3 REASONS WHY THIS IS A BAD IDEA:

1). If the defense broker is attempting to “walk around the table” to “help” your client in a case where they were called in by the defendants, the conflict of interest is obvious. This broker is “pretending” that they can simultaneously help your client while servicing the agenda of their defense masters. After your client signs a Release, everybody on the defense side of the case is released, INCLUDING the defense Structured Settlement broker -making YOU liable for THEIR actions!

DON’T FALL FOR IT!

2). Structured Settlement brokers who work for the defense, who derive most of their assignments and therefore most of their income from defendants and their insurers, sometimes have undisclosed financial relationships that can directly hurt your client (and other claimants everywhere).

If the defense broker is rebating or kicking back part of their commission or fees to a defendant for the privilege of getting case assignments, then the defendant is not spending what they promised in order to settle your case.

Or, if the defense Structured Settlement broker is agreeing to a reduced commission or fee because the defendant’s Casualty Insurance Company is buying an annuity from a Life Insurance Company in the same fleet (read: “asset retention”), the effect is similar. In either case, the Casualty Insurance Company profits. And who are among the biggest contributors to TORT REFORM? Yes, the Casualty Insurance Companies!

DON’T GIVE THEM MORE BULLETS FOR THEIR GUNS!

3). Structured Settlement brokers who work for the defense, even part time, rarely have the credentials that prove they have the requisite knowledge, training and skills to effectively deal with the complex issues claimants and personal injury victims must address as they work through the financial aspects of a legal settlement. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, wills and estate planning, to name just a few…

DON’T SETTLE FOR AN ANNUITY BROKER WHEN YOUR CLIENT CAN HAVE A SETTLEMENT PLANNER!

True Settlement Planning can only happen from the plaintiff side of the case! True Settlement Planners only work for the injured victims, not defendants! No divided loyalties -no conflicts of interest!

The best Settlement Planners are members of the SOCIETY OF SETTLEMENT PLANNERS (SSP). SSP members certify that the majority of their practice is dedicated to PLAINTIFFS. JUST LIKE AAJ MEMBERS.

Additionally, the SSP has sponsored an accreditation program administered through Texas Tech University. So the “Best of the Best” Settlement Planners have earned the designation of REGISTERED SETTLEMENT PLANNER (RSP) signifying that they have the requisite knowledge, training and skills to effectively help your clients plan for the complex issues in their settlements.

If a garden-variety Structured Settlement broker is soliciting you for a case assignment with one of your clients, ask 3 questions to determine if they are a PRETENDER:

1). Do you take defense assignments against personal injury victims?
2). Are you a member of the Society of Settlement Planners?
3). Are you a Registered Settlement Planner?

Their answers will determine whether you are talking to a PRETENDER, or a CONTENDER!

This set off a mad rush to call us and request a quote and inquire whether we could predict the possible “rated age” the client’s medical condition might generate. The quote we could quickly produce; guessing the client’s potential rated age assessments was just not possible.

The attorney was appreciative for the little information we could provide, and apologized that he had forgotten to involve us sooner so that we could send our Introduction Letter and provide him with our standard pre-settlement conference intelligence, i.e., negotiation tactics of the casualty carrier, annuitization of the Life Care Plan, and a Rated Age Full Market Survey.

The P.I. attorney presented to the client the quote he had obtained from us. Several days later, we received a call that the client was not interested in a structured settlement. I can’t say that I blame him. With the scant amount of information this client had to go on, I would not be interested, either. Besides, the chance that the requested quote ($1,000 monthly payments for life, or 20 years guaranteed) had any correlation to the client’s real and true needs, was probably slim at best. And, creating a “solution” before a “need” has been established is definitely a cart before the horse maneuver.

What this claimant (and every claimant) could have benefited from is a personal settlement planning discussion to determine his needs, wants, goals, desires, concerns and other considerations. From that fact-finding session would then come a formal, written Settlement Plan with our recommendations suitable to meeting this individual’s needs.

Maybe this process wouldn’t have changed the claimant’s mind about structuring part of his settlement. It might just be the case that he doesn’t need a structured settlement (not every claimant needs, wants or gets one), but instead needs to pay off his mortgage and other debts, upgrade his transportation, and place what money is left into a liquid “emergency reserve” account for future medicals and to supplement his Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) payments. But we will never know, and neither will he, as we missed the chance to sit down and hold these discussions and plan out his settlement. And the attorney in this case missed the chance to delight his client (because this service is free), which could potentially create more referrals because extremely happy clients refer more often.

So, call us early in your case process, at least 30-60 days before a mediation or settlement conference. Let us provide you with our standard intelligence package, which can help you achieve a greater recovery. Then, after settlement is reached, we will meet with the client to plan out their settlement.

The irony is that this takes less work, not more, for you and your staff. You will be happier knowing your client has met with an expert to discuss their needs and the appropriate strategies to meet those needs. And, you have created a firewall against future liability if things don’t turn out as your client expected from their settlement.

(NOTE from Jack Meligan): While Rob Wood’s article presents excellent reasons why QSFs are increasingly popular settlement tools, I think he has missed the boat when it comes to the “controversy” over using QSFs in single claimant cases. The Treasury Regulations promulgating the rules for creating a QSF quite clearly state that these trusts must exist to “…satisfy one or more legal claims.” Mr. Wood’s article (in the last column, first sentence) paraphrases the regulation but omits the reference to “one or more.”
Other writers have stated that “one or more” means just that -one or more. And since a court must approve their creation and maintain jurisdiction over the distributions from a QSF, the constructive receipt arguments foisted by self-serving casualty companies opposing this vehicle go out the window.)
<<click here to view the Robert Wood QSF article>>

(click the triangular button to play the video)