Avid readers of this blog will recall that, back on August 18, 2011, I posted about Rob Herrington’s new book, Verdict For The Defense, which focuses on strategies for reducing class action and mass action exposure.  I’ve now managed to find the time to read the book.  It’s a good read, written in a way that is accessible to non-lawyers and helpful both to business leaders and their in-house and outside lawyers.  It’s written in a generic fashion so that its guidance could apply with appropriate tailoring to any industry, although there is a significant focus on product manufacturers.  Here are my thoughts on how Herrington’s recommendations could benefit insurers:

Herrington recommends that companies perform proactive internal reviews to try to identify business practices that can potentially lead to class action or mass action exposure, and then take steps to limit their exposure.  He calls this a “Liability Firewall Process.”  First, the company examines its processes from the perspective of a consumer and a plaintiffs’ lawyer (perhaps even hiring a plaintiffs’ lawyer to assist with this), and identifies areas of risk.  Second, the company assesses the various risks that are identified, deciding which risks warrant that action be taken and which ones are the highest priorities.  Third, the company decides whether to take steps to reduce or eliminate the risk, or live with it.  This process would continue permanently, identifying new potential areas of risk from time to time.  He suggests creating a “Liability Firewall Team” to do this work, consisting of in-house and/or outside counsel who know their way around class actions, and appropriate business people senior enough to give the team sufficient clout within the organization to achieve its goals.  It is of course important to take steps to protect the team’s work under the attorney-client privilege.  After issues are identified, the steps that can be taken to reduce risk will vary depending on the nature of the risk, but can include changes in business practices to eliminate potential claims, or steps to try to create what he calls “Strategic Variability.”  That is, trying to ensure that there is enough variability in the way a company handles a particular issue that it will be more difficult for a plaintiffs’ attorney to obtain class certification.

Here is how I see this process applying in the insurance industry:  A company could put together a team to review both underwriting and claims procedures.  The team could include people that know the products, know the processes and lawyers who know their way around class actions.  The review probably would be limited to personal lines since that is where the vast majority of class actions arise from (although there have been some commercial lines cases).  The team would review the entire process an insured experiences, from purchasing a policy through making and settling a claim, as well as policy cancellation (voluntary or involuntary).  The team would review all of the advertising materials and other sales-related materials used by the company or provided by the company to its agents.  It also would review a sample of consumer complaints and/or aggregate data regarding consumer complaints if that is maintained, ideally both formal complaints and “informal” complaints posted on the Internet.  The team also would review all written policies and procedures for underwriting and claims, every standard form letter that might go to insureds, and every piece of paper that gets sent to insureds enclosing their policy forms or regarding their premium payments or the cancellation of their policy.  The team also would review the policy forms, identify provisions that might give rise to class actions, and discuss with senior claims people how claims are being handled.  The team also might review a random sample of underwriting files and claim files, and interview the adjusters who handled claims raising issues of concern.  The team also might meet with the regulatory department and review any areas where there have been significant recent insurance department inquiries or questions about whether the company’s policy forms or procedures are adequately in compliance with state statutes and regulations.  (A comprehensive review of state statutes and regulations pertaining to underwriting and claim handling could also be undertaken to be completely thorough, but that by itself would be a massive project that could overwhelm the rest of the project for insurers that write in all or substantially all states.) The lawyers on the team would also review recent class action filings against the industry.  The team would try to identify, as best as possible, where there might be class action exposure and then recommend steps that management could take to reduce the risk of a class action being filed or reduce the chances of a class being certified.  Once these steps are taken, regular follow-up would be necessary, including review by the team of significant proposed changes in policies and procedures, advertising, significant new areas of consumer complaints, new products, etc.

This undoubtedly would be a time-consuming and expensive process, both in terms of internal resources and any outside resources that the company might retain.  To the extent the process would require too many resources, it could be tailored to areas that the team and/or management believes are more likely to have more risk.  In the end, this process could be well worth the effort – if it prevents even a single serious class action (or, more likely, a series of class actions on a particular issue), it will be well worth the investment.  It could also have collateral business benefits as well, if the team develops solutions that not only reduce litigation risk but improve customer experience and the company’s image and reputation.  In addition, as Herrington points out, the more happy customers you have, the harder it will be for plaintiffs’ lawyers to find one who is willing to be a named plaintiff in a class action.  Best in class companies probably already are doing this kind of thing, but maybe not in a comprehensive, ongoing way, and maybe not with lawyers who are focusing on potential class action / mass action exposure as part of the team.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Wystan Ackerman Wystan Ackerman

I am a partner at the law firm of Robinson+Cole in Hartford, Connecticut, USA.  My contact information is on the contact page of my blog.  I really enjoy receiving questions, comments, suggestions and even criticism from readers.  So please e-mail me if you…

I am a partner at the law firm of Robinson+Cole in Hartford, Connecticut, USA.  My contact information is on the contact page of my blog.  I really enjoy receiving questions, comments, suggestions and even criticism from readers.  So please e-mail me if you have something to say.  For those looking for my detailed law firm bio, click here.  If you want a more light-hearted and hopefully more interesting summary, read on:

People often ask about my unusual first name, Wystan.  It’s pronounced WISS-ten.  It’s not Winston.  There is no “n” in the middle.  It comes from my father’s favorite poet, W.H. (Wystan Hugh) Auden.  I’ve grown to like the fact that because my name is unusual people tend to remember it better, even if they don’t pronounce it right (and there is no need for anyone to use my last name because I’m always the only Wystan).

I grew up in Deep River, Connecticut, a small town on the west side of the Connecticut River in the south central part of the state.  I’ve always had strong interests in history, politics and baseball.  My heroes growing up were Abraham Lincoln and Wade Boggs (at that time the third baseman for the Boston Red Sox).  I think it was my early fascination with Lincoln that drove me to practice law.  I went to high school at The Williams School in New London, Connecticut, where I edited the school newspaper, played baseball, and was primarily responsible for the installation of a flag pole near the school entrance (it seemed like every other school had one but until my class raised the money and bought one at my urging, Williams had no flag pole).  As a high school senior, my interest in history and politics led me to score high enough on a test of those subjects to be chosen as one of Connecticut’s two delegates to the U.S. Senate Youth Program, which further solidified my interest in law and government.  One of my mentors at Williams was of the view that there were far too many lawyers and I should find something more useful to do, but if I really had to be a lawyer there was always room for one more.  I eventually decided to be that “one more.”  I went on to Bowdoin College, where I wrote for the Bowdoin Orient and majored in government, but took a lot of math classes because I found college math interesting and challenging.  I then went to Columbia Law School, where I was lucky enough to be selected as one of the minions who spent their time fastidiously cite-checking and Blue booking hundred-plus-page articles in the Columbia Law Review.  I also interned in the chambers of then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor when she was a relatively new judge on the Second Circuit, my only connection to someone who now has one-ninth of the last word on what constitutes the law of our land.  I graduated from Columbia in 2001, then worked at Skadden Arps in Boston before returning to Connecticut and joining Robinson+Cole, one of the largest Connecticut-based law firms.  At the end of 2008, I was elected a partner at Robinson+Cole.

I’ve worked on class actions since the start of my career.  Being in the insurance capital of Hartford, we have a national insurance litigation practice and most of the class actions I’ve defended have been brought against insurance companies. I’ve also handled some involving products liability, managed care, health care, utilities, financial services, higher education and environmental issues.

My insurance class action practice usually takes me outside of Connecticut.  I’ve had the pleasure of working on cases in various federal and state courts and collaborating with great lawyers across the country.  While class actions are an increasingly large part of my practice, I don’t do exclusively class action work.  The rest of my practice involves litigating insurance coverage cases, often at the appellate level.  That also frequently takes me outside of Connecticut.  A highlight of my career thus far was working on Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, the U.S. Supreme Court’s first Class Action Fairness Act case.  I was Counsel of Record for Standard Fire on the cert petition, and had the pleasure of working with Ted Boutrous on the merits briefing and oral argument.

I started this blog because writing is one of my favorite things to do and I enjoy following developments in class action law, writing about them and engaging in discussion with others who have an in interest in this area.  It’s a welcome break from day-to-day practice, keeps me current, broadens my network and results in some new business.

When I’m not at work, you might find me running lines or watching a musical with my teenage daughter who hopes to be a Broadway star (or taking her to voice or dance lessons) or reading a good book.

Read more about Wystan Ackerman
Show more Show less
Related Posts
Summer Reading on Insurance Class Actions
August 20, 2014
Strategies for Removal Under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA): ABA Corporate Counsel Article
June 4, 2014
Another Article on Recent Developments in Insurance Class Actions
May 17, 2012