Try the all-new QuickBooks Online for FREE.  No credit card required.

Agent Informer

Document Sample
Agent Informer Powered By Docstoc
					Agent Informer
News stories of interest to Allstate Agency Owners published by the National Association of
Professional Allstate Agents, Inc. This Special complimentary issue of Agent Informer is designed to acquaint
you with our email publications. NAPAA members received all of this news in their inbox over the last 4 weeks.
You could also receive weekly news in the DirectExpress newsletter – exclusively for NAPAA Members.

October 19, 2010

Allstate to Discuss Third Quarter 2010 Earnings With Investors
Sept. 27, 2010, Company Press Release [Excerpt]

The Allstate Corporation (NYSE: ALL) will conduct a conference call and webcast at 9 a.m. Eastern Time (ET)
on Thursday, Oct. 28 to discuss third quarter 2010 earnings. The company will issue a news release
announcing quarterly results at or after 4:05 p.m. ET on Wednesday, Oct. 27. Later that afternoon, the
company plans to post supplementary financial and statistical information online and file its quarterly 10-Q.
These materials will be available on Allstate's Web site at

The investor webcast also can be accessed at For those unable to participate in
the live event, a webcast replay and downloadable MP3 file will be posted on the company's Web site shortly
after the event ends.

All agent communications from NAPAA, such as Exclusivefocus magazine and DirectExpress e-
newsletter, from which this Agent Informer was extracted, are made possible by the generous support of
our dues-paying members. Membership in NAPAA is strictly confidential, and costs less than $1 per day.
Now more than ever, isn’t it time for you to join NAPAA today?

                    Join NAPAA Now!

New Credit Rating: Allstate
September 27, 2010, by Morningstar Credit Committee,

Morningstar is initiating coverage of Allstate with an issuer rating of BBB. A vast distribution network and focus
on risk selection give Allstate a long-term competitive advantage and a narrow economic moat, in our opinion.
In contrast to many of its property-casualty insurance competitors that rely on independent agents, Allstate
markets its products primarily through a network of nearly 13,000 captive agencies that only sell Allstate
products. This distribution channel keeps policies in-house, and customers appreciate having an agent who
can answer questions or help them fill possible gaps in their insurance coverage. Allstate's property-casualty
results have been strong, but low margins in Allstate Financial (the life insurance division) have hurt overall
profitability. Furthermore, the company's high fair value uncertainty rating lowers our Business Risk score

To operate a life insurance operation, albeit a small one, Allstate is forced to model its balance sheet more
closely upon that of a life insurance company than a property-casualty insurer. Consequently, the company
scores poorly on our financial risk metrics. Allstate's equity cushion is highly leveraged to reserves and
potential losses in its investment portfolio. The portfolio contains a large allocation of risky investments
including commercial and residential mortgage-backed securities, corporate bonds, and limited partnerships.
Losses on this relatively aggressive investment portfolio are magnified by the company's above-average
Romero v. Allstate update
New developments from

October 5, 2010

Yesterday Edward Liddy, Allstate’s former CEO, filed his reply brief in support of his motion to dismiss the
claims against him. As we explained in earlier updates, some statutes and common law principles allow
employees to sue only their employer (Allstate), while others also allow suits against executives who were
involved in the decision-making. Age discrimination and breach of contract claims only permit claims
against employers. We believe that the claims we brought against Mr. Liddy under the federal statute that
protects employee benefits allow claims against corporate officers, while he argues that it does not. To
make his argument, Mr. Liddy must contend that he is not a “person” within the meaning of the law. While
some of you may question whether he should qualify as a “person” in light of what he did to the employee
agents, it strains credulity that he is not a “person” in the meaning of the law.

September 28, 2010

Plaintiffs yesterday filed a motion to compel answers to the interrogatories that they served on Allstate
several months ago. Click here to review a copy of plaintiffs’ brief in support of their motion.

Interrogatories are written questions to be answered by a party. Here, because discovery is focused on
the validity of the Release, the interrogatories were designed to obtain information relevant to the validity
of the Release or to lead plaintiffs to sources of relevant information about the Release, such as the names
of persons with knowledge of various issues related to the Release. Allstate answered only the first
interrogatory, including its subparts, and refused to answer the other interrogatories. Primarily, it
contends that there were too many interrogatories (counting the various subparts as separate
interrogatories) or that the requested information was not relevant to the validity of the Release.
Obviously, we disagree strongly. Allstate will have 21 days to file their opposition brief, and plaintiffs then
will have 14 days to file a reply brief.

The other motions described in the August 27 and September 14 updates are still pending.

September 14, 2010

Plaintiffs yesterday filed their Opposition to Mr. Liddy’s Motion to Dismiss. As noted in our August 27
update, Mr. Liddy is arguing that he cannot be sued for acts committed while a corporate officer. As you
will see from reading the brief, we believe that Judge Fullam rejected the same argument over eight years
ago and that Mr. Liddy is in effect seeking reconsideration of that ruling without any proper basis. But if
Judge Buckwalter does choose to reconsider the issue of whether plaintiffs have stated a claim against Mr.
Liddy, we show in the brief that the language of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”),
the statute under which plaintiffs have brought suit, expressly allows suit against Mr. Liddy or any other
“individual,” and there is no exception for corporate officers.

Also pending, and not mentioned in our earlier posts, is plaintiffs’ motion to compel Allstate to produce
documents that plaintiffs have requested. Plaintiffs’ opening brief, defendants’ opposition, and plaintiffs’
reply can be read by clicking here or by opening the Pleadings page. We believe that the Court of
Appeals has already indicated that we should have access to all of the requested documents, and that
those documents are likely to be important for us to make the strongest possible arguments that the
Release is invalid.

Visit NAPAA online at
Check out the market place – NEW listings appearing every week! Go to Buy or
Sell Agency listings to list your agency for sale, or find someone interested in buying an
agency! This service is free to NAPAA Members.
Analyst: Allstate rating boosted to 'overweight'
October 4, 2010, Associated Press

Des Moines, Iowa - Shares of Allstate Corp. rose on Monday, a day when the markets generally fell, after one
analyst boosted his rating on the company.

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. analyst Matthew G Heimermann upgraded shares to "overweight" from "neutral" and
raised his target price to $40 from $37.

"We believe the significant capital and operating issues that have affected the stock in recent years, and
curtailed valuation, are largely in the past," he wrote in a note to investors.

He said earnings are likely bottoming and could improve over the next 12 months, helped by auto, home and
life insurance lines.

The company has enough capital to absorb any unexpected volatility and, without any unexpected issues, is in
a position to buy back shares, returning capital to shareholders.

Shares rose 13 cents to $31.70.

New York EA vying for City Council
September 29, 2010, DirectExpress

A Special Election race is scheduled in New York City for November 2, 2010. Thomas A. White, a N.Y.C.
Councilman who died on August 27, 2010, was the councilman for District 28 in Queens, NY. District 28
comprises of parts of Richmond Hill, S. Ozone Park and South Jamaica.

Victor Babb, an Allstate agency owner from Elmont, NY, is on the ballot for the November election. Victor Babb
joined Allstate in 1982 as a management trainee. After rotating through several regional departments, where
he gained a great deal of knowledge about Allstate's products and procedures, Babb was dispatched to the
field. His responsibilities included recruiting new agents and opening new locations in the borough of
Manhattan, New York City. Babb liked what he saw and decided to become an Allstate agent 16 months after
joining the company.

Babb started his agent career behind a booth at the Valley Stream, Long Island Sears store. Shortly thereafter,
Allstate announced the NOA (Neighborhood Office Agent) initiative. Babb embraced the new program with
gusto and opened his NOA office in 1988. Now, 28 years after beginning his Allstate career, Babb is running
for a seat on the New York City Council in a special election. If you would like to contribute to the Victor Babb
for NYC Council campaign, please visit: or call (516) 358-2886.
Allstate, State Farm and Geico Have Best Reputations Among Auto
Insurers, According to Market Force Study
September 28, 2010, Press Release [Excerpt]

Consumers report high satisfaction levels with their auto insurance companies over the past year, and they
view Allstate, State Farm and Geico as the most reputable auto insurance providers. These findings and others
were revealed in a new survey conducted by Market Force Information (, a
worldwide leader in customer intelligence and customer experience management solutions.

The survey looked at auto insurance preferences and trends and found that Allstate and State Farm Insurance
nearly tied for insurers with the best reputation, with each earning about 21% of the votes. Geico ranked third
with 14%, while USAA and Progressive each earned 6% to tie for fourth place.

A key driver in satisfaction with auto insurance providers is how they process claims. Of the eighteen percent
of survey respondents who reported filing a claim with their auto insurance provider in the past year, 85% of
said they were satisfied with the way the claim was processed.

When the consumers were asked why they chose one auto insurance provider over another, most (59%) said
their decision was based on price. The ability to get complete services from one provider played a big roles as
well, with 27% citing it. And indeed, two-thirds of consumers reported that they get other types of insurance
from their providers. Other influencers that ranked high in the selection process included recommendations
from friends and the financial stability of the provider.

When asked which company is doing the best job communicating its value to consumers, Geico outscored all
others by a large margin. Four out of 10 consumers selected Geico, followed by Allstate, Progressive and
State Farm, with 22%, 17% and 11%, respectively.

More than three out of four of the respondents said they saw an auto insurance ad in the last 60 days, and
most (93%) reported seeing the ad on television. Advertising awareness appeared to be a large motivator
among consumers who contemplated switching providers. One quarter of the study participants who said they
considered switching to a different company had checked out another insurance provider based on an ad they

Ten percent of consumers actually switched insurance providers in the past 12 months, driven primarily by
service and fee/rule changes. Twenty-five percent indicated they made a change because they were unhappy
with their service, and 20% changed because their provider implemented new fees/rules that adversely
affected them. Of those who switched providers, 74% went to providers with better pricing.

So what do auto insurance providers need to do in order to build loyalty for life? Be fair. This includes having
infrequent rate changes, rewarding customers for loyalty, providing great service and building a personal
relationship with the consumer.

The survey was conducted in August 2010 among the Market Force network of more than 300,000
independent mystery shoppers and merchandisers – consumers across the country dubbed The Force
(™. The pool of 2,800 respondents ranged in age from 18 – 72
and reflected a broad spectrum of income levels, with 53% reporting incomes of more than $50,000 a year.
Seventy-two percent work full or part time. Seventy-four percent were women – the primary household
consumer purchasers. Half of the participants said they have children at home.

Market Force Information, Inc. is the leading global customer intelligence solutions
( company for business to consumer companies including
major retailers, restaurants, grocery and convenience stores, financial institutions, entertainment studios and
consumer packaged goods companies. The company measures store-level operations and customer attitudes
through mystery shopping, customer feedback, market audits and merchandising services, with the analytics to
drive targeted improvements. For more information, please visit: and follow us on
Twitter @MarketForce.
Whistleblower Suit Says Allstate Cheated Feds After Katrina
September. 29, 2010, By Chad Hemenway, NU Online News Service
Late last week Allstate Insurance Company was informed it is the subject of a whistleblower lawsuit filed more than
three years ago.
The suit alleges Allstate fabricated insurance documents to inflate the amount of flood loss suffered by three clients
the whistleblower represented in connection with homeowners insurance claims disputes against the insurance

Attorney John H. Denenea Jr. filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in New Orleans on behalf of the federal
government and claims Allstate “knowingly fabricated” insurance documents to decrease its own claims payments
and inflate flood losses at the expense of the federal government, in violation of the False Claims Act.
Flood losses are not covered by a standard homeowners policy. Flood insurance is provided by the federal
government’s National Flood Insurance Program.

The lawsuit remained under seal without Allstate’s knowledge while the government decided whether to take up the
case. On Sept. 21, an order from Judge Carl Barbier unsealed the case, noting that the government “is not
intervening at this time.” Application by the government over the years to extend the seal will remain unseen by the
public or Allstate and federal authorities can request deposition transcripts and intervene at any time as the case
moves on, according to court documents.

Mr. Denenea is a “relator” in the suit, and, having direct and independent knowledge of the allegations, brought the
suit on behalf of the government. He said he gave the government all the information he had before filing the
lawsuit, according to court documents.
Mr. Denenea could not immediately be reached for comment.
An Allstate spokesperson said, “As a practice, Allstate does not comment on pending litigation and therefore we will
be unable to provide comment at this time.”
Mr. Denenea is seeking a trial and to have Allstate pay three times the amount of damages the government has
sustained as a result of the company’s alleged fraud plus civil fines and the cost of the litigation.

According to the lawsuit, if the government decides to pick up the case, Mr. Denenea is seeking between 15 percent
and 25 percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement of the case.

If the government stays out of the case, Denenea seeks between 25 percent and 30 percent of the proceeds.

Allstate is involved in another similar lawsuit with similar allegations brought by insurance adjusters, Branch
Consultants, and filed in the same court. Allstate had been excluded from the case, but in August was added back
to the list of defendants, which includes others insurers.

A well-known whistleblower lawsuit filed in Mississippi by sisters Cori and Keri Rigsby against State Farm is still
pending. The Rigsbys were once represented by prominent “Tort King,” Richard Scruggs, who is now in federal
prison for his role in bribing a circuit court judge.
Allstate Sues Toyota over Sudden-Acceleration-Related Ins. Claims
October 5, 2010, By Ken Bensinger and Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times [Excerpt]

Allstate Corp. has sued Toyota Motor Corp. over sudden-acceleration-related claims it has paid, alleging that the
accidents were caused by vehicle defects. The suit, filed Friday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeks $3
million in compensation for about 270 claims that the insurance giant has paid out since January 2007.

It charges that "certain of Toyota's cars and trucks have a defect that causes sudden uncontrolled acceleration to
speeds of up to 100 miles per hour or more," as well as "defective electronics and the absence of a fail-safe, such
as a brake-to-idle override system."

Allstate spokeswoman Christina Loznicka said the suit was "a last resort" taken after negotiations on the claims with
Toyota, a practice called subrogation, failed out of court. It appears to be the first subrogation suit against Toyota
related to sudden acceleration.

Celeste Migliore, a Toyota spokeswoman, said that the automaker had not seen the complaint but that it believes
"the unfounded allegations in this suit have no basis."

Several other insurers are currently in subrogation negotiations with Toyota for sudden-acceleration claims. Phil
Supple, spokesman for State Farm, said it first sent a letter to Toyota in 2004, asking the automaker to assume
responsibility for accident claims that may have resulted from defects in its vehicles. Farmers Insurance said it is
also seeking reimbursement on several such claims.

Meanwhile, Toyota held a press briefing Monday to detail its latest progress in fulfilling the more than 11 million
recall notices it has issued in the last year, most to resolve sudden-acceleration issues.

Since early 2010, Toyota dealers have completed 1.8 million repairs to fix sticking pedals and 3.1 million repairs for
pedals that can get trapped in floor mats, and have installed new software on 128,000 vehicles that were recalled for
braking problems. The automaker said 1.3 million of the cars it had repaired were subject to both the sticking pedal
recall and the floor mat recall.

Complaints to Toyota about sudden acceleration have fallen 80% since April, when they reached 800 a week, the
company said. The automaker said it is currently registering 150 such complaints a week.

Toyota also said it had reviewed roughly 4,200 vehicles whose drivers claimed the vehicles had suddenly
accelerated. Those reviews found no evidence of any electronic flaws that could cause that particular problem, the
company said, reiterating a position it has taken since it became ensnared in the sudden-acceleration crisis a year

Several separate reviews of the electronic systems on Toyota and Lexus vehicles are still ongoing, including one
paid for by the automaker and one being run by NASA. "We're very confident that they won't find any electronic
problems," said Steve St. Angelo, Toyota's chief quality officer for North America. "However, they may come up with
some improvements we can make."

Since announcing its first recall for sudden acceleration, Toyota has been hit with hundreds of lawsuits and agreed
to pay the largest fine ever by an automaker, $16.4 million, for delaying a recall. Eager to improve its image, Toyota
has created an independent safety advisory panel, headed by former Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater. It has
also dispatched a team of roughly 200 engineers, mechanics and other experts to review customer complaints. And
it has begun installing brake-override software on every new vehicle.

The automaker said the software, which it calls Smart Stop, is on 84% of the vehicles currently being sold on Toyota
and Lexus lots nationwide.

The Allstate suit, first reported by Bloomberg News, contends that Toyota should have adopted that technology long
ago. It also argues that Toyota deliberately withheld its knowledge of defects that can cause sudden acceleration
from the public for years, and that as a result, the statute of limitations should not apply to its subrogation claims.

The suit is accompanied by details of roughly 270 claims paid by Allstate, the earliest dating to January 2007. The
most expensive claim, for $60,793.73, involved a 2009 Lexus ES 350 and took place last December in Beverly Hills.
[N.Y.] Allstate Files Two Lawsuits in Alleged Fraudulent Activity
Sept. 30, 2010, Company Press Release [Excerpt]

Collins Suit - The total possible exposure of those claims is over $2,000,000.00.
Allstate Insurance Company has filed a declaratory judgment insurance fraud lawsuit against Fortune Medical, P.C.,
RC Medical, P.C., RLC Medical, P.C., Capri Medical, P.C., Painless Medical, P.C., Exact Medical Services, P.C.,
and Collins Wellcare Medical, P.C. The suit additionally alleges that the professional medical corporations acted in
concert with other individuals: Leonid Zelony, Gennadiy Belzer and Igor Tsimerman.

The complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County. It alleges that the professional medical
corporations filed false documents with the New York State, Department of State, Division of Corporations. It claims
that the professional medical corporations lack standing to recover payment from Allstate Insurance Company
based upon violations of the Business Corporation Law, which states that a professional medical corporation must
be owned and operated by a licensed physician.

As detailed in the suit, documentary evidence and sworn testimony will be offered in an effort to prove that the
professional medical corporations were truly owned and operated by laypersons, and not a licensed physician.

The professional medical corporations submitted several hundred claims to Allstate Insurance Company. The total
possible exposure of those claims is over $2,000,000.00. Allstate seeks a declaratory judgment stating that the
named medical facilities were fraudulently owned and incorporated, and as such, are not entitled to receive No-Fault

Vista Suit – The total possible exposure of those claims is in excess of $700,000
Allstate Insurance Company has filed an insurance fraud lawsuit against Michael D. Green, M.D., Clifford Beinart,
M.D., Asaf Yevdayev, Vista Medical Diagnostic Imaging, P.C., Total Global Medical, P.C., Imaging Associates of
Five Boroughs, L.L.C., and Five County Imaging Holdings, L.L.C. The complaint was filed in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of New York, alleging that the professional service corporations filed false ownership
documents with the New York State, Department of State, Division of Corporations. It claims that the professional
service corporations lack standing to recover No-Fault auto insurance benefit payments from Allstate Insurance
Company based upon violations of the New York Business Corporation Law, which requires that professional
service corporations be owned and operated by a licensed physician or medical professional.

As detailed in its lawsuit, Allstate alleges that the professional service corporations were actually owned and
operated by laypersons, and not licensed physicians or medical professionals. The professional service corporations
submitted numerous claims to Allstate Insurance Company. The aggregate of those claims resulted in payments to
the professional service corporations in excess of $700,000 dollars. Allstate seeks reimbursement for the full

No Wifi? No worries

At home or on the road, stay connected with a mobile broadband device from Sprint. Now you can extend your
3G and 4G experience beyond your laptop to any Wi-Fi enabled device. The Overdrive supports up to five Wi-Fi
enabled devices. Now you can share your high-speed connection with friends, family, and co-workers. Get yours
today with an exclusive online package!

Online October offers:
*24% monthly Sprint discount off most plans for you & your family
*Up to $100 off most PDA devices & wireless connection cards (with tax ID)
*[FREE] accessory and earn a $50 gift card with your new Epic or EVO activation with our exclusive online
*FREE $25 prepaid VISA gift card with all other new online activations

Only available at your exclusive Sprint store at or call 1-866-869-6686 or
email us directly at (not available in retail stores)
 [Tex.] IIAT Launches Agency Toolkit to Help Agents Go Independent
September 20, 2010, press release
The Independent Insurance Agents of Texas (IIAT) has launched a free online New Agency Toolkit designed to
educate and assist insurance agents who are in the process of starting an independent agency. Available to
the public at, the toolkit walks agents through the steps necessary to get an agency up and running and
provides helpful resources to guide agents through each important step.
"Starting an agency from scratch is challenging but possible. If you're successful, the rewards are
considerable, including the ability to call your own shots, a healthy return on investment in the form of owner's
equity and the satisfaction of being in a business that protects people and their valuables," said David
VanDelinder, IIAT's executive director.
The New Agency Toolkit addresses the following eight important steps of launching a new agency and features
helpful tips and advice to guide agents through each of them:

    •   The Groundwork – How to get started
    •   The Business Plan – Five things every business plan should address
    •   E&O and Legal Criteria – Licensing, registration, tax I.D., etc.
    •   Access to Insurance Markets – Secure direct appointments and indirect markets
    •   Agency Management System – Framework for all the necessary business processes
    •   Workflow Procedures -- Develop a written procedures manual
    •   Additional Training – Technical and management
    •   Recruit – The right staff for the right roles
Each of the eight steps in the toolkit includes helpful downloads and links to resources like a sample budget
plan, budgeting spreadsheets, training resources, industry best practices and more.
"The toolkit was designed as a guide for new agents, especially captive agents making the transition to
independence in this market. But it's also very useful for experienced agents planning for expansion or
business change," said VanDelinder.

The National Association of Professional Allstate Agents, Inc. is a nonprofit professional trade association
for Allstate agents. NAPAA provides its members with reliable communications on issues that affect agency
owners and their customers every week. NAPAA further serves its members by acting on their behalf and
speaking with a distinct and unfettered voice on a wide range of issues. Our operations, including our
publications, Website and office expenses are funded by member agents who pay membership dues.
Please support NAPAA with your membership today.
NAPAA is a professional trade association, membership dues are $350 per year, or $29 per month by EFT,
and are tax deductible as an ordinary business expense.

[N.C.] Insurance refunds available for some
Sept. 17, 2010, By Philip D. Brown, Richmond County Daily Journal [Excerpt]
Allstate Insurance is refunding more than $680,000 to about 1,800 North Carolina customers.
North Carolina Insurance Commissioner Wayne Goodwin made the announcement Wednesday, attributing the
refunds to “excessive charges” discovered during an investigation into a consumer complaint.
“The Department of Insurance became aware of the overcharges when researching a routine consumer complaint to
the agency’s Consumer Services Division,” a DOI release reads. “The complaint investigation led to a larger review
of Allstate’s practices. As soon as Allstate became aware of the rating error, the company amended the situation
and began processing premium credits and refunds.”
The DOI investigation revealed the company improperly included the cost of rental car usage when calculating
property damage claims from July 2005 to July 2008 for the 1,803 policyholders who are eligible for the refunds.
The use of a rental car during a period when a policyholder is left without a vehicle is commonly referred to as “loss of
use/rental reimbursement,” and is not allowed to be considered when calculating property damage totals.
[Ga.] Court Rules that Insurers Must Replace Luxury with Luxury
Sept. 20, 2010, By Péralte C. Paul, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution [Excerpt]

An Audi can't be replaced by just any car, Fred Anderson believes.

Anderson got into a tug of war with Allstate Insurance Co. and sued it following a months-long dispute over
how much he was owed for the temporary loss of use of his $60,000 Audi Q7 when a motorist insured by the
company crashed into the vehicle in April.

A DeKalb County Magistrate Court judge last week ordered Allstate to pay Anderson $8,200, or $200 for each
of the 41 days Anderson's luxury SUV was being repaired. Allstate's initial offer was $125.75 to cover a car
rental for the five days its claims adjuster said the repairs would take to complete.

"I feel like Allstate was trying to take advantage of me," said Anderson, who added the company refused his
initial offer in May to settle the case for $1,400. "I went through a lot to get this resolved."

How Anderson, an Atlanta management consultant and fraud examination specialist, won more than 65 times
Allstate's initial offer calls attention to a Georgia statute that addresses how such loss-of-use claims ought to
be handled.

The ruling highlights an option that few not-at-fault motorists might realize they have: Georgia courts interpret
that statute to mean an at-fault insurance company has to give the other party enough in auto rental coverage
to pay for the use of a vehicle equal to the one being repaired. Other states interpret it that way, too.

Last year, Montana's insurance commissioner sent a memo to all insurers in the state saying loss-of-use
damages meant getting enough in rental coverage to get a vehicle similar in value and quality.

Georgia's statute is a little fuzzy in that it doesn't concretely define what constitutes a reasonable loss of use,
leaving it to the discretion of judge and jury.

For Anderson, 57, reasonable loss of use meant getting Allstate to pay him what it would cost to rent another
Audi Q7 in metro Atlanta: $282 per day, or $11,562. Allstate had other ideas, but the magistrate judge, who
lowered it to $200 a day, agreed with Anderson's interpretation.

If more motorists in similar situations to Anderson's follow his lead and push for rental payments to cover their
class of vehicle -- be it a $25,000 Honda Accord or a $245,000 Rolls-Royce Ghost -- it's almost a certainty
insurers will push state legislators change the statute, said J. Stephen Berry, a partner at McKenna, Long &
Aldridge in Atlanta.

"The statute limits recovery in requiring the benefits to be ‘reasonable,' which could include any number of
factors that a judge or jury would like to consider," said Berry, who specializes in insurance law and is author of
"Georgia General Liability Insurance," which examines the state's regulations. "The statute does not
specifically address whether plaintiffs are entitled to the rental of a ‘comparable' car, but Georgia's courts have
interpreted the statute that way."

Allstate, Georgia's second-largest auto insurer with policies covering about 600,000 vehicles in the state,
would not discuss the case, citing a long-standing policy of not discussing matters in litigation.

An Allstate spokesman said, however, that the company does not have a fixed daily rental amount and that in
such cases it offers "reasonable" rental compensation. So in the case where a mom of four driving a minivan
loses the use of the minivan following an accident, Allstate will cover her to rent another minivan, though not
necessarily one that's top of the line, Allstate spokesman Shane Robinson said.

"We want our customers to be able to get around and fulfill the functions they could before the damage
occurred ... within reason," he said. What's reasonable for the owner of a luxury vehicle, he wouldn't say.
For now, the insurance industry isn't pushing for a change in the law, said David Colmans, executive director of
the Georgia Insurance Information Service, an industry trade group.

"When motorists try to get the most they can possibly get from rental expenses it potentially runs against the
notion of trying to fairly price the service," Colmans said. "The insurers provide pricing for rental allowances
that goes into the overall insurance rate that's developed. If you have a situation where motorists are trying to
get the maximum amount they can for a rental, eventually the upward pressure is going to affect rates."

One case likely won't mean insurers will pressure state legislators to make the law more explicit, said Berry,
the insurance lawyer. "They will monitor rulings to see if plaintiffs start to take advantage of the statute more
than they used to."

If the industry lobbies legislators to change the law, it won't necessarily be good for consumers, Berry said. "In
the past five or six years, the Georgia Legislature and the Supreme Court have been pro-business and pro-
insurance company as opposed to the five years prior to that," he said.

Anderson said he didn't start out wanting to sue Allstate. But the company's explanations for why he wasn't
entitled to a vehicle of equal value didn't add up to him, he said. "Allstate kept saying ‘all we have to do is
provide reasonable transportation,' " he said. “I said show me case law and I'll consider it."

All agent communications from NAPAA, such as Exclusivefocus magazine and DirectExpress e-
newsletter, from which this Agent Informer was extracted, are made possible by the generous support of
our dues-paying members. Membership in NAPAA is strictly confidential, and costs less than $1 per day.
Now more than ever, isn’t it time for you to join NAPAA today?

                      Join NAPAA Now!
Note on letters: The opinions expressed in letters are not necessarily those of NAPAA. Letters should be brief and are subject
to editing. We will publish letters anonymously; however, we will not accept letters sent anonymously.
The views expressed by NAPAA, or any of its positions relative to its activities and those of its members' actions on behalf
of this organization, are expressly those of NAPAA, and do not reflect the views or opinions of Allstate Insurance
Company, or any of its affiliates.
This newsletter may not be redistributed or reproduced in any form, including electronically, without prior written
permission from NAPAA.

Contact Information for Agent Informer Newsletter & NAPAA Headquarters:
National Association of Professional Allstate Agents, Inc. (NAPAA)
P.O. Box 7666, Gulfport, MS 39506-7666
Toll free Phone:       877/627-2248             Toll free Fax:                       866/627-2232
E-mail:     Web Site:                 

Shared By: