I Don't Work That Way!

There have been times when an assignment is received and the client makes known that it wants a certain outcome.  Simply put, the client wants to subrogate against a third party in order to recover its losses.  It is understood that subrogation is in the best interests of the client when the action is justified.  That is, when a product is proven to cause personal injury or property damage, then the insurance carrier should have the right to recover the monetary amount paid to their insured, from the manufacturer.  However, there are times when subrogation is not always possible.  As an example, consider the loss of a building in a fire.  It is suspected that the fire was caused by an electrical malfunction.  The insurance carrier has to indemnify the building owner but doesn’t care who is held responsible as long as some party is identified.  This is where I will NOT work toward accusing any party of wrongdoing unless I have the evidence to do so.  I will not distort facts in favor of a client or create a bias where there is none so that the client can have a favorable position in a subrogation suit.  I believe that all information should be considered.  If that information is contrary to the client’s position, then so be it.  No individual or commercial entity should be treated unfairly.  Let the facts speak for themselves.  If the situation is such that the evidence indicates criminal activity, then my job ends (because I and most engineering investigation companies), do not have any legal authority) and law enforcement begins.   

%d bloggers like this: