It would seem logical to me that the insurance company would want to settle quickly to avoid protracted litigation and growing costs, but interest on the money in question can pay for a lot of lawyer time. I have no idea how these things play out, but I see tort cases in the news lasting forever with many good people suffering needlessly because of it. For example, people dying because they were denied medical care because the insurance company or HMO refused to pay. For those victims of insurance companies, the injustice lasts for all eternity.
I am not sure whether insurance companies are too concerned about what their customer base thinks about the quality of their ethics. I know that may not sound logical, but I think they are more concerned about their immediate bottom line rather than the fate of anybody else, including their clients. If that were not true, they should have settled by now, in my opinion.
I have no idea how any negotiations have been handled between the insurance company and the lawyers suing G&S. For example, was the insurance company offered a deal to give them some consideration for settling early? On the other hand, suppose a judgment was rendered against G&S for far more than their insurance policy would pay, and after years of litigation, the judgement stuck. It is conceivable to me that G&S would go bankrupt. Would the insurance company care? Would the individuals making these decisions today still be around many years from now or would they be living off their golden parachutes, saying we thought we had a good case? Such is the nature of our legal system. Such is the nature of insurance companies. Would the insurance company be held liable if both GRNO and G&S went bankrupt because they refused to settle for a very reasonable sum?
Suppose the actions of the lawyer assigned to GRNO by G&S resulted in provable losses amounting to many times the value of its malpractice insurance. Add to that the SC law which trebles damages for deliberate fraud. A horrendous fraud has been perpetrated against us investors. G&S claimed they would provide good legal service and they did anything but.
It seems logical to me that any company with an ounce of ethical substance would want to settle such a suit at this point. But it might be oxymoronic to apply such a quality to an insurance company.
Charles
P. S. The SI spellchecker doesn't recognize the word oxymoronic, but I reserve the right to make up words as I go along. |
