Update on Worley overtime class action case Altier vs Worley and BP- BP granted dismissal May 2011

May 11, 2011

Doing some research today, I was able to locate a May 9, 2011 court decision granting BP’s motion to be dismissed from this class action lawsuit filed by independent adjusters working BP claims through Worley adjusting firm.  Here is the link.

It is interesting to see several more independent adjuster names on the court document now as plaintiff’s…several of which I recognize from online interactions from several sites.

In another online document from a February 25, 2011 Status Conference held  involving all BP cases, they do list both Alteir vs Worley and Alteir vs Worley and BP as item number 17 on the Agenda. Here’s the link to that pdf document found online.

The website listing the status of the 368 litigation cases against Deep Water Horizen does show these two cases still open here (search alpha order for Alteir vs Worley.

While doing some online research I also came across another case in AL that includes BP and Worley as well as ESIS who BP originally assigned cases to filed with the State of AL as one of two plaintiffshere which also lists it as a RICO case as shown in this document. I will make some contacts to see if I can get more documents if they available to the public. There is a short explanation about the type of case it is in the top right corner of the pdf document. The 2nd plaintiff listed on this AL case is CMCO, LLC and here is the trademark info I found on them but no clue if this is actually the plaintiff listed on this case.

Amazingly (not) is a website which is basically an advertisement from the firm filing the class action speaking to adjusters who may have worked for Worley found here. The website for the law firm is listed on the bottom of that link along with contact information.

As far as what independent adjusters are saying,  here is a lin to a CADO forum topic where a few were discussing this case when it first hit the news.

For links to our prior posts with the original Complaint documents which explains the details of the case if you missed it, here is the link.

As we locate more documents and information we will update the information here on the blog.

Advertisements

Fenton, et al., v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, No. 07-4864, DC MN, 2009, MN Staff Claims Adjuster Overtime Decision

February 2, 2010

Here’s some information on an over time case involving a Farmer’s case, Fenton, et al., v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, No. 07-4864, DC MN, 2009 .

It sounds like an SIU (Special Investigation Unit arson fraud adjuster) Investigator won a decision in MN on adjuster overtime pay. According to this article, it was based on the fact their supervisor made the final decision if a case was fraud or not. It seems the states are across the board based on alot of other decisions I’ve posted on this blog. This is surprising since a claim supervisor making the decision on a claim file would be applicable on all claim files that exceed an adjuster’s authority, files to be denied,  and normally any coverage issue files as well.

For information on Fenton, et al., v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, No. 07-4864, DC MN, 2009, here is a link I found on today’s email update from a great site for HR that I subscribe to at http://www.thehrspecialist.com  

Here’s the link:

http://www.thehrspecialist.com/article.aspx?articleid=30351&cigx=d.n,stid.7491,sid.374530

This link will take you to all other blogs I’ve posted that included other claims adjuster overtime cases. This does apply to staff adjusters not independent adjusters. I’m curious if the independent adjuster classifications will be questioned as well with the 2010 concentration on employee versus independent classification we’ve been reading about.

https://dimechimes.wordpress.com/?s=overtime

Doing some additional web search for a link to the court documents on the Fenton vs Farmers case, I came across this link to an entirely different court finding in Farmers favor in 07. It sure is interesting comparing this to the Fenton case:

http://www.hreonline.com/HRE/story.jsp?storyId=9595529