Austin, TX ?– Today, Policyholders of America (?“POA?”), a nonprofit advocacy group dedicated to fairer treatment and premiums for all policyholders in Texas and across the nation, gave Justice Steven Wayne Smith, Republican incumbent, Place 5, Texas Supreme Court, their endorsement.
Justice Smith and POA share a common goal: to reduce the number of insurance claims disputes that result in litigation. To that end, both POA and Justice Smith agree that an independent citizen?’s panel should hear and resolve homeowner and auto carrier disputes. The panel would operate under the direction of the Texas Department of Insurance and mimic the panel created to hear and resolve health care disputes. A nominal assessment would be levied against all carriers selling auto and homeowner policies in order to make the service free of charge to consumers. POA estimates such a panel would save Texans millions of dollars each year, unclog the courts and enable policyholders of receive the benefits for which they paid under the terms of the policies they bought without the need for expensive and time consuming litigation.
Justice Smith?’s seat on the highest court in Texas is being challenged by Paul Green., a former insurance defense lawyer. The fate of Place 5 will be decided in the Texas primary on March 9th. The winner will not face an opponent in the general election in November as there is no Democratic challenger.
POA is a staunch supporter of a judicial system that conservatively upholds the laws, not contorts laws to the benefit of a few privileged campaign contributors.
In reviewing the record of Justice Smith?’s opponent, POA found a number of troubling rulings by Paul Green including:
In a recent case involving USAA, Green gave the ?“green light?” to lowballing foundation claims. The case involved an insurance ?“preferred vendor?” with a track record of cheating policyholders out of actual repair costs. Green?’s ruling in this case excluded the pattern and practices of this ?“preferred vendor?” in some 250 other similar situations. (76 S.W. 3d 112)
Green?’s activist role became clear in a State Farm Lloyds case when he ruled that the statute of limitations begins ticking when the insurer fails to respond to a claim and closes a file, even if the insurance company never bothered to notify the policyholder that the file was closed nor that their claim was denied. Perhaps Paul Green should explain to POA?’s 550,000+ Texas members how they should have mental telepathy and high-tail it to the courthouse (something we all hope to avoid) without hearing from the insurer as to the status of the claim. (52 S.W. 3d 750)
Another act of judicial activism occurred when Paul Green rewrote insurance laws in favor of his State Farm pals in an uninsured/underinsured case. Here, Green overlooked the contract (or ?“the policy?”) and allowed extraneous documents to define the policy. Insurers rejoiced. (955 S.W. 2d 353)
Wonder why there?’s so much bad faith in Texas? Look no further than Green?’s ruling favoring Prudential and against a policyholder who had insured his rental property against a fire loss. Green opined that Prudential did not commit bad faith when neither the company nor the agent properly informed the policyholder about certain unusual coverage criteria that could not have been foreseen by a reasonable landlord. Pru denied the claim and got away with not insuring a fire ravaged rental unit. This case has major implications for POA?’s commercial property owners. (27 S.W. 3d 558)
These examples are just a handful of instances where Green contorted Texas laws and resorted to judicial activism. The state Capitol is the place for laws to be changed, not a courtroom and most certainly not the Texas Supreme Court.
Justice Smith and POA share a common goal: to reduce the number of insurance claims disputes that result in litigation. To that end, both POA and Justice Smith agree that an independent citizen?’s panel should hear and resolve homeowner and auto carrier disputes. The panel would operate under the direction of the Texas Department of Insurance and mimic the panel created to hear and resolve health care disputes. A nominal assessment would be levied against all carriers selling auto and homeowner policies in order to make the service free of charge to consumers. POA estimates such a panel would save Texans millions of dollars each year, unclog the courts and enable policyholders of receive the benefits for which they paid under the terms of the policies they bought without the need for expensive and time consuming litigation.
Justice Smith?’s seat on the highest court in Texas is being challenged by Paul Green., a former insurance defense lawyer. The fate of Place 5 will be decided in the Texas primary on March 9th. The winner will not face an opponent in the general election in November as there is no Democratic challenger.
POA is a staunch supporter of a judicial system that conservatively upholds the laws, not contorts laws to the benefit of a few privileged campaign contributors.
In reviewing the record of Justice Smith?’s opponent, POA found a number of troubling rulings by Paul Green including:
In a recent case involving USAA, Green gave the ?“green light?” to lowballing foundation claims. The case involved an insurance ?“preferred vendor?” with a track record of cheating policyholders out of actual repair costs. Green?’s ruling in this case excluded the pattern and practices of this ?“preferred vendor?” in some 250 other similar situations. (76 S.W. 3d 112)
Green?’s activist role became clear in a State Farm Lloyds case when he ruled that the statute of limitations begins ticking when the insurer fails to respond to a claim and closes a file, even if the insurance company never bothered to notify the policyholder that the file was closed nor that their claim was denied. Perhaps Paul Green should explain to POA?’s 550,000+ Texas members how they should have mental telepathy and high-tail it to the courthouse (something we all hope to avoid) without hearing from the insurer as to the status of the claim. (52 S.W. 3d 750)
Another act of judicial activism occurred when Paul Green rewrote insurance laws in favor of his State Farm pals in an uninsured/underinsured case. Here, Green overlooked the contract (or ?“the policy?”) and allowed extraneous documents to define the policy. Insurers rejoiced. (955 S.W. 2d 353)
Wonder why there?’s so much bad faith in Texas? Look no further than Green?’s ruling favoring Prudential and against a policyholder who had insured his rental property against a fire loss. Green opined that Prudential did not commit bad faith when neither the company nor the agent properly informed the policyholder about certain unusual coverage criteria that could not have been foreseen by a reasonable landlord. Pru denied the claim and got away with not insuring a fire ravaged rental unit. This case has major implications for POA?’s commercial property owners. (27 S.W. 3d 558)
These examples are just a handful of instances where Green contorted Texas laws and resorted to judicial activism. The state Capitol is the place for laws to be changed, not a courtroom and most certainly not the Texas Supreme Court.
