Complaint Review: Liberty Mutual - Hillsboro Oregon

As an ex-employee of Liberty Mutual, I can assure you that the only thing that Liberty Mutual is interested in is the mighty dollar. They treat their employees like crap and nepotism is rampart within the company. So, it comes as no surprised that their clients are also treated like crap. When I had an argument with my manager about putting clients first, I was told that I should be looking out for the best interest of the company, afterall, it was Liberty Mutual who was paying my salary. Liberty Mutual's slogan should be, "our policy? Not our responsibility!"

I am a former employee of Liberty Mutual (not in the states of NC or OR). They are always re-organizing to "make things more efficient". This means constant turnover. They lay people off so that those left are so overworked they eventually just burn out and don't give a darn anymore. New people will be hired but training is limited and the cycle repeats. Voice mail boxes are frequently full and customers often resort to pushing any numbers they can just to get a live person, even if not in the claims department. They hope that they will get a sympathetic person on the other end who will use their inside contacts to help them. I often was able to get the claims person on the line (they answered calls coming through "in house" and then transfer the other person. I am not sure if the claims person missed the deadline on purpose (I really doubt it). I do know that claims adjustors are evaluated on the # of cases they settle without an attorney getting involved.

Greg, although somewhat aggressive, is correct about the statute of limitations. This is why whenever you see a commercial for a personal injury lawyer on T.V. the VERY FIRST thing they say is "If you have been injured in an automobile accident, the law limits the amount of time you have to receive damages." For the hard-headed readers: The statute of limitations is YOUR DEADLINE, not the insurance company's. The statute of limitations is YOUR DEADLINE, not the insurance company's. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS YOUR DEADLINE, NOT THE INSURANCE COMPANY'S. I hope that was clear enough. The SOL is the only thing that stops people from suing over accidents that happened 20+ years ago. Liberty Mutual is under no obligation to rush to keep within the statute, it's not their problem, it's yours. They DO NOT have to settle with you, if they choose not to, you can take them to court. Normally, an insurance company does settle as it is cheaper than going to court. At any time you could have filed a lawsuit to avoid this. However, the claim obviously wasn't much of a priority for you, since it took a full 3 years for you to send in your medical documents. If a claim is 3 years old and documents are pending, the company usually only checks the file once in a while, as it's obviously stalled and not going anywhere. By your own admission, you sent the documents in no more than 5 days before the SOL expired. This is not enough time for them to review a complex injury claim which supposedly involves neck/back surgery. In my opinion, you probably weren't as injured as you say you were. I know if I was hurt that bad, I'd make it a little more of a priority to get the documents in for resolution. If you were hurt so bad that you couldn't send them in for a full three years, I'm sure a lawyer taking 40% would be the least of your worries. Better luck next time.

At first, I tend to agree with Greg, it sounds like Christine wasn't really injured and is trying to game the system. That's shameful, it rips us all off. If that isn't the case, the company is playing dirty as they like to do. The statute of limitations argument is most likely bogus. The actual statute of limitations is measured in years, not days. Injury claims tend to be very expensive to insurance companies. If you were not injured in an accident, and don't claim any injury, the company is usually a lot quicker to pay for damages to your car. If you *really were* injured in an accident and don't have health insurance, it's imperative to hire a lawyer. The companies will just lie and stonewall you if you try to do it yourself. Don't hire the lawyers with fancy Yellow Pages and TV advertisements. They are just out for as much money as they can get, and will often rip *you* off to get it. But you have to have a lawyer to get anywhere with the insurance companies on an injury claim. Even after lawyer fees, you will net more money with a lawyer than trying to do it yourself. Often that latter figure is ZERO. Use you regular doctor or people he or she recommends for treatment. If a lawyer tries to send you to a specific doctor, GET ANOTHER LAWYER. That lawyer and doctor are in cohorts to rip you off.

The person who complained said that she came to COMPLETE STOP at a YIELD sign. I said that if she had YIELDED as she was supposed to -- she wouldn't have been hit. I said nothing about not yielding or ignoring the signs. If you go back to school and finish the third grade your reading comprehension skills may improve, Kip. Nice advice on killing myself, by the way. It's great to see that the knee-jerk, uninformed, simple-minded way of thinking is still prevalent on the Left Coast. For you Kip, so you can be sure to understand all of my big words, I'll reiterate; you need to learn how to read and understand what you read. I can draw pictures for you if it helps...

Christine, I have never heard such idiotic replies, to your story, in my entire life. Greg and Steven should have their fingers guillotined so as not to be able to type such drivel in the future. Addressing the deadline issue: it is NOT a requirement for someone to hire a lawyer - that point is moot. Secondly, if a company is purposely avoiding meeting a deadline with a client, it is no one's fault other than the company's. It's asinine to assume for a second that customers have this infinite control over enormous corporations. As for the "yield sign", Steven's obviously labotomized comments portray the simple-mindedness that encompasses the east. If there is oncoming traffic, you are REQUIRED to yield, otherwise you get hit - idiot. That's the point of a yield sign. Are you saying everyone should run through yield signs as if they didn't exist? Kill yourself now - make everything easier on anyone who meets you. I can only offer advice, Christine, that you now do hire a lawyer. If Liberty Mutual is purposely avoiding your claims, you quite possibly have a suit on your hands. They're attempting a monopoly in Oregon right now via Measure 38 - hopefully it won't pass.

I've been a customer of Liberty Mutual for 8 years. They are a great insurance company.I have required only one claim, and it was paid immediately and in full. You look to blame Liberty Mutual for your own laziness. If you're going to sit around for three years before you take action, you have only yourself to blame. Also, you wrote at the top of your 'complaint:' While at a complete stop at a yield sign during rush hour traffice (sic), my vehicle was hit (from the rear) by a Liberty Mutual Customer. Who comes to a "complete stop" at a yield sign? Perhaps you need to learn how to drive rather than blaming others for your own ineptitude. You're lucky that Liberty Mutual didn't sue YOU for damages to their client!

The statute of limitations is YOUR deadline, NOT the adverse party's. They did not miss a deadline, YOU did. There was nothing stopping you from realizing the statute of limitations was running out, and filing a lawsuit the day before it did. In your report you stated - " I had decided to forgo using a personal injury attorney as they would receive 40%." So it's obvious that you were planning on making financial gain out of this accident... Hi, this is an automobile accident, this is a serious matter, you did not win the freaking lottery, get on with your life you west coast liberal pile of crap. You are the reason that everyone else pays so much for auto insurance. I am glad your lame attempt at looting the system was foiled. I find it funny that you never once mention in this report when the accident happened. But that's okay, I will do so for you... The statute of limitations in Washington is 3 years. The events that you have described took place 3 freaking years post-accident. The entire reason for the settlement is to keep you from taking legal action vs. the insured party. The insurance company is in no way obligated to settle with you. They are perfectly within their rights to say "we do not wish to settle with you, you should sue us." It's generally not very cost effective to do so, and usually doesn't result in a good experience for their insured, but regardless, it is in no way against the rules. I can see what happened here, you waited till the last second, then you said "oh man, the statute of limitations on that accident I had 3 years ago is about to run out! Time to get paid!." So you decided to send in the medical documents from your on the job accident (or whatever) and try to make a claim of it. Do you seriously expect me to believe that you were so injured that you couldn't have mailed those documents at any time in the last 3 years? It's 5 minutes, out of three years, and you were supposedly in such pain, but you can't spend 5 bloody minutes to mail some documentation of your "injuries" ? We weren't born yesterday, insurance companies don't just sit down and take things like this. We know what fraud is, we see it every day. Legitimate claims get paid, overinflated, fraudulent, or unrelated ones do not. There's a difference between breaking bones, suffering concussions, cracked ribs, lacerations etc. and subjective injuries like yours. In other words, we don't go for the "oh, my back hurts, my neck hurts.. etc. Let's see the injury. Let's see something conclusive. Otherwise, you're not getting rich anytime soon, you may get the bills paid, but you're not getting a large pain and suffering seettlement. If there was no insurance, and I had to handle my own losses, I wouldn't pay a dime until I went to court and had a judgement against me. Until that happens, no one is legally obligated to pay you anything. Keep that in mind, they may settle because it's more expensive to defend it in court, but they are in no way obligated to do so. Your decision to not hire a lawyer because you didn't want anyone to get a piece of your precious settlement was a bad one. You thought you were capable of representing yourself but you were incorrect. Again, this is a serious matter, of a legal nature. Perhaps next time you will think twice before filing fraudulent/overinflated/unrelated injury claims. My 2 cents.

The statute of limitations is YOUR deadline, NOT the adverse party's. They did not miss a deadline, YOU did. There was nothing stopping you from realizing the statute of limitations was running out, and filing a lawsuit the day before it did. In your report you stated - " I had decided to forgo using a personal injury attorney as they would receive 40%." So it's obvious that you were planning on making financial gain out of this accident... Hi, this is an automobile accident, this is a serious matter, you did not win the freaking lottery, get on with your life you west coast liberal pile of crap. You are the reason that everyone else pays so much for auto insurance. I am glad your lame attempt at looting the system was foiled. I find it funny that you never once mention in this report when the accident happened. But that's okay, I will do so for you... The statute of limitations in Washington is 3 years. The events that you have described took place 3 freaking years post-accident. The entire reason for the settlement is to keep you from taking legal action vs. the insured party. The insurance company is in no way obligated to settle with you. They are perfectly within their rights to say "we do not wish to settle with you, you should sue us." It's generally not very cost effective to do so, and usually doesn't result in a good experience for their insured, but regardless, it is in no way against the rules. I can see what happened here, you waited till the last second, then you said "oh man, the statute of limitations on that accident I had 3 years ago is about to run out! Time to get paid!." So you decided to send in the medical documents from your on the job accident (or whatever) and try to make a claim of it. Do you seriously expect me to believe that you were so injured that you couldn't have mailed those documents at any time in the last 3 years? It's 5 minutes, out of three years, and you were supposedly in such pain, but you can't spend 5 bloody minutes to mail some documentation of your "injuries" ? We weren't born yesterday, insurance companies don't just sit down and take things like this. We know what fraud is, we see it every day. Legitimate claims get paid, overinflated, fraudulent, or unrelated ones do not. There's a difference between breaking bones, suffering concussions, cracked ribs, lacerations etc. and subjective injuries like yours. In other words, we don't go for the "oh, my back hurts, my neck hurts.. etc. Let's see the injury. Let's see something conclusive. Otherwise, you're not getting rich anytime soon, you may get the bills paid, but you're not getting a large pain and suffering seettlement. If there was no insurance, and I had to handle my own losses, I wouldn't pay a dime until I went to court and had a judgement against me. Until that happens, no one is legally obligated to pay you anything. Keep that in mind, they may settle because it's more expensive to defend it in court, but they are in no way obligated to do so. Your decision to not hire a lawyer because you didn't want anyone to get a piece of your precious settlement was a bad one. You thought you were capable of representing yourself but you were incorrect. Again, this is a serious matter, of a legal nature. Perhaps next time you will think twice before filing fraudulent/overinflated/unrelated injury claims. My 2 cents.