Posts Tagged ‘ NSL ’

Extended Warranty: Do you Need it? What if a Repair Claim is Denied?

February 7th, 2012. By AbiK

It’s become the all-familiar conversation as you pay for that washing machine, HDTV, smart phone or even a set of luggage— “Would you like to purchase the extended warranty on this? It covers blah blah blah blah just in case blah blah blah…” Chances are, as if by rote, you shake your head to indicate that, no, you don’t want whatever protection plan they’re offering up.

It makes sense, after all, as we’ve been trained for years now by consumer advocacy groups to “just say no” to most extended warranties. It’s become a Pavlovian response. But then why are these protection plans still around if no one is buying them? Clearly some folks must be buying—and the question is, are they the smart ones or are we really doing the smarter thing by passing up what might seem like some extended warranty scam?

The answer is, it depends.

So here are some extended warranty guidelines—things to consider before opting to pay for a protection plan that goes beyond the manufacturer’s initial coverage plan period (and what to do if after you’ve purchased a protection plan you run into a bad faith insurance situation.)

1. Do your homework—research what you’re buying before you buy it.

Reliability Ratings. Find out how reliable the appliance or tech gadget is—does it have a bad track record for repairs? How costly are repairs? Look at how the product is rated at Consumer Reports, for example. Check out reliability reviews on laptops, smart phones, tablets, HDTVs, cameras—all tech gadgets and gizmos–at PC World, CNet or PCMag. Reliability ratings will give you a sense of what kind of repairs, if any, you can typically expect the product needing over the time in which you’ll own it

New May Not Mean Reliable. Keep in mind as well that new generation products–that is, products with new technology or design features–may not have all their bugs and kinks worked out when they launch. In such an instance—if you’re the type who has to have the latest and greatest thing on the market regardless of how much reliability data may be available on it—then an extended warranty may be worth looking into. Or, hold your horses and wait for the next production run in which improvements have been made. And a final note on new tech—if you think you’ll upgrade or switch to a new model within a couple of years anyway, the extended warranty probably isn’t worth it.

2. Look in your wallet—your credit card may protect your purchase, too.

Paying with Plastic can Provide Extended Coverage. Cards such as American Express offer some extended warranty protection with even the basic Green Card. This is how the AMEX extended warranty coverage works:

When you charge the entire cost of a covered product with your American Express® Card, the Extended Warranty will extend the terms of the original manufacturer’s warranty for a period of time equal to the duration of the original manufacturer’s warranty, up to one additional year on warranties of five years or less that are eligible in the U.S.

If you’re not sure how or what might be covered with your credit card, call the customer service number on the back of your AMEX, VISA, MasterCard, Discover, etc. card and ask. You may find that you’ve got extended warranty protection already.

3. Find out what the extended warranty covers.

Read the Extended Warranty to Understand the Terms. Know what you’re paying for and what to expect should your 3-year-old drop your smart phone into the toilet. Some warranties don’t cover all “accidents”. Some only cover a specific set of parts. After reading about the product’s reliability and which parts are most likely to fail, compare that information with what’s covered by the extended warranty.

Understand the coverage period as well—typically, you’ll pay more for a longer coverage period, which at first makes sense. But if you’re not planning on keeping or using the product for a full five years, you probably don’t need a 5-year extended warranty, and you’re better off saving your cash.

4. Follow the 20% rule.

Don’t Pay more than 20% of the Product Price for an Extended Warranty. Some reports indicate markups of close to 50% for extended warranty protection plans. The generally accepted rule of thumb is not to pay more than 10-20% of the price of the product for an extended warranty to cover it.

5. If something goes wrong…

Get help when Covered Repairs or Replacements aren’t made. As with any agreement, sometimes things don’t go as planned. If you’ve had a legitimate problem with a product that you’ve purchased an extended warranty for, and you’re having difficulty getting the warranty company to cover the repair or replacement—or they’ve outright denied your claim when it should have been covered—you may have a bad faith insurance claim. Most people think of bad faith insurance in regard to life or health insurance claims, home insurance claims, or as it relates to car accident claims. Your extended warranty agreement is a form of insurance that can go “bad” as well. If you feel you have an extended warranty bad faith insurance claim, you may want to seek legal help.

Tags: Bad Faith Insurance, Extended Warranty, Home Warranty, home-warranty-insurance-lawsuit, NSL, Protection Plan, Reliability Rating
Posted in Consumer Fraud, Emerging Issues, Insurance | 9389No Comments »2012-02-07+17%3A19%3A42AbiK

Riddle: When is your Sugar Daddy your Daddy, too?

February 6th, 2012. By AbiK

“Sugar Daddy – noun; a well-to-do usually older man who supports or spends lavishly on a mistress, girlfriend, or boyfriend.”

As per Merriam-Webster. And as in, “She’s on the lookout for a new sugar daddy.” That’s the definition—so see if the shoe fits as you read on, then try to answer the riddle: When is your Sugar Daddy your Daddy, too?…

If you’ve been eyeballing the link-bait headlines in the news, you couldn’t have missed the one about polo club founder, John Goodman (no, not the actor), and his girlfriend—or would that be daughter?—Heather Laruso Hutchins.

Admittedly, this one’s hard to wrap your head around. But dammit, let’s try.

So John Goodman reportedly started dating Heather Hutchins in 2009 (a quote over at HuffPo refers to Hutchins as Goodman’s “longtime partner”—clearly the bar for length of relationship has been lowered—but let’s not digress). Then in October, 2011, Goodman adopted Hutchins. Yes, you know how it is when you start dating someone and fall so madly in love with them that you start talking adoption… OMG! Honey what do you think—should we do open or closed?!?

Aside from the natural questions that arise from such an arrangement (e.g., Is Goodman technically romantically involved with his child? Can he be charged with incest should he now have “sexual relations” with Hutchins? Would his biological children be aunts or uncles to any child he might have with Hutchins? If Carroll Goodman (John’s ex-wife) has a birthday party for her son or daughter—will she feel an odd obligation to invite their new sister?), one can’t help but raise a suspicious eyebrow as to the motive here. Why—WHY?—would a man of seemingly healthy mind—allegations of cocaine use aside—want to adopt his 42-year old girlfriend? And, of course, that leads us to the backstory…

In 2010, Goodman was in a car accident for which was he charged with DUI—or more specifically, DUI manslaughter, vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of an accident. The manslaughter and homicide parts come from the nature of the accident—Goodman allegedly blew through a stop sign and ran into another car. Scott Patrick Wilson was in that other car and he tragically lost his life as a result. (Wilson’s parents have filed a civil suit).

Goodman goes to trial on March 6 for those criminal charges—and he stands to get up to 30 years in prison if he’s convicted. The civil trial is set for March 27.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the trial: Goodman adopted a daughter!

Yes—Five…months…before…his…trial. Raise that eyebrow and turn your glance to the money trail.

It’s a little tricky, but Goodman had apparently set up a trust for his two minor children. If the Wilson’s were to win their civil suit, they would not be able to touch the money in the trust. But Goodman could lose a substantial amount of money he has that’s not in trust—and if so, he’d be unable to touch the money that’s in trust for his kids because that money is reportedly tied up until the kids are 35 years of age.

Ahh…but if he adopts a 42-year old—since she’s over 35—and she goes on the trust as well, then she can access one-third of that money which would mean HE can access that money, too! “Genius!” he must’ve thought. (Wonder if he thought about how much he might be pissing off his real kids once they get a drift of the situation…)

And that’s what has the legal world abuzz right now—is this a surefire move to ‘beat the system’? Will it work? Will the adoption hold up in court as legit?

And does it even matter given that the court of public opinion has basically already lambasted Goodman and his apparently integrity-lacking girlfriend? If it was a ‘genious’ legal move—which has yet to be seen—it was a disastrous PR move—a young man dead as a result of alleged DUI, two young children pulled into some weird financial and familial threesome…

It’s a riddle for sure. But the answer to “When is your Sugar Daddy your Daddy, too?” is…

Clearly, when it’s John Goodman.

Tags: Adoption, Drunk Driving, DUI, DUI Lawsuit, Heather Laruso Hutchins, John Goodman, NSL, Scott Patrick Wilson
Posted in Emerging Issues, lawsuits, Totally Tortelicious | 9443No Comments »2012-02-06+17%3A38%3A23AbiK

Week Adjourned: 2.3.12

February 4th, 2012. By LucyC

Top Class Actions

Write this one up…The Hearst Corporation got hit with an employment lawsuit this week.

The Hearst lawsuit claims that the publishing giant illegally employs hundreds of unpaid interns in violation of federal and state labor laws, according to a newly filed employment class action complaint. Specifically, the lawsuit, filed on behalf of a former Harper’s Bazaar intern—Xuedan Wang, of Brooklyn, N.Y., accuses Hearst of paying interns no compensation for the work they perform, including minimum or overtime wages, and committing recordkeeping violations in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Wang alleges that she regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, and sometimes as many as 55 hours per week (had she not seen “The Devil Wears Prada“?) , without compensation while at Harper’s Bazaar in 2011.

Lawyers representing the plaintiff state that unpaid interns are becoming the modern-day equivalent of entry-level employees, except that employers are not paying them for the many hours they work. The practice of classifying employees as ‘interns’ to avoid paying wages runs afoul of federal and state wage and hour laws. (Btw, if this sounds familiar, it is—we reported on the Black Swan movie production unpaid interns complaint a while back.)

The lawsuit seeks class action certification to recover unpaid wages, overtime pay, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees for unpaid interns who worked for Hearst between February 1, 2006 and the date of a final judgment. So, it’s been going on for a while.

Time to Foreclose on Dodgy Foreclosures. At least that’s what 16 Nevadans and fellow potential class members are aiming for. They filed a foreclosure class action lawsuit against five companies hired by banks and lenders to handle the foreclosures on properties owned by the plaintiffs and against one additional defendant who purchased property through the foreclosure process. The case was filed as a class action lawsuit because it is estimated that there are thousands of potential plaintiffs who were victims of these foreclosure companies.

The defendants named in the Nevada foreclosure class action lawsuit are: Quality Loan Service Corporation; Appleton Properties, LLC; MTC Financial, Inc. dba Trustee Corps; Meridian Foreclosure Service dba MTDS, Inc. dba Meridian Trust Deed Service; National Default Servicing Corporation; and California Reconveyance Company. Ringing any bells?

The specific allegations include illegal debt collection activities and deceptive trade practices by the defendants against the plaintiffs during the foreclosure process as the defendants were not licensed or registered in the State of Nevada to carry out the foreclosure process.

The plaintiffs are Nevadans who not only lost their houses in one of the hardest hit real estate markets, but were also adversely affected by foreclosure companies that did not follow the law during the foreclosure process.

The lawsuit alleges that the debt collection activities of the defendants are and/or were illegal and improper because each of the defendants did not hold a license to engage in debt collection activities in the State of Nevada and each also failed to register as a foreign debt collection agency with the Nevada Financial Institutions Division.

The illegal and improper debt collection activities include the issuance of debt-related notices, demands, collection communications and/or foreclosure sales and processes. In addition, the plaintiffs also claim deceptive trade practices, consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, trespass, quiet title and in two instances, elder abuse.

Plaintiffs are asking for compensatory and consequential damages in excess to $10,000, disgorgement of any amounts paid to defendants for their respective illegal and improper debt collection activities, attorney’s fees and injunctive relief.

Go get’em and good luck!

Top Settlements

$200M Motorola Proposed Settlement. A $200 million settlement has been reached with Motorola Solutions Inc, bringing to an end a securities lawsuit filed in 2007 by company shareholders. Motorola has denied any wrongdoing.

The securities lawsuit alleged the electronics manufacturer had artificially inflated its stock by making misrepresentations about the company’s projected revenues for the third and fourth quarters of 2006.

Lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Macomb County Employees’ Retirement System and St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Pension System.

Lawyers representing all plaintiffs said the settlement represents an extraordinary recovery for investors in a case where there was no financial restatement or (Securities and Exchange Commission) investigation.

If you were a Motorola shareholder between July 19, 2006, and January 4, 2007, you may be eligible for a recovery.

According to the terms of the Motorola proposed settlement, the plaintiffs’ attorneys are seeking fees of 27.5 percent of the settlement, or $55 million, and expenses of up to $4.95 million.

OK—they’re buying—that’s a wrap for this week. See you at the bar!

Tags: Fair Labor Standards Act, Foreclosure Class Action Lawsuit, Harpers Bazaar Class Action, Hearst Corporation, Hearst Intern Class Action Lawsuit, Hearst Magazines, Motorola Securities Fraud, Motorola Solutions, Nevada Foreclosures, NSL
Posted in Class Action, lawsuits, Settlement, Week Adjourned | 9450No Comments »Week+Adjourned%3A+2.3.122012-02-04+14%3A51%3A53LucyC

Asbestos News Roundup: 2.2.12

February 2nd, 2012. By LucyC

A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.

Asbestos Lawsuits

Charleston, WV: A couple from Ohio has filed an asbestos lawsuit naming 62 companies as defendants. The Sheltons claim the companies are responsible for Mr. Larry E. Shelton’s mesothelioma diagnosis.

Larry E. Shelton was diagnosed with asbestos mesothelioma on November 18, 2011. In his lawsuit, Shelton alleges he was exposed to asbestos during his career as a bricklayer, laborer and roofer between 1964 and 1993.

Shelton claims the defendants knew or should have known of the dangers of associated with asbestos exposure and that the defendants failed to warn him of those dangers.

According to the lawsuit, the defendants are being sued based on theories of negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy, misrepresentations and post-sale duty to warn.

The 62 companies named as defendants are: 3M Company; A.K. Steel Corporation; A.W. Chesterton Company; Ajax Magnethermic Corporation; Allied Chemical Corporation; Amdura Corporation; Atlas Turner, Inc.; Bucyrus International, Inc.; Bechtel Corporation; Catalytic Construction Company; Caterpillar, Inc.; Certainteed Corporation; Clark Equipment Company; Cleaver-Brooks Company, Inc.; Columbus McKinnon Corporation; Crane Co.; Dravo Corporation; Eaton Electrical, Inc.; Elliott Company; Flowserve FSD Corporation; FMC Corporation; Foseco, Inc.; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; General Electric Company; Georgia Pacific Corporation; Goulds Pumps, Inc.; Hercules, Inc.; IMO Industries, Inc.; Industrial Holdings Corporation; Ingersoll-Rand Company; Insul Company, Inc.; ITT Corporation; J.H. France Refractories Company; McJunkin Red Man Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Morgan Engineering, Inc.; NACCO Materials Handling Group, Inc.; Nitro Industrial Coverings, Inc.; Oglebay Norton Company; Ohio Valley Insulating Company, Inc.; Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Pettibone/Traverse Lift, LLC; Premier Refractories, Inc.; Rapid American Corporation; Riley Power Inc.; Rockwell Automations, Inc.; Rust Constructors, Inc.; Rust Engineering & Construction, Inc.; Rust International, Inc.; Schneider Electric USA, Inc.; State Electric Supply Company; Sterling Fluid Systems (US) LLC; Sunbeam Corporation; Tasco Insulations, Inc.; The F.D. Lawrence Electric Company; UB West Virginia, Inc.; Uniroyal, Inc.; United Engineers & Constructors and Washington Group International; Viacom, Inc.; Vimasco Corporation; West Virginia State Electric Supply Company; and Yale Materials Handling Corporation. (wvrecord.com)

Charleston, WV: George L. Rawson Sr, and his wife are suing 80 companies they claim are responsible for Mr. Rawson’s lung cancer diagnosis.

Rawson Sr. was diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer on January 15, 2010, according to the lawsuit. Rawson alleges that between 1964 and 1997 he was exposed to asbestos through his work as a laborer.

The defendant companies are being sued based on theories of negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy, misrepresentations and post-sale duty to warn, according to the lawsuit.

The 80 companies named as defendants are: A.W. Chesterton Company, Inc.; Air & Liquid Systems Corporation; Ajax Magnethermic Corporation; Allied Glove Corporation; American Bridge Company; Armstrong International, Inc.; Aurora Pump Company; Beazer East, Inc.; Bechtel Corporation; Borg-Warner Corporation; Catalytic Construction Company; Cleaver Brooks Company, Inc.; Columbus McKinnon Corporation; Crane Co.; Dravo Corporation; Eaton Electrical, Inc.; F.B. Wright Company; Fairmont Supply Company; Flowserve FSD Corporation; Flowserve US, Inc.; FMC Corporation; Ford Motor Company; Foseco, Inc.; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; General Electric Company; Genuine Parts Company; Geo. V. Hamilton, Inc.; Gordon Gasket & Packing Co.; Goulds Pumps; Graybar Electric Company, Inc.; Grinnell, LLC; Hercules, Inc.; Honeywell International; Honeywell, Inc.; Howden North America, Inc.; I.U. North America, Inc.; IMO Industries, Inc.; Inductotherm Industries, Inc.; Industrial Holdings Corporation; Ingersoll-Rand Company; Insul Company, Inc.; ITT Corporation; John Crane, Inc.; Lockheed Martin Corporation; Mallinckrodt; McJunkin Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Morgan Engineering Systems, Inc.; Mueller Steam Specialty; Nagle Pumps, Inc.; Oglebay Norton Company; Ohio Valley Insulating Company, Inc.; Owens-Illinois, Inc.; P&H Mining Equipment, Inc.; Premier Refractories, Inc.; Rapid American Corporation; Reading Crane; Riley Power, Inc.; Rockwell Automation, Inc.; Rust Constructors, Inc.; Rust Engineering & Construction, Inc.; Rust International, Inc.; Schneider Electric USA, Inc.; Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC; Sunbeam Corporation; Swindell Dressier International Corporation; Tasco Insulations, Inc.; The Alliance Machine Company; The Gage Company; The Rust Engineering Company; The Sager Corporation; The William Powell Company; Thiem Corp.; UB West Virginia, Inc.; United Engineers & Constructors and Washington Group International; Viacom, Inc.; Vimasco Corporation; Warren Pumps, Inc.; Yarway Corporation; and Zurn Industries, LLC. (wvrecord.com)

Charleston, WV: Sixty companies have been named as defendants in an asbestos lawsuit filed by the widow of the late Jimmy Dale Phillips. In her lawsuit, Barbara Phillips claims the defendants are responsible for Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Asbestos, asbestos lawsuit, Asbestos Settlement, asbestosis, asbestos_mesothelioma, mesothelioma, NSL
Posted in Asbestos Mesothelioma, lawsuits, Settlement | 9437No Comments »Asbestos+News+Roundup%3A+2.2.122012-02-02+21%3A09%3A14LucyC