- Report: #30855
Complaint Review: Liberty Mutual -
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
Liberty Mutual
www.libertymutual.com U.S.A.
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Liberty Mutual Bad faith here is the real deal Hingham Massachusetts
I found the rebuttal by the liberty mutual claim rep to be quite comical as there behavior is in direct opposition of the law not in accordance with it.
Massachusetts law G.L.c. 176D requires timely and fair claim settlement practices after liability is established, that means immediately not six weeks or six months later.
What I find more ironic is that liberty mutuals attorneys in Hopkins v. Liberty Mutual (mass sjc) admitted they act in bad faith but cited the word "settlements" to mean it had to be a pattern not a single act..the SJC b***h slapped them stating that any reference in the plural context can be construed to the singular.
Further more they "liberty mutual" claimed that violation of 176D couldnt be the basis of a G.L. c 93A claim as it has to be a pattern, again they lost as the SJC said it most certainly can.
Classic liberty Mutual B.S
Rear end collision complete liability by there insured, patient finishes treatment lawyer sends demand letter citing damages.
Liberty Representative hangs onto file for fourteen days sends letter to lawyer stating needs thirty more days ( completely unethical) citing no reason or request for additional info.
Lawyer forced to resend 93A demand letter , after thirty days liberty mutual writes back denial of liability there insured was not negligent as "aliens had mind melded him" the aliens arent on the policy and werent operating the vehicle with the insureds permission or something equally rediculous ( fictional situation but given track record could happen).
Lets be fair here though all insurance companies do this, there a business and are in business to make money..they dont give a rats a*s about you, saving money is the goal and these tactics work great for doing that.
If its any consolation the majority of supreme court judges have ruled against liberty mutual in every case heard on 176D and 93A claims in the past five years.
For the poor misguided liberty mutual rep who wrote the rebuttal (probally a customer service rep, with little in the way of knowlege) your company has admitted to this behavior in open court. They never denied anything there only explanation was there biased interpretation of word alledgedly allowing them free rain to screw people..they were wrong and so are you.
Consequently what legal guidelines was this misguided foll refering to its certainly not mass law, most likely internal policy.
If you wish to debate this please copy and past those so called guidelines on this forum, im sure they would be quite illuminating.
Not fooleded
Boston, Massachusetts
Massachusetts law G.L.c. 176D requires timely and fair claim settlement practices after liability is established, that means immediately not six weeks or six months later.
What I find more ironic is that liberty mutuals attorneys in Hopkins v. Liberty Mutual (mass sjc) admitted they act in bad faith but cited the word "settlements" to mean it had to be a pattern not a single act..the SJC b***h slapped them stating that any reference in the plural context can be construed to the singular.
Further more they "liberty mutual" claimed that violation of 176D couldnt be the basis of a G.L. c 93A claim as it has to be a pattern, again they lost as the SJC said it most certainly can.
Classic liberty Mutual B.S
Rear end collision complete liability by there insured, patient finishes treatment lawyer sends demand letter citing damages.
Liberty Representative hangs onto file for fourteen days sends letter to lawyer stating needs thirty more days ( completely unethical) citing no reason or request for additional info.
Lawyer forced to resend 93A demand letter , after thirty days liberty mutual writes back denial of liability there insured was not negligent as "aliens had mind melded him" the aliens arent on the policy and werent operating the vehicle with the insureds permission or something equally rediculous ( fictional situation but given track record could happen).
Lets be fair here though all insurance companies do this, there a business and are in business to make money..they dont give a rats a*s about you, saving money is the goal and these tactics work great for doing that.
If its any consolation the majority of supreme court judges have ruled against liberty mutual in every case heard on 176D and 93A claims in the past five years.
For the poor misguided liberty mutual rep who wrote the rebuttal (probally a customer service rep, with little in the way of knowlege) your company has admitted to this behavior in open court. They never denied anything there only explanation was there biased interpretation of word alledgedly allowing them free rain to screw people..they were wrong and so are you.
Consequently what legal guidelines was this misguided foll refering to its certainly not mass law, most likely internal policy.
If you wish to debate this please copy and past those so called guidelines on this forum, im sure they would be quite illuminating.
Not fooleded
Boston, Massachusetts
