“Where is Texas Watch in objecting to the Houston lawyer who signs up clients on a 45-percent contingency fee and then dumps their matters into appraisal – knowing very well there is no need for a lawyer to handle an appraisal process?”
“Where is Texas Watch in objecting to the lawyers who pass along to their homeowner clients a $1,500 ‘estimate fee’ paid to a contractor – knowing very well that the true value of the estimate is only $350 and the rest of the charge is a disguised referral payment to the contractor for giving the homeowner the lawyer’s name?”
“Where is Texas Watch in objecting to public adjusters who sign up hundreds of clients, make no effort to negotiate their claims for the agreed 10 percent fee, and the then flip everything to lawyers who then take another 30 percent or more?”
“Where is Texas Watch in objecting to lawyers who use marketing personnel hired for the express purpose of soliciting clients and drafting lawsuits, without a licensed lawyer ever putting eyes on the client’s file and determining if the matter has any merit?”
“Where is Texas Watch in objecting to the lawyers who are refusing to settle their clients’ cases even when the insurance company agrees to pay the alleged damages and attorneys fees as stated in the pre-suit demand letter?”
Those are five reasonable questions posed by Zelle LLP insurance litigator Steve Badger when we asked for his reaction to the purported consumer advocacy group’s May 14 op-ed entitled “The insurance lobby has destroyed Texas property rights.”
Texas Watch’s overwrought diatribe hysterically complained that Hurricane Harvey victims were unable to get on with their lives eight months out because of an “assault waged by insurance companies” in the state legislature – an assault consisting of sensible tort reform measures.
Badger called the group’s bluff, offering to meet with them and “work cooperatively in helping Texas homeowners get their disputed Harvey claims resolved quickly and fairly.”
In the meantime, we’d like to hear the answers to his five reasonable questions.