Insurer's Lawyer: Plaintiff's Lawyer Had No Right To Believe/Rely On What We Said

Even if you think you've seen a lot (and maybe you have), every once in a while a case comes along whose facts throw you for a loop. And Madar v. 1333 Realty, LLC is precisely one of those cases.

In this case, the plaintiff settled his case with the defendant's insurance company based upon the insurer's attorney's affirmative representation that the defendant only carried $25,000 in liability insurance. Two years later, he discovered that the attorney had been mistaken; in fact, the defendant carried insurance for ten times that amount - $250,000.

So, you would guess, the insurance company and their counsel would own up to their mistake and agree to vacate the settlement agreement, right? I mean, after all, since the plaintiff's injuries were clearly worth more than $25,000, they would do the honorable thing, wouldn't they?

Nope. Not even close.

Their response was to oppose the plaintiff's application, and argue that the plaintiff had no right to rely on their counsel's representations; in other words, the insurance company's attorneys argued that the plaintiff was obligated to assume that the insurance company and their attorneys were either mistaken or lying.

This new low is just breathtaking, isn't it?