Avoiding litigation: Perfectly Legal Extortion

I went to my mailbox late one afternoon, and found a thank-you note and some home-made cookies from a grateful client, and also a lawsuit. The cookies were a surprise; the lawsuit was not. Nevertheless, I consoled myself with a couple of cookies, and went home to review my report and the charges against me. I won’t bore you with the details, but this is what I discovered. I was being sued over something that was specifically disclaimed in my standards and in my report, and by persons who were not even my clients and who had never paid for my services. I kissed my deductible goodbye, and forwarded the lawsuit to my insurance agent, who forwarded it to their adjusters, and thus began a process of perfectly legal extortion. A week or so later, I was invited to attend an on-site meeting, which I politely declined. This seemed to surprise the adjuster, who notified my attorney. Of course, I explained that I was indisputably innocent and had no intension of wasting my time by participating in a process that would make a mockery of justice, and which I predicted would be settled once a decent amount of money had changed hands. The meeting proceeded without me, and within a few days, I received four “form” letters from my defense team, all on the same day. I was hoping for a more humanistic touch, but I was not surprised by the heartless communication. One of the letters informed me that my “personal assets” could be “looked upon” to “satisfy a judgment.” Lawsuits are all about words, and I happen to be interested in words and pay very close attention to them, so let me explain how these phrases were obviously very carefully chosen so as not to awaken the primitive animal that lurks just beneath my skin and that of all civilized people. For this reason, professionals tend to choose their words very carefully. For instance, a doctor might tell you that he intends to make “an incision in your abdomen,” but he certainly wouldn’t tell you that he intends to “slice open your belly.” And legal professionals are no different. Consider the phrases in my letter: “looked upon,” “personal assets,” and “satisfy a judgment,” all of which conceal a very real threat to things that I cherish. Can you imagine what I might do if I was told that someone might seize the modest house that I’d renovated with my bare hands, and the old Jaguar that I’d lovingly restored, or the money that I’d worked very hard to save over the years? And, remember, the people that are telling me this are part of my defense team. But let’s get back to the lawsuit. However, rather than bore you with my biased account, I’ll share a few actual emails between me and my attorney, which should leave little doubt that I was being railroaded by a lawsuit that had little to do with justice and everything to do with money changing hands. Consider these, and judge for yourself.

From: Tom Buckley, Wednesday, April 20th, 2005 12:00 PM
This will update you re this water intrusion/mold suit to advise that Wendy Hamilton has completed her investigation and concluded that this is a limited to no liability matter based among other things on the fact that the assured disclosed that his inspection excluded common areas including the east exterior wall which appears to have been the source of water intrusion into the unit. Wendy advises that mold abatement is completed but reconstruction hasn’t begun. The claimants’ alleged loss is $58K (although continuing since they have not returned to the unit) and Wendy’s estimate is closer to $17K. Co-defendants including the HOA so far are denying liability, are just starting to enter appearances in the case, and the HOA counsel says they won’t be prepared to mediate until they get further discovery. We’ve advised opposing counsel that this is a no liability case subject to summary judgment but he has refused to dismiss although he is supposedly consulting with his clients re possibly resolving the claim against the assured. Subject to instructions to the contrary we’ll file an answer by tomorrow’s deadline and issue a written discovery set in an attempt to move this towards a dismissal and we’ll advise further if and when we receive any kind of demand from opposing counsel. This is probably another claim where if we don’t get a dismissal shortly we can file a summary judgment motion without waiting for discovery responses to put added pressure on the claimants to drop the claim against assured. Thanks, Tom.

Note: there is no mention of the fact that the Plaintiff’s are not my clients and that they never paid for my services and had no right to my report. Where’s the justice in that? There are other mitigating circumstances that confirm my absolute innocence, but I won’t go into that. However, read on and you’ll see how I feel. An odd word appears in the next email, “chicanery,” which I was confident my attorney would understand, and which was carefully chosen. It means “legal trickery.”

From: Keith Swift Wednesday April 20th, 2005 4:26 PM
Dear Tom: Thanks for the info. I’d like to say that I’m grateful, but I’m still appalled by this chicanery. In days gone by when men were men, if you’ll excuse the stale metaphor, the plaintiffs and their attorney would be hung up by their thumbs, or set in the stocks for a few days and pelted with tomatoes or rotten fruit. Such was the glory of the common law. One day, when the case has been settled for economic reasons—as we both know that it will—and a sufficient amount of money has changed hands, I’ll tell you what I’d like to do. But, rest assured, I’m a civilized man, albeit a pissed off civilized man.

From: Tom Buckley, Wednesday, April 20th, 2005 7:50 PM
Thanks Keith, and you’re probably right re where this is ultimately headed but only time will tell and of we throw a decent amount of sand under their wheels early we may just convince them you’re more trouble than you’re worth ( so to speak). Thanks again, Tom.

From: Tom Buckley, Tuesday, May 10th 2005 7:01 PM
This matter settled today at $8,000.00 with the assured’s verbal consent and conditioned on good faith, etc., with payee info to follow once we get it. Thanks, Tom.