excpomea

Just want to rant!
Some years ago I was diagnosed with bladder cancer.
Found by chance, very un-usual in a 49 year old.
After many surgeries including 2 emergency procedures i'm now doing fine.
On 6 monthly checks, been clear for the past year.

Anyways, a few years ago my Endocrinologist took me off of a drug I was taking called Actos. Possible side effects, drug banned in Europe.
Discovered the side effects were bladder cancer! Guess I was lucky.
Found that there was a class action case against the company for the bladder cancer.
I looked into it and was added to the list of claimants. 10,000 cases!
So fast forwards. Company offers to settle for $2.3 billion! yes with a B
I'm up for 1/10000 apx. or $230,000
But, my case was less severe so there was an adjustment down. I am awarded 60/100 so not too shabby.
Award papers arrive, $138,000 wohoo Porsche 911 !

But, lawyers get apx 50% ok knew that. Down to $69000 maybe a M3
Then the kicker. the buggers are going to repay my health insurance company all costs associated with my cancer out of the remainder.

I saw 1 health insurance bill for $58000...

So my cut. Absolutely sod all..!!! Not even enough for a decent steak, hell a poor steak even.

This absolutely sucks! Thanks for letting me rant.

Michael

It's the lawyers that suck since they are in it for themselves. There is no reason to pay the insurance company since you were paying for insurance and you were harmed and the insurance companies were not since they raised their rates to everyone to cover those costs.

The lawyers should have stipulated that insurance companies would not be reimbursed or if they were to be reimbursed, then additional money would have to be provided or else there would be no settlement but the lawyers took the easy way out to make sure they got their money as quickly as possible.

Class action lawsuits usually primarily benefit the lawyers.

S Folinsky

Doesn't work that way. Most insurance policies have provisions in them allowing for such reimbursement. The idea from what I understand is to avoid double recovery.

Duncan Roberts

As said, I doubt there is a health insurance plan that doesn't have that stipulation. Insurance only pays when somebody else doesn't. If there's a settlement, that pays first.

excpomea

Never occurred to me that I would have to pay them out.
Been happily paying the insurance for the past 15 years.
Part of the work health plan. Up to now I have been very happy with the health insurance.

So what if i'm rich and get sick. My work health insurance covers the bills then they come after me for the $$.
I don't think so. The insurance covers the medical costs minus the co-pays.


Now I just feel scammed.

Michael

Maybe that is the case but then the lawyers should have sued for more and not settled unless the people that are damaged (pain, suffering, possible recurrence of the cancer, etc.) also get paid.

So insurance companies get to raise premiums and get reimbursed for the medical treatment, the lawyers get 50% of the award, and the injured party gets nothing for his/her pain and suffering and possible recurrence of the cancer. That sounds very fair.

It appears that the law firm was more interested in getting $1.15 billion now than having to be in litigation for years for maybe a $1.4 billion fee with the extra amount likely being eaten up in expenses.

excpomea

I'm sure the law firms are doing pretty well out of it.
I was quoted $500,000 in costs if I wanted to go it alone.
At least as part of the class action we were up for something after their 50% cut. Or so we thought.
I suppose the people that had more severe cancer would have been better off.
But even then with it metastasizing to other organs the payouts were only 125% so maybe $300K.
But, if they had health insurance i'm sure that would be soon eaten away with the reimbursements.

So again the winners and the law firms and the insurance companies.
I'm sensing a pattern..

SpoogleDrummer

Those lucky SOBs that died before seeing a doctor must've made out like bandits.

Michael

I've been a party to many class action class lawsuits (all small ones) and I've got a $100 coupon valid for one year for the purchase of a ticket on an airline, discount on jeans, and other useless rewards while the law firm got a lot of money and the companies got to give out coupons to entice you to buy their products.

I've also had a few less than $100 settlements from the market crash of 2008.

I'm now a party to a class action lawsuit against HP for providing misleading information prior it's stock plunging. I didn't have much of an option not being a party to the class action lawsuit since HP will be paying the settlement and I still own HP stock which has risen back up. Since I still own HP stock (am an owner), I'm paying myself minus lawyer's fees from the settlement and if I didn't become a party, I get nothing and still have to pay the lawyer's fees. The only ones that can possibly make money are the lawyers and speculators can recover some money who had purchased the stock for the short term and it went in the opposite direction than they thought. So being a party, I lose because of the lawyer's fees and not being a party, I lose because of the lawyer's fees and I don't get a settlement.

Giantaxe

I guess guess you could argue that when insurance companies set their rates they have figured in the amounts they have recouped from litigation such as this.

Well exactly. That is what the real problem is. These law firms in these class actions really don't care whether people end up with anything after insurance companies get their cut. They are just interested in their own bottom line.

Pulaski

But the basis of insurance is to reimburse your losses and expenses, not to enable you to make a windfall gain. ..... And the situation is much harsher in the UK, where damages are assessed on the basis of losses and expenses, with windfall gains being pretty much unheard of.

And the insurance companies aren't "winning" - in your case the money they took was reimbursement for what they paid out for your medical treatment.

If there were any "winners" the the partners at the law firm probably did OK, but then for every success like your case there are probably two or three that break even, and a few more that take a load of chargeable lawyers' and partners' time and get no payback.

Michael

I guess you think having cancer and being treated because some company thought that cancer isn't a big deal and if he gets some money for the cancer treatment that he endured and possible future return of the cancer, that is a windfall.

I guess if you got into a car accident which wasn't your fault and ended up in the hospital and had months of therapy, you'd be happy if your health insurance company was reimbursed by the defendent's insurance company and you got nothing.

Pulaski

Isn't that how insurance is supposed to work? I get reimbursed for my losses and expenses? ..... That said, I do wonder sometimes, after having several discussions with my insurance broker over why my house was insured for about five or six times its market value and if it burned down I could buy a similar replacement and, presumably pocket a very tidy sum rather than rebuild at a massive expense a house that would likely never be worth what the insurance company had paid to build it.

Given that adjusting the payout to a closer approximation of the market value had only a marginal impact on the premium I am sorely tempted to revert to the original policy and hope for a tree to fall on it.

Michael

Either you have exceptional insurance or your insurance broker is talking gibberish. Every home insurance policy that I've seen will only pay to rebuild the home and if you over insure, you get nothing for those extra premiums that you pay.

Usually the clause is in the policy so that people aren't tempted to burn the house down.

Pulaski

Right, that was exactly the point that I couldn't get my broker to understand. If I fraudulently over insured and tried to collect I could be prosecuted, yet I was being pressured into insuring for much more than the market value because the cost to rebuild was massively higher when I had no interest in rebuilding and would, in the event of a catastrophic accident destroying my house, I would prefer to buy another house instead.

I am still unsure what would happen if I tried to collect the "cost to rebuild", but used the proceeds to buy another home? In the event of catastrophic damage to my home, I anticipate my first conversation will be with my lawyer.