Archive: August 2019

New research indicates that divorced men actually become better caregivers. As a result of men becoming single parents after divorce, they are finding that it makes them better fathers in part because they are taking control and responsibility for situations that they might have otherwise delegated their partner or waiting to be told what to do. As a result, more and more men are advocating for themselves and therefore becoming better advocates for the children; all while making room to become better fathers; which is feeding back into changing custodial norms.

In general, as divorced parents are taking a more informed and research-based approach to co-parenting; while no longer distracted by marital conflict; they are parenting with a lot more focus. Part of this could also be explained by divorce simply making many people happier individuals and therefore happier parents in the long run.

A case that could have huge repercussions on insurance litigation and insurance bad faith claims is in particular against State Farm insurance could go in the direction for the insurance company, according to reports. Plaintiffs brought antitrust claims against the insurance company, State Farm, alleging that it conspired with software makers to undervalue damage to homes in the due to fires; allegedly leaving homeowners with less than they needed to recoup the costs.

Complaints Against Valuation Tools

Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that State Farm relied on a valuation tool known as “360 Value,” which is produced by Verisk Analytics and Insurance Services Offices Inc. According to the complaint, the tool estimates property values at only 30 to 40 percent of their actual value and, as a result, does not account for a number of important aspects and factors that are relevant in calculating insurance payouts. In addition, another tool, called “Xactimate,” they allege, estimates construction costs at 50 percent below their actual market rates. For example, the tool estimated the cost of rebuilding one home at $804,000 when it actually cost $2.2 million, according to the complaint.

Money related issues are one of the number one reasons couples end up seeking a divorce.  For many, it is the number one cause of arguments between two married individuals. This is no surprise as, regardless of whether a couple is wealthy or in debt, many have financial disagreements.

Below, we discuss some of the biggest money-related reasons people end up getting divorced:

One of the reasons financial issues become a problem is because couples fail to discuss these issues before getting married; only to find out afterwards that they have completely opposite views of money. Sometimes this leads to a “spender” and a “saver,” for example, who are continually at odds with one another. This can especially become an issue if a couple starts out in debt, which many do. This sometimes also adds to the anxiety which, in turn, can make discussing finances even more daunting.

Credit card debt is another issue that sometimes comes between people, especially when one individual has worked overtime to pay off their own debt; only to have their spouse rack up new debt that they will both be responsible for. In fact, the larger a couple’s debt, the more likely money becomes an issue that they fight about.

On July 15, a Florida Federal District Court made an important insurance bad faith litigation decision that involved a hurricane insurance claim. The court ultimately found that the insurance company must provide coverage to a limited number of locations when it comes to an outdoor grounds policy endorsement for a country club. The dispute involves damage caused by Hurricane Irma.

The Case & Decision

Grey Oaks Country Club filed a claim with its insurance company – Zurich Insurance Group Ltd – seeking compensation to cover damages from Hurricane Irma at 19 of its property locations. Zurich responded that it was only liable to cover one property/location (or “premises”). In response, the plaintiff country club argued that insurance company breached its coverage obligations under the commercial insurance policy and acted in bad faith by providing only partial payment and instead used the money to negotiate a lower settlement.