Resources and Experience
Many times attorneys need additional experience and resources, both legal and financial, to obtain favorable results for their clients. If you have a case that is beyond your resources in terms of manpower or experience, please consider teaming up with Mehr, Fairbanks & Peterson, a firm with a proven track record of handling complex and challenging litigation.
You choose your level of involvement
All of our referral and co-counsel relationships are in full accordance with SCR 3.130(1.5). We are committed to making the referral or co-counsel process smooth, positive, and beneficial for everyone involved. With that in mind, we are flexible about discussing the exact type of involvement and participation that other attorneys want.
AREAS OF PRACTICE
While other attorneys and firms have come to us to work with them on many types of cases, most fall into the following categories:
Insurance Bad Faith
Most of our insurance bad faith cases, including our significant insurance bad faith jury verdicts, have been referred to us by the attorneys who handled the underlying claim. See:
- Medical Protective Co. v. Wiles, 2011 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 983 (Ky. Ct. App. June 17, 2011) ($4,394,681.00 judgment) [expand title=”Click for case summary“]
Medical Protective Co. v. Wiles, 2011 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 983 (Ky. Ct. App. June 17, 2001): Represented plaintiff in bad faith suit against a medical malpractice insurer who delayed payment of a tort (medical malpractice) claim in order to meets its indemnity budget. See Wiles v. The Medical Protective Company, 01-CI-0992 (Kenton Cir. Ct., May 20, 2009).
- Hamilton Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barnett, 2008 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 71 (Ky. Ct. App. August 8, 2008) ($950,833.00 judgment) [expand title=”Click for case summary“]
Hamilton Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barnett, 2008 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 71 (Ky. Ct. App. August 8, 2008): Represented plaintiff-estate in a bad faith suit against insurance company for unreasonably denying and delaying payment in a UIM benefits case where the deceased was killed by a drunk-driver in a head-on collision. See Barnett v. Hamilton Mutual Insurance, 00-CI-0004 (Taylor Cir. Ct., Sept. 27, 2006).
- Hamilton Mut. Ins. Co. v. Buttery, 220 S.W.3d 287 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007) ($290,842.00 judgment) [expand title=”Click for case summary“]
Hamilton Mut. Ins. Co. v. Buttery, 220 S.W.3d 287 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007): Represented plaintiff who received a verdict, which was affirmed on appeal, following a fire loss in a bad faith suit against an insurance company who refused to pay under the insurance contract. See Buttery v. Hamilton Mutual Insurance Company, 01-CI-0571 (Knox Cir. Ct., Oct. 13, 2004).
Notable Mehr, Fairbanks & Peterson Trial Verdicts*:
2013,Defense,Scott,Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
2011,”$2,634,175.00″,Bell,Kentucky National Insurance Company
2009,”$4,394,681.00″,Kenton,The Medical Protective Company
2007,”$50,000.00″,Whitley,Tennessee Farmers Insurance
2006,”$950,833.00″,Taylor,Hamilton Mutual Insurance Company
2004,”$290,842.00″,Knox,Hamilton Mutual Insurance Company
2004,”$20,000.00″,Hardin,Kentucky National Insurance Company
2002,Defense,Lee,Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
2000,”$1,030,000.00″,Lincoln,Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
1999,”$455,000.00″,Fayette,Standard Life Insurance Company & Investors Life Insurance Company of North America
1998,”$1,784,836.00″,Pike,Home Insurance Company of Indiana
*[expand title=”Click for disclaimer“]
*Disclaimer: All judgment amounts listed above were entered by the listed Circuit Courts in the State of Kentucky. However, the amounts do not necessarily reflect a final amount that was received by the Plaintiff(s) in each respective case. The judgment amounts may have (1) increased after attorney’s fees and interest were calculated, (2) decreased following a post-judgment settlement, or (3) altered or vacated following an appeal. The above-mentioned judgment amounts do not constitute a promise for potential case judgements. The judgment amounts are meant only as a sampling of judgments that have been entered in cases involving Mehr, Fairbanks & Peterson Trial Lawyers, PLLC. Judgment results vary from case to case.[/expand]
For case summaries of notable Mehr, Fairbanks & Peterson trial verdicts, click HERE
There are many complex legal and factual issues involved in insurance bad faith litigation, including the possibility that the underlying attorney will be a necessary witness. If you have concerns that an insurer is treating your client unfairly, we would be happy to speak to you. Call us at 859-225-3731. Early involvement of bad faith counsel is key.
ERISA Disability & Life Insurance Benefits
Many employer-provided disability and life insurance benefit plans are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Given our experience litigating ERISA claims, we are well-versed in the complexities, pitfalls, and traps that cause many claimants to stumble when seeking to secure their benefits. We also can help you to determine whether or not the policy at issue is even governed by ERISA.
See Tinsley v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 744 F. Supp. 2d 637 (W.D. Ky. 2010) (determining policy is not governed by ERISA); Bailey v. Minnesota Life Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24666 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 24, 2009) (same).
If you have an ERISA case, please contact us to discuss how we can help your client navigate through the complex claims and litigation process.
Attorneys from around Kentucky regularly refer legal malpractice cases to us. Please contact us with any questions about legal malpractice claims in Kentucky.