Marietta Kiwanis Club the Mini Movie 6-16-07" and uploaded it to the Web Site You Tube. It is less than 7 minutes long.  Here is the Link to the You Tube Site

To see a Bocce Instructional Video, link to "Bocce Ball My Way Father Guido Sarducci"

Bocce Court Photo 7-20-2002

 Bocce Court Photo 4-17-2004

 Bocce Group Photo 5-14-2005

Cobb County Bar Bocce Party Group Photo 5-20-2006

Lawyers and Judges Bocce Group Photo 9-30-06

By Myron Levin , L.A. Times Staff Writer Mon Aug 15, 7:55 AM ET

When a jury sticks it to a huge corporation, it's always big news. A crushing verdict of $4.9 billion against General Motors Corp. in Los Angeles drew massive media coverage, as did a $5-billion award in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case and a $144.8-billion thrashing of the tobacco industry in a Florida class action.

Mega-verdicts such as these have helped fuel legislative campaigns to overhaul the legal system by limiting lawsuits and jury awards. Driving the crusade for what business groups call tort reform is the notion that frivolous suits and jackpot judgments are strangling the economy.

While acknowledging that excesses no doubt occur, many legal observers say there is no evidence that people are filing more lawsuits or that juries are getting more generous — indeed, there is some data to the contrary. And mammoth verdicts, in the rare cases in which they occur, almost always are tossed out or sharply reduced later.

Feeding the perception of a crisis in the legal system, they say, is the way the news media cover the courts.

After the big headlines, critics say, the media often drop the ball, losing interest in what happens later. Published studies of news content and a Times examination of major recent cases show that when the immense verdicts were overturned or dramatically reduced, the news frequently was banished to the inside pages or simply not reported.

Legal experts and media observers say such coverage gives a distorted picture of the civil justice system while lending credence to fears of irrational jury awards. News coverage has reinforced the message "that the system's out of control, and that juries are using the tort system to redistribute wealth in some unjust and unprincipled way," said Robert MacCoun, a professor of law and public policy at UC Berkeley.

The popular view that there are more lawsuits and bigger damage awards than ever before is not supported by available evidence.

A 35-state survey by the National Center for State Courts found that the number of tort filings declined 4% from 1993 through 2002 despite population growth. And in the nation's 75 largest counties, the median award to victorious plaintiffs was $37,000 in 2001 — much less than the inflation-adjusted median of $63,000 in 1992, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a branch of the U.S. Department of Justice.

NEW STUDY: Falling Claims and Rising Premiums in the Medical Malpractice Insurance Industry

Leading Attorneys General Challenge Insurance Industry

The insurance industry has argued that patients who file medical malpractice lawsuits are causing high losses for insurers.  Medical malpractice insurers state that to recoup money paid to patients, they are being forced to raise doctors’ insurance rates or, in some cases, pull out of the market altogether.

A new report, Falling Claims and Rising Premiums in the Medical Malpractice Insurance Industry, disputes the insurance industry’s assertion, finding that doctors have been unnecessarily price-gouged for several years as insurance industry surpluses have ballooned to unprecedented levels.  AIG, under investigation by state and federal authorities for its business practices, and HCI, a subsidiary of HCA, the largest for-profit hospital chain, are among the worst offenders.

Attorneys Generals Respond:

In a statement issued in response to the study, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal called for “much tougher, more aggressive oversight to prevent and punish profiteering.… Federal and state regulators should thoroughly scrutinize recent rate increases and take appropriate corrective action.”

Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon said that the Report, “call[s] into question much of what the medical malpractice insurance industry has been saying publicly during the past several years.  There is no excuse for malpractice insurers doubling their rates while their claims payments decrease.”

Merchants know falling merchandise presents dangerous risks to unwary customers, and courts are holding them accountable.

Falling merchandise

Jeffrey A. Hyman and Molly E. Homan

Stack it high and let it fly. anonymous stocker of merchandise on a sky shelf

During the past decade, thousands of people have been injured, some killed, by falling merchandise while shopping in retail warehouses.1 From doors, hot water heaters, and televisions to pet supplies, houseware goods, and toys, merchandise is falling off high shelves and causing injuries to customers at an alarming rate.

Since 1987, about 30,000 falling-merchandise incidents resulting in injuries to customers have occurred at Wal-Mart.2 During a recent 18-month period, 68 customers sued Home Depot for injuries sustained from falling merchandise.3 Other companies operating a retail warehouse business include Lowe=s, Kmart, Toys>R= Us, PetsMart, Costco, Sam=s Club, and Staples. The retail warehouse business exploded during the 1990s and shows no signs of slowing down.

In 1962, the first Wal-Mart and Kmart stores opened, and these merchants were about to Ahit@ the consumer in a big way. These stores operated on the formula that it was more efficient, less expensive, and more profitable to warehouse as much merchandise as possible on the sales floor, rather than in off-site warehouses or backroom storage areas. High stacking of merchandise was born, and a profitable business strategy at the expense of customer safety was created.

THE BEST-SELLING DEFECT IN AMERICA:  THE FORD F-150 SUPERCAB

I.  Tragedy in Texas

On July 26, 2001 four friends were returning from a celebration when tragedy struck.  The group was traveling in a 2000 Ford F-150 SuperCab pickup.  The F-150 was driven by Paul Alaniz, who was a football coach at a local high school.  Seated behind coach Alaniz on the driver’s side of the vehicle was Laura Benavides.  The group was returning from Kingsville, Texas on their way to Benavides, Texas to celebrate the new coaching job of one of the occupants.  When they were almost home, they entered a curve near the town of San Jose, and one of the tires of the F-150 dropped off the shoulder of the road.  Coach Alaniz brought the vehicle back onto the road but then lost control.  The vehicle skidded across the roadway and began a passenger-side leading roll on the soft shoulder on the opposite side of the road.  The truck rolled a total of 3 times and landed on all four wheels.  In the course of the rollover, the doors on the driver’s side opened, and both Coach Alaniz and Laura Benavides were ejected and killed.  During the event, the doors on the passenger side stayed closed, and the occupants seated on that side of the vehicle remained inside the cab of the truck.  They walked away from the accident unhurt.

The evidence at trial demonstrated that there were 134 similar incidents involving the ejection of occupants in fatal F-150 SuperCab accidents.1

II.  The Doors Opened Because the B-Pillar Was Removed

In 1999, Ford produced the F-150 four-door SuperCab pickup for the first time.  The distinguishing feature of the four-door SuperCab is two full doors and two half doors on both sides of the vehicle.  The smaller half door is rear-hinged so the doors on each side open toward the middle like “barn doors.”  Such doors have been historically referred to as “suicide doors.”  This vehicle does not have a center support, or B-pillar, between the front and back seats.   This is a convenience feature that allows easy access to the SuperCab portion of the truck.  The four-door SuperCab design can be contrasted with the “Crew Cab” pickup that has two full-size doors on each side of the cab and a B-pillar in the middle of the cab.

By: Joanne Doroshow, Executive Director, Center for Justice & Democracy and J. Robert

Hunter, Director of Insurance, Consumer Federation of America, former Texas Insurance

Commissioner and former Federal Insurance Administrator.

February 27, 2006

The most recent data from the Council of Independent Agents and Brokers now confirms that the

large medical malpractice insurance rate increases that took hold around the nation in 2001 and

2002 have ended.

The average rate hike for doctors over the past six months has been 0 percent. This is following

similar results for the last quarter of 2004, which saw rates rising only 3 percent at the end of that

year. By comparison, rates jumped 63 percent during the same quarter of 2002.

This phenomenon it is occurring whether or not states enacted restrictions on patients’ legal

rights, such as “caps” on compensation.

This study explains why.

By Christi Parsons at the Chicago Tribune Newspaper
Tribune staff reporter
Published August 25, 2005

Aug. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Julie Tunnell remembers standing in her debris-strewn driveway when the tall man in blue jeans approached. Her northern San Diego tudor-style home had been incinerated a week earlier in the largest wildfire in California history. The blaze in October and November 2003 swept across an area 19 times the size of Manhattan, destroying 2,232 homes and killing 15 people.

Now came another blow. A representative of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the largest home insurer in the U.S., came to the charred remnants of Tunnell's home to tell her the company would pay just $220,000 of the estimated $306,000 cost of rebuilding the house.

``It was devastating; I stood there and cried,'' says Tunnell, 42, who teaches accounting at San Diego City College. ``I felt absolutely abandoned.''

Tunnell joined thousands of people in the U.S. who already knew a secret about the insurance industry: When there's a disaster, the companies homeowners count on to protect them from financial ruin routinely pay less than what policies promise.

Insurers often pay 30-60 percent of the cost of rebuilding a damaged home -- even when carriers assure homeowners they're fully covered, thousands of complaints with state insurance departments and civil court cases show.

Paying out less to victims of catastrophes has helped produce record profits. In the past 12 years, insurance company net income has soared -- even in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.

Highest-Ever Profits

Property-casualty insurers, which cover damage to homes and cars, reported their highest-ever profit of $73 billion last year, up 49 percent from $49 billion in 2005, according to Highline Data LLC, a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based firm that compiles insurance industry data.

The 60 million U.S. homeowners who pay more than $50 billion a year in insurance premiums are often disappointed when they discover insurers won't pay the full cost of rebuilding their damaged or destroyed homes.

Property insurers systematically deny and reduce their policyholders' claims, according to court records in California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, New Hampshire and Tennessee.

The insurance companies routinely refuse to pay market prices for homes and replacement contents, they use computer programs to cut payouts, they change policy coverage with no clear explanation, they ignore or alter engineering reports, and they sometimes ask their adjusters to lie to customers, court records and interviews with former employees and state regulators show.

`It's Despicable'

As Mississippi Republican U.S. Senator Trent Lott and thousands of other homeowners have found, insurers make low offers -- or refuse to pay at all -- and then dare people to fight back.

``It's despicable not to make good-faith offers to everybody,'' says Robert Hunter, who was Texas insurance commissioner from 1993 to 1995 and is now insurance director at the Washington-based Consumer Federation of America.

``Money managers have taken over this whole industry,'' Hunter says. ``Their eyes are not on people who are hurt but on the bottom line for the next quarter.''

The industry's drive for profit has overwhelmed its obligation to policyholders, says California Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi, a Democrat. As California's insurance commissioner from 2002 to 2006, Garamendi imposed $18.4 million in fines against carriers for mistreating customers.

``There's a fundamental economic conflict between the customer and the company,'' he says. ``That is, the company doesn't want to pay. The first commandment of insurance is, `Thou shalt pay as little and as late as possible.'''

What'll it cost? Insurers don't have to say

Consumers are left to bridge health insurance information gap.

By Judith Graham
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
Sunday, August 20, 2006

CHICAGO — When Margaret Zilm needed cataract surgery, she wanted to know what it would cost. Her medical policy has a $5,000 deductible, and her money was on the line.

"I thought I should figure out the impact on my budget," said Zilm of Kansas City, Mo.

But one eye doctor's office told Zilm it had no idea what her insurance company would pay. The insurer wouldn't give out the information. And an official at Missouri's Department of Insurance said such figures were confidential under medical providers' contracts with insurers.

"I felt like a criminal for even asking," Zilm said.

Zilm's experience pinpoints a growing problem. Health insurers are aggressively marketing medical policies with high deductibles — the amount people pay before coverage kicks in. Many experts contend these products will motivate Americans to shop for medical care, as they do for cars or computers.

But basic data about what services cost generally aren't available. Medical providers and insurers consider this to be highly sensitive, competitive information, and their contracts require that it remain secret.

That leaves consumers with more financial responsibility for their care but without the tools to manage these expenses.

"The market just isn't ready yet to deliver on the promise of these new insurance products," said Larry Boress, president of the Midwest Business Group on Health.

This wasn't a problem until recently. Insurance used to cover most expenses, shielding people from the true cost of medical care. But new products — dubbed "consumer-driven health plans" — shift more financial responsibility to individuals and families, giving them a reason to pay more attention to what they're spending.

Gouging, Numbers Belie Medical Malpractice 'Crisis' Claims

By THOMAS SHAPLEY
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST

OLYMPIA -- After years of their lobbyists calling for caps on plaintiff's damage awards, squeezing lawyers' contingency fees and trying to throw litigation roadblocks in the way of injured patients and their families, the state's doctors may have found a legitimate way to cut medical malpractice premiums: Get their malpractice insurance company to quit gouging them.

State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler announced Wednesday that he had ordered the state's largest medical malpractice insurer, Physicians Insurance and its affiliate, Western Professional Insurance Company, to refund more than $1.3 million plus interest in excess premiums charged in 2003.

Nearly 2,400 doctors are in line for premium refunds as high as $4,681. The average refund is expected to be $534.

One insurance company spokesman called it a "paperwork error," and, sure, even a $4,600 refund check won't make much of a dent in an obstetrician's $80,000 annual med-mal insurance premium. But these are the folks who've been trying to literally blame the victims for the high cost of medical malpractice premiums.

The $1.3 million refund order came just one day after Kreidler's office released a report analyzing a decade's worth of medical malpractice claims. The report appears to give lie to allegations of a "crisis" in medical malpractice.

The insurance commissioner's office asked the top five medical malpractice insurers to supply information on claims that were closed between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 2004. These five insurers account for more than 90 percent of the regulated malpractice market for the state's physicians and surgeons, according to Kreidler.

Attorney General Eliot Spitzer today sued the nation's leading insurance brokerage firm, alleging that it steered unsuspecting clients to insurers with whom it had lucrative payoff agreements, and that the firm solicited rigged bids for insurance contracts.

Simultaneously, Spitzer announced that two insurance company executives have pleaded guilty to criminal charges in connection with the scheme.

The actions against the brokerage firm, Marsh & McLennan Companies, and the two executives stem from a widening investigation of fraud and anti-competitive practices in the insurance industry. Evidence revealed in today's lawsuit also implicates other major insurance carriers.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

GRAFTON PARTNERS L.P., et al., Petitioners,

S123344

v.

Ct.App. 1/5 A102790

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY,) Alameda County

Respondent; )  Super. Ct. No. 2002-056106

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS L.L.P.,

Real Party in Interest.

The present case concerns what is principally a question of statutory

interpretation. At issue is Code of Civil Procedure section 631,1 a provision

prescribing the six means by which parties to a civil lawsuit may waive their right

to have their disputes adjudicated in a jury trial rather than in a court trial.

Petitioners contend a contractual agreement that is entered into prior to any dispute

arising between the contracting parties is not one of the means authorized by

statute. In consequence, they claim, their predispute agreement that any lawsuit

between them and real party would be adjudicated in a court trial, and not by jury

1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless

otherwise indicated.

2 Trial, was unenforceable. The Court of Appeal agreed with petitioners’ contention,

as do we, for the reasons that follow.

Five Percent of Doctors Responsible for Half of All Medical Malpractice, Study Finds

Repeat Offender Doctors Would Get New Legal Protections for Negligence From Anti-Patient Liability Bill Scheduled for U.S. House Floor Vote Thursday

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Just 5 percent of American doctors are responsible for half the malpractice in the United States, according to a new analysis of federal data by the consumer group Public Citizen. The analysis was released as the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to consider legislation that would make it more difficult for injured patients to hold their doctors accountable for negligence.

The bill, H.R. 4600, comes in the wake of incorrect assertions by doctors and the business lobby that a recent spike in medical malpractice insurance premiums was caused by "excessive lawsuits." The bill would reduce doctors’ liability for catastrophic injuries and would provide immunity from punitive damages for reckless conduct by HMOs, nursing homes, drug companies and medical device manufacturers.

"The medical community alleges that medical liability litigation constitutes a giant ‘lottery,’ in which lawsuits bear no relationship to the care given by a physician," said Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook. "In reality, a small percentage of doctors are responsible for the bulk of malpractice in the United States, and only better oversight by state medical boards, not draconian limits on patients’ legal rights, can reduce the tens of thousands of deaths and injuries they cause."

Public Citizen analyzed a public use file from the National Practitioner Data Bank, which includes information about malpractice judgments and settlements since September 1990. The analysis found that 4.8 percent of doctors in the United States (40,118) who have paid two or more malpractice awards to patients are responsible for 51.1 percent of all the reports made to the Data Bank. Those doctors have paid out nearly $21 billion in damages, more than 53 percent of the total damages paid. The analysis also found that 1.7 percent of doctors (14,293) are responsible for 27.5 percent of all malpractice awards; 14, 293 have made three or more payments, totaling $11 billion.

"Doctors are blaming lawyers and the legal system for high insurance rates," said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch. "They should stop pointing fingers and instead look in the mirror. To achieve lower insurance premiums, they should clean up their own profession by strongly disciplining the small percentage of doctors who cause the bulk of medical negligence."

Please click this link People over profits web site to go to this important Web Site to learn the facts about the civil justice system.

Learn the Facts

1. Syllabus for Civil Litigation One through Two