Forget what you think you know about “bad faith.” Here’s what it actually means.
The Denial and the Deception
My insurance company denied my claim for a reason that felt unfair. I told my friends they were acting in “bad faith.” I was wrong. “Bad faith” is not a feeling; it’s a specific legal claim. It doesn’t mean the insurer made a mistake or that you disagree with their decision. It means the insurance company unreasonably denied or delayed payment of a claim without any proper cause. It implies a level of conscious wrongdoing or deception. It’s a very high legal bar to clear, and it’s far more than just a simple disagreement.
Stop signing contracts without a lawyer’s review of the insurance requirements. Chase proper risk transfer instead.
The Contract and the Uncovered Catastrophe
My company signed a big contract with a new client. I just glanced at the insurance requirements section; it seemed like standard boilerplate. It wasn’t. After an incident, we discovered the contract required us to carry a specific type of insurance we didn’t have and to indemnify the client for things that were not our fault. We had contractually accepted a massive amount of risk without realizing it. I learned to stop signing and start reviewing. A lawyer’s review of the insurance clause is the only way to ensure you are properly transferring risk, not just blindly accepting it.
The hidden truth about state insurance regulations that carriers won’t admit.
The Rulebook They Have to Follow
After my claim was unfairly denied, I felt powerless. The hidden truth my insurer didn’t want me to know is that they are not a law unto themselves. The entire industry is governed by a detailed set of state regulations, often called the “Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act.” This act dictates how quickly they must respond to you, the reasons for which they can deny a claim, and the penalties for their failure to comply. Your state’s Department of Insurance is the referee, and their rulebook gives you far more power than you think.
What nobody tells you about navigating insurance litigation.
The Marathon, Not the Sprint
What nobody tells you about suing your insurance company is that it is not a sprint; it is a brutal, slow, and expensive marathon. The insurance company’s legal strategy is designed to wear you down. They will use a “scorched earth” approach—endless motions, lengthy depositions, and constant delays. Their goal is to make the process so financially and emotionally draining that you will eventually give up and accept a lowball settlement. To win, you need the financial resources and the emotional stamina to go the distance.
I spent my career as an insurance defense attorney. Here’s what I learned.
The War of Attrition
I spent 20 years defending insurance companies in lawsuits. Here’s what I learned. Our primary strategy was rarely about the facts of the case. It was a war of attrition. We knew the policyholder had limited resources. We would intentionally drag out the discovery process, file dozens of procedural motions, and make the litigation as expensive as possible. Our goal was to make the cost of fighting so high that the policyholder would be forced to accept a settlement for a fraction of what their claim was actually worth. It wasn’t about justice; it was about economics.
Unpopular opinion: The “duty to defend” is more valuable than the “duty to indemnify.”
The Defense and the Dollars
Your liability insurance policy has two promises: the “duty to indemnify” (to pay the final judgment) and the “duty to defend” (to pay for your lawyers). Here’s the unpopular opinion: the duty to defend is often far more valuable. In a complex lawsuit, the legal fees to defend the case can easily be hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars. Even if you ultimately win the case and the insurer pays zero in indemnity, they may have spent a fortune on your legal defense. That upfront promise to pay for the fight is often the most important one.
90% of business owners don’t understand this about certificates of insurance (COIs).
The Certificate Is Not a Contract
Business owners will diligently collect Certificates of Insurance (COIs) from their vendors, file them away, and feel protected. They don’t understand that a COI is not an insurance policy. It is not a contract. It is just a snapshot of information on the day it was issued. It does not guarantee that the policy is still in effect, and it does not grant you any rights under that policy. A COI is a piece of paper that is almost worthless as a risk management tool unless it is combined with a proper contract and an additional insured endorsement.
This simple change to our master service agreement transformed our liability.
The “Sole and Exclusive Remedy” Clause
We used to have constant disputes with clients over minor service issues, and they would often threaten to sue us for massive “consequential damages.” We made a simple change to our master service agreement that transformed our liability. We added a “sole and exclusive remedy” clause. This clause states that if we fail to perform, the client’s only remedy is a refund of our fees for that specific service. It contractually prevents them from suing us for their lost profits or other speculative damages. It put a reasonable cap on our risk.
You’re not losing in court because of the facts. It’s because of spoliation of evidence.
The Deleted Email and the Devastating Sanction
We were in a lawsuit and we thought our case was strong. We lost before it even went to trial. Why? Because after the lawsuit was filed, one of our employees deleted a series of relevant emails, thinking they were being helpful. The other side’s lawyer found out and filed a motion for “spoliation of evidence.” The judge was so furious at our destruction of evidence that he issued a devastating sanction against us that ended the case. We didn’t lose on the facts; we lost because we broke the rules of litigation.
Stop accepting standard insurance provisions in contracts. Negotiate them instead.
The Boilerplate and the Battle You’ve Already Lost
When you sign a contract with a big company, they will have a section on “insurance requirements.” It looks like standard boilerplate language. It’s not. It’s a carefully crafted legal weapon designed to transfer all the risk onto you. It will require you to carry high limits, to name them as an “additional insured,” and to have your insurance be “primary and non-contributory.” Stop just accepting this language. You have the right to negotiate these provisions to be fairer and more reasonable. If you don’t, you’ve lost the insurance battle before it even starts.
The uncomfortable truth about how insurance companies use litigation to delay payment.
The Delay Tactic and the Depleted Bank Account
The uncomfortable truth is that insurance companies often use the legal system itself as a tool to delay paying a valid claim. They know that litigation is slow and expensive. By filing a “declaratory judgment action” and forcing you into court, they can often delay having to pay a claim for years. During that time, they are still earning investment income on the money that rightfully belongs to you. Their goal is to make the process so long and painful that you will eventually be desperate enough to accept a much lower settlement.
Why everything you know about Additional Insured endorsements is backwards.
The Endorsement That Protects Them, Not You
You get a contract that requires you to name the other party as an “Additional Insured” on your policy. You think this is a collaborative way to share protection. It’s backwards. An Additional Insured endorsement is not about protecting you. It is a one-way street that extends your insurance policy to protect them. If their negligence causes an accident and they get sued, your policy is now on the hook to defend them. It’s a powerful risk transfer tool that you are providing for their benefit, often for free.
I tried to rely on a Certificate of Insurance as proof of coverage. It was a disaster in court.
The Certificate and the Cold, Hard Contract
I hired a contractor who gave me a Certificate of Insurance (COI). I thought it was my proof that he was insured. Then, his work caused a major fire. It turned out his policy had been cancelled a week before he started my job. In court, the COI was worthless. The judge explained that the certificate itself clearly states it “confers no rights upon the certificate holder.” It is not a contract. The only thing that mattered was the actual insurance policy, which no longer existed.
Hot take: A reservation of rights letter is the first step toward a lawsuit.
The Letter and the Legal War
You get a “reservation of rights” letter from your insurer after a claim. Your agent tells you it’s a standard procedure. Hot take: it’s not. It is the first, formal, legal step in the process of your insurance company building a case to deny your claim. It is their way of telling you that they are investigating your claim with the specific intention of looking for a reason not to cover it. The moment you receive that letter, you should stop thinking of your insurer as a partner and start thinking of them as a future legal adversary.
Most lawyers waste hours arguing about facts. Focus on the policy language instead.
The Facts and the Futile Fight
I’ve seen so many lawyers in insurance disputes waste hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars arguing about the facts of what happened. While the facts are important, they are often secondary. The most important thing in any insurance dispute is the specific language of the policy contract. Does the policy define “occurrence” in a way that covers this event? Is there a specific exclusion that applies? A lawyer who starts with a deep, technical analysis of the policy language will always have a better strategy than one who just argues about the facts.
The 15-minute habit that replaced my fear of getting sued.
The Document and the Discipline
I used to live with a constant, low-grade fear of being sued. I replaced that fear with a simple 15-minute habit. At the end of every single workday, I take fifteen minutes to document my day. I send follow-up emails confirming any important conversations. I make sure my project files are organized. I update my task list. This simple discipline of daily documentation has created an incredible paper trail. I no longer fear a lawsuit, because I know that my actions are so well-documented that any baseless claim would be easy to defend.
Your legal problem isn’t the lawsuit itself. It’s your failure to give timely notice to your insurer.
The Notice and the Negation of Coverage
You get served with a lawsuit. You panic. You spend a week talking to lawyers before you even think to notify your insurance company. This can be a fatal mistake. Every insurance policy has a condition that requires you to give “prompt notice” of any claim or potential claim. If you wait too long, the insurance company can, and will, deny your claim for “late notice.” They will argue that your delay has prejudiced their ability to investigate and defend the case. Your real legal problem isn’t the plaintiff; it’s your own failure to follow the rules of your policy.
If you’re not getting a “waiver of subrogation” from your vendors, you’re already losing.
The Waiver and the War You Avoided
You hire a vendor, and their work accidentally causes a fire that damages your property. Your insurance company pays for your damages. Then, your insurer uses its right of “subrogation” to sue your vendor to get that money back. This creates a messy, adversarial situation with a company you may want to work with again. The solution is to require your vendors to give you a “waiver of subrogation.” This is an endorsement where their insurer agrees not to sue you. It’s a simple, professional way to prevent a future war.
Stop glorifying aggressive litigation. Start with a well-worded demand letter.
The Lawsuit and the Letter
Our first instinct when we were wronged by another company was to call our lawyer and tell him to “sue them.” We glorified the idea of aggressive litigation. This was a mistake. A lawsuit is a blunt, slow, and incredibly expensive instrument. We learned to start with a different tool: a firm, professional, and well-worded “demand letter” from our attorney. A letter that clearly outlines the facts, the legal basis for our claim, and the specific damages we are seeking, is often enough to bring the other side to the negotiating table without ever having to file a lawsuit.
The real cost of a “nuisance value” settlement that nobody calculates.
The Settlement and the Lingering Stain
We were hit with a frivolous lawsuit. Our insurer, wanting to avoid the cost of a legal defense, decided to settle it for a small “nuisance value” amount. We thought it was a smart, economic decision. We didn’t calculate the real cost. The settlement became a part of our company’s permanent claims history. At our next insurance renewal, our premium skyrocketed because we now had a “history” of being sued. That “cheap” settlement ended up costing us a fortune in higher premiums for years to come.
What experienced attorneys do with declaratory judgment actions that others don’t.
The “Dec Action” and the Offensive Strike
When an insurance company denies our claim, a novice attorney will just start fighting with the adjuster. An experienced coverage attorney does something different. They will often go on the offensive and file a “declaratory judgment action” or “dec action.” This is a lawsuit that doesn’t ask for money; it just asks the court for a binding declaration of the rights and duties of each party under the insurance contract. It is a powerful, strategic move that can resolve the core coverage dispute much faster than a traditional, long-winded lawsuit.
The myth of the “bulletproof” contract is destroying your risk management.
The Contract and the Cracks
My company spent a fortune having our lawyers draft what we thought was a “bulletproof” contract. We thought it protected us from everything. This is a dangerous myth. A contract is just one single layer of your risk management program. It cannot stop a person from being negligent. It cannot stop a natural disaster. And its provisions can be overturned by a judge. The belief in a “bulletproof” contract can lead to a false sense of security and a failure to invest in the other critical layers of protection, like insurance and safety programs.
I quit using a general practice lawyer for my insurance dispute and hired a specialist.
The Generalist and the Giant
My general practice lawyer, who was great for my business contracts, was trying to handle a major insurance dispute for me. He was getting crushed. He was up against a giant law firm that did nothing but insurance defense work. He was out of his depth. I quit using him and hired a specialist “policyholder-side” coverage attorney. The difference was night and day. The specialist knew the law, the tactics, and the players. He spoke their language. For a specialized fight, you need a specialized warrior.
Controversial: Your insurer-appointed defense counsel is not entirely on your side.
The Counsel and the Conflict
Your insurer has a duty to defend you, and they appoint a lawyer to handle your case. You think this lawyer works for you. Here’s the controversy: they don’t, not entirely. The lawyer is in a “tripartite relationship.” They have a duty to you, their client, but they are also being paid by the insurance company. This creates an inherent, and often unspoken, conflict of interest. Their desire to keep the insurer happy (and to keep getting more cases from them) can sometimes influence their legal strategy in ways that may not be in your absolute best interest.
95% of online legal advice about insurance is wrong. Here’s why.
The Blog and the Bogus Advice
The internet is full of legal advice about insurance. 95% of it is wrong, or at least dangerously incomplete. Why? Because insurance law is incredibly specific to each state. A legal principle that is true in California might be the exact opposite in Texas. The advice you are reading online is generic. It doesn’t, and can’t, account for the unique statutes and case law of your specific jurisdiction. Getting your legal advice from a blog post is like getting medical advice from a stranger; it’s a recipe for disaster.
One small change to our “notice” provision saved us from a late notice claim denial.
The Notice and the “No Prejudice” Clause
Our company’s liability policy required us to give “prompt notice” of any claim. This vague requirement worried me. What if we were a little late? Our broker manuscripted the policy with one small change. He added the phrase, “late notice shall not void coverage unless the insurer can prove it was materially prejudiced by the delay.” This was a huge protection. It meant the insurer couldn’t deny our claim on a simple technicality. They would have to prove that our delay actually harmed their ability to defend the case.
The truth about how state DOI complaints are handled that regulators profit from hiding.
The Complaint and the Counting, Not the Judging
You file a formal complaint against your insurance company with your state’s Department of Insurance (DOI). You think a regulator is going to launch a deep investigation and rule in your favor. The truth is, that’s not what usually happens. For the most part, the DOI just acts as a post office. They forward your complaint to the insurer and ask for a response. Their primary function is to track the number of complaints against each company. While a complaint can sometimes get a claim unstuck, the DOI is not a courtroom, and they rarely “judge” the merits of your specific case.
Stop accepting a boilerplate “indemnification” clause. It’s killing your business.
The Indemnity and the Insanity
You are signing a contract with a client, and it has a boilerplate “indemnification” clause. It probably says that you agree to “indemnify, defend, and hold harmless” the client for “any and all claims” arising from your work. Stop accepting this. This insane, one-sided language could make you responsible for the client’s own negligence. You should always negotiate this clause to be “proportional,” meaning you only indemnify the client for your share of the fault. Accepting the boilerplate is accepting a massive, and often uninsured, contractual liability.
Replace your verbal agreements with written and signed contracts. Thank me later.
The Handshake and the Headache
I know it feels easier and friendlier to operate on a verbal agreement or a handshake. I did it for years. It was a constant source of headaches, misunderstandings, and disputes. I replaced all of it with a simple rule: everything must be in a written and signed contract. It doesn’t have to be a 50-page legal document. A simple, one-page agreement that outlines the scope, the price, and the terms is enough. This one discipline has eliminated 99% of my business disputes. You will thank me later.
The legal secret that could force your insurer to pay for your independent counsel.
The Conflict and the “Cumis” Counsel
Your insurer sends you a “reservation of rights” letter, creating a conflict of interest. They appoint a defense lawyer for you. The secret is that in many states (starting with a California case called Cumis), this conflict gives you the right to hire your own, independent lawyer, and to force the insurance company to pay for it. You do not have to accept their conflicted, company-appointed counsel. This right to “Cumis counsel” is a powerful tool that allows you to take back control of your own legal defense.
Why your traditional legal strategy fails against a multi-billion dollar insurance company.
The David and Goliath Delusion
You have a dispute with your insurance company, and you hire a lawyer who treats it like any other business lawsuit. Your strategy will fail. You are not fighting another business; you are fighting a multi-billion dollar institution that has a department of hundreds of lawyers who do nothing but fight these cases all day long. They have more money, more time, and more experience than you do. A traditional legal strategy will get crushed. You need a specialist coverage lawyer who understands the unique tactics and pressures of this very specific type of warfare.
I ignored my coverage counsel’s advice for years. It cost me my defense.
The Counsel and the Catastrophe
For years, my company used a top law firm for our business litigation. My lawyer there, a specialist in insurance coverage, always told me our liability policies had dangerous gaps. I ignored his advice because changing our insurance was a hassle. Then we were hit with a major lawsuit. As he had predicted, our insurer denied our claim based on an exclusion we could have fixed years earlier. We were left without a defense. My failure to listen to my own expert’s advice cost my company millions.
Let’s be honest: The legal system is tilted in the insurer’s favor.
The Level and the Leaning Playing Field
Let’s be honest. When you have a dispute with your insurance company, you are not starting on a level playing field. The legal system is tilted in their favor. They wrote the complex contract you are fighting over. They have virtually unlimited financial resources to spend on lawyers. And the courts are often overwhelmed and reluctant to rule against a large insurer. While you have rights, you must go into the fight with the clear-eyed understanding that the deck is stacked against you.
87% of contractors get managing COIs from subcontractors wrong. Don’t be one of them.
The Certificate and the Catastrophic Failure
Most general contractors think that just collecting a Certificate of Insurance (COI) from their subcontractors is enough. They are getting it wrong. A COI is just a starting point. A professional program involves reading the subcontractor’s actual policy to check for dangerous exclusions. It involves getting a specific “additional insured” endorsement that protects you. And it involves using a tracking system to make sure the policy doesn’t get cancelled mid-project. Just collecting the paper is a recipe for a catastrophic failure.
This weird habit of reading the case law cited in a denial letter outperforms arguing with the adjuster every time.
The Case and the Core of the Argument
When an insurance company denies my claim, they will often cite a few court cases in their denial letter to support their position. My weird habit is that before I even call the adjuster to argue, I go and read those cases. Understanding the legal precedent they are relying on gives me incredible insight into the core of their argument. It allows me to either find flaws in their logic or to understand the legal reality of my situation. It’s a habit that turns an emotional argument into a legal and strategic analysis.
The real reason your lawsuit is dragging on for years (hint: it’s not the court’s schedule).
The Delay and the Insurer’s Deeper Strategy
Your lawsuit with your insurance company has been dragging on for years, and you blame the slow court system. That’s not the real reason. The delay is a deliberate strategy by the insurance company. They know that you, the policyholder, are bleeding cash every single day the case is delayed. You have a business to run. They don’t. Time is their greatest weapon. Their goal is to make the process so long and so painful that you will eventually be forced to accept a settlement for a fraction of what you are owed.
Ditch your handshake deals. Use a formal contract with insurance requirements instead.
The Handshake and the Uninsured Hazard
For years, I hired a specific contractor based on a handshake. He did good work and I trusted him. Then, one of his employees was badly injured on my property. It turned out my friend, the contractor, had let his insurance lapse. Because there was no contract with insurance requirements, I was now facing a massive, uninsured lawsuit. I learned a hard lesson that day. Ditch the handshake. A formal contract, with clear, verified insurance requirements, is the only way to protect yourself from the mistakes of others.
Stop pretending you understand the “parol evidence rule.” Ask your lawyer.
The Rule and the Ruled-Out Evidence
You are in a contract dispute. You want to tell the judge about the verbal promises the other side made to you before you signed the contract. You probably can’t. You need to understand the “parol evidence rule.” This legal rule says that if you have a written contract that is intended to be the final, complete agreement, then any prior or contemporaneous verbal agreements or promises are inadmissible in court. The only thing that matters is what is written inside the four corners of the document. Ask your lawyer about it.
The 9-word phrase that changed how I think about insurance contract interpretation.
Ambiguity is always construed against the drafter.
I used to be intimidated by the dense, confusing language in an insurance policy. My lawyer told me a 9-word phrase that changed my perspective forever: “Ambiguity is always construed against the drafter.” This is a fundamental principle of contract law. Because the insurance company wrote the contract, if a provision is vague or ambiguous, a court will be required to interpret it in the way that is most favorable to me, the policyholder. This principle is a powerful shield against a company trying to use confusing language to deny a claim.
What the insurance defense industry doesn’t want you to know about their billing practices.
The Bill and the Bloated Hours
What the big insurance defense law firms don’t want you to know is how they bill. They often use a “block billing” method, where they will bill for a large chunk of time for multiple tasks, making it impossible to see how long each task actually took. They will also have multiple lawyers attend the same meeting or review the same document, all billing for their time. These practices can lead to massively inflated legal bills that are ultimately paid by the insurance company, a cost that is passed on to you in your premiums.
I was today years old when I learned about the “tripartite relationship” in insurance defense.
The Triangle of Tension
I was today years old when I learned about the “tripartite relationship.” When my insurance company hired a lawyer to defend me, I thought he was my lawyer. He is, but he is also being paid by the insurance company. This creates a “tripartite” or triangular relationship between me, my lawyer, and the insurer. It is a relationship that is full of potential conflicts of interest. The lawyer is serving two masters at once, and it is a fundamental concept you must understand to navigate a defended lawsuit.
Normalize demanding independent counsel when your insurer issues a reservation of rights.
The Reservation and the Right to Your Own Lawyer
When your insurance company issues a “reservation of rights” letter, they are creating a conflict of interest. They are telling you that they will defend you, but they are reserving the right to not pay the final judgment. In this situation, you should normalize demanding that they pay for you to hire your own, independent legal counsel. In many states, you have a legal right to this. You do not have to accept the conflicted lawyer that they appoint for you. You have the right to an advocate who is 100% on your side.
Plot twist: Your biggest legal risk isn’t the plaintiff. It’s your own insurance company.
The Plaintiff and the Policy Dispute
You get sued, and you think your biggest legal battle is with the plaintiff. The plot twist is that your biggest, most expensive, and most difficult legal fight will often be with your own insurance company. The plaintiff’s case might be simple, but the insurance coverage dispute can be a labyrinth of complex legal arguments over policy language. I’ve seen companies win the underlying lawsuit, only to go bankrupt from the cost of fighting their own insurer over who should have paid for the defense.
The legal motion everyone ignores that gives me an edge in a coverage dispute.
The Motion and the Momentum Shift
When I am in a coverage dispute with an insurer, there is a legal motion that everyone ignores but that gives me a huge edge. It’s called a “motion for summary judgment.” Instead of waiting years for a full trial, I can ask the judge to rule on the core legal issue of policy interpretation upfront. If the meaning of the policy language is clear, the judge can decide the case without a jury. This can be a fast, efficient, and cost-effective way to win a coverage dispute and to shift the entire momentum of the case in my favor.
Stop optimizing for a quick settlement. Optimize for a legally sound position.
The Settlement and the Shaky Ground
In a legal dispute, the temptation is always to get a quick settlement and make the problem go away. This can be a mistake. A quick settlement is often a sign of a weak legal position. I learned to stop optimizing for speed and to start optimizing for a legally sound position. By taking the time to build a strong, well-documented case, I am negotiating from a position of strength, not desperation. This often leads to a much better, and more durable, final settlement.
The brutal truth about why your general counsel isn’t qualified to handle a complex insurance claim.
The GC and the Generalist’s Gamble
Your company’s General Counsel (GC) is a brilliant lawyer and a trusted advisor. Here’s the brutal truth: they are probably not qualified to handle a major, complex insurance claim. Insurance law is a highly specialized, and deeply weird, area of the law. A GC who is a generalist in corporate law will be completely out of their depth when faced with the arcane language and unique legal doctrines of an insurance policy. For a serious insurance dispute, you need a specialist coverage lawyer. Relying on your GC is a dangerous gamble.
Throw away your old contracts. It’s making you worse at risk transfer.
The Old and the Outdated
You’ve been using the same client contract for ten years. It’s comfortable. It’s also probably making you worse at managing risk. The legal landscape has changed. New court cases have changed the way that key clauses, like indemnification, are interpreted. Your old contract is full of outdated language that may no longer be enforceable. You need to throw it away and have a lawyer draft a new one that reflects the current legal reality. An old contract is a liability, not an asset.
The 5-minute test that reveals if a contract’s insurance clause is actually enforceable.
The Clause and the CGL
Here’s a 5-minute test to see if a contract’s insurance requirements are written by a pro or an amateur. Look at the clause. Does it specifically require the other party to have a “Commercial General Liability” (CGL) policy written on an “ISO occurrence form”? Does it specify that the “additional insured” status must be provided via a specific ISO endorsement form (like the CG 20 10)? If it just vaguely says “general liability,” it was written by an amateur and may be unenforceable. The specifics are everything.
Why everyone is wrong about what a “breach of contract” by an insurer looks like.
The Breach and the Bad Faith
Most people think that for an insurer to have “breached” their contract, they have to have done something dramatic, like maliciously denying a valid claim. Everyone is wrong about this. A breach of contract can be much more subtle. If the insurer fails to defend you properly, if they unreasonably delay payment of an undisputed portion of a claim, or if they fail to settle a case within your policy limits when they had the chance, they may have breached the contract. It’s not just about the final “no”; it’s about their conduct throughout the entire process.
Stop asking “can they do that?”. Ask “what does the policy and the law in this state say?” instead.
The “Can” and the Contract
When an insurance company does something that seems unfair, the first question everyone asks is, “Can they legally do that?” It’s the wrong question. It doesn’t matter if they “can” do it. The only question that matters is, “What does the specific language of our insurance contract, as interpreted by the specific laws of our state, say about this issue?” Insurance disputes are not about fairness; they are about the cold, hard interpretation of a legal contract within a specific legal jurisdiction.
The habit of creating a “privilege log” that I wish I’d started before our first lawsuit.
The Privilege and the Protection
During our first lawsuit, we accidentally turned over a series of confidential emails between our company and our lawyer to the other side. It was a disaster. We had waived our “attorney-client privilege.” I wish I had known about the habit of creating a “privilege log.” This is a formal document that lists every communication that you are withholding from discovery because it is privileged. It is a meticulous and disciplined process that protects your most sensitive legal communications from the prying eyes of your opponent.
Here’s why generic legal advice from the internet is terrible for insurance disputes.
The Internet and the Irrelevant Advice
You have an insurance dispute, so you go online and search for legal advice. This is a terrible idea. Insurance law is one of the most state-specific areas of the law. A legal principle that is true in Florida might be the complete opposite of the law in Oregon. The generic advice you are reading online doesn’t, and can’t, account for the unique statutes, regulations, and court precedents of your specific state. It is not just useless; it is dangerously misleading.
I’ll say what everyone’s thinking: Your insurer is hoping you can’t afford to sue them.
The Lawsuit and the Lack of Funds
Let’s just say what every policyholder who has been in a dispute is thinking. Your insurance company is not just making a legal calculation when they deny your claim; they are making a financial one. They are betting on the fact that you, the policyholder, will not have the financial resources to hire an expensive law firm and to fund a multi-year legal battle against them. Their decision to deny your claim is often a calculated gamble on your inability to afford justice.
The skill of legal research that matters more than an aggressive lawyer.
The Research and the Real Advantage
Many people think that the key to winning a legal battle is hiring the most aggressive, “bulldog” lawyer they can find. This is a myth. The skill that matters far more is the skill of deep, meticulous legal research. A lawyer who can find that one, obscure court case that is directly on point with your situation, or that one sentence in a statute that the other side has overlooked, has a much greater advantage than a lawyer who just yells a lot. The real battles are won in the library, not just in the courtroom.
This counterintuitive action of suing our own insurer fixed our stalled claim.
The Lawsuit and the Leverage
Our claim had been stalled for almost a year. The adjuster was unresponsive, and we were getting nowhere. We took a counterintuitive and scary step: we sued our own insurance company. We weren’t even trying to go to trial. The simple act of filing the lawsuit changed the entire dynamic. The claim was immediately taken away from the adjuster and assigned to a senior claims manager and a lawyer. They were suddenly motivated to resolve the issue. The lawsuit was the leverage we needed to get them to take us seriously.
Why your good intention of “cooperating” with your insurer’s investigation can actually waive your rights.
The Cooperation and the Waiver
Your policy requires you to “cooperate” with your insurer’s investigation of a claim. Your good intention is to be an open book. This can be a trap. If you voluntarily provide information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, or if you give a recorded statement without your lawyer present, you can be seen as having “waived” your legal rights. Cooperation has its limits. You must cooperate, but you do not have to give up your fundamental legal protections in the process.
Quit using email to transmit sensitive legal information about a claim. It’s not worth the risk.
The Email and the Eavesdropper
You are in a legal dispute with your insurer, and you are communicating with your lawyer via email. Quit doing this. Email is not a secure method of communication. It can be hacked, it can be forwarded, and it can be inadvertently sent to the wrong person. For your most sensitive legal communications—your strategy, your settlement numbers, your assessment of your weaknesses—you should be using a secure, encrypted client portal provided by your law firm. The convenience of email is not worth the risk of your legal opponent reading your playbook.
The metric everyone tracks (legal fees) that means absolutely nothing if you lose coverage for a multi-million dollar judgment.
The Fees and the Financial Folly
In an insurance dispute, the board of directors will often be obsessed with the metric of legal fees. They want to keep the cost of the fight as low as possible. This is a vanity metric. It means absolutely nothing if your strategy of saving a few thousand dollars on legal fees results in you losing coverage for a multi-million dollar judgment. The true measure of success is not the cost of the fight; it is the ultimate outcome of the coverage dispute.
Stop calling it a “dispute.” Call it a “potential bad faith action.”
The Dispute and the Duty of Good Faith
I used to refer to my disagreements with my insurer as a “dispute.” My lawyer taught me to change my language. He told me to start calling it a “potential bad faith action.” Why? Because it reframes the conversation. It reminds the insurance company that they have a legal “duty of good faith and fair dealing,” and that if they breach that duty, they could be on the hook for damages far greater than the original claim amount. It is a subtle, but powerful, way to signal that you know your rights and you are prepared to enforce them.
The decision I made to reject the insurer-appointed counsel that everyone said was crazy (but worked).
The Rejection and the Right to My Own Representation
After I was sued, my insurer appointed a defense lawyer for me from their “panel” of approved firms. I met with the lawyer, and I didn’t feel confident in his expertise. I made a decision that everyone said was crazy: I formally rejected the insurer’s choice of counsel. I argued that he was not qualified, and I demanded that they pay for me to hire a specific specialist firm that I trusted. It was a fight, but because my position was reasonable, the insurer eventually agreed. I learned that you do not have to blindly accept their choice of lawyer.
What I learned from being deposed by an insurance company lawyer that changed everything.
The Deposition and the Discipline
Being deposed by a skilled insurance company lawyer is a brutal experience. They are masters at asking questions designed to confuse you and to get you to contradict yourself. What I learned from that experience changed my entire approach to business. I learned the incredible value of discipline and precision in my communication. I learned to listen carefully, to only answer the question that was asked, and to never, ever speculate. That deposition was a masterclass in the power of disciplined, precise language.
The common mistake of ignoring the “choice of law” provision in a policy that’s costing you your case.
The Choice and the Consequence
At the very back of your insurance policy is a clause that everyone ignores: the “choice of law” provision. It states which state’s law will be used to interpret the contract. This is a critically important, and often negotiable, provision. The insurance laws in Delaware might be much more favorable to the insurance company than the laws in California. By ignoring this clause, you may have unknowingly agreed to have your dispute decided in a state that puts you at a massive legal disadvantage.
PSA: A Certificate of Insurance confers no rights. Here’s proof from case law.
The Certificate and the Court’s Cold Conclusion
Here is a public service announcement, backed up by decades of court cases. A Certificate of Insurance (COI) is a worthless document for proving coverage. It almost always contains the following sentence: “This certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder.” Courts have consistently and repeatedly ruled that this sentence means exactly what it says. You cannot rely on a COI to create coverage that does not otherwise exist. It is for information only. Period.
The skill of legal writing that law schools should teach but don’t for coverage disputes.
The Brief and the Power of a Good Story
Law schools teach students to write dry, academic legal briefs. In an insurance coverage dispute, this is not enough. The skill that lawyers should be taught is the skill of storytelling. A great coverage brief doesn’t just recite the law; it tells a compelling story. It frames the facts in a way that makes the insurance company’s denial seem unreasonable and unfair. It leads the judge to a conclusion that is not just legally correct, but also feels just. The ability to craft a powerful narrative is a lawyer’s greatest weapon.
This 5-minute action of checking your state’s Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act beats complaining to your agent every time.
The Act and the Ammunition
When you are having a problem with your claim, complaining to your agent is usually a waste of time. A much more powerful 5-minute action is to go online and read your state’s “Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act.” This law outlines the specific actions that an insurance company is legally prohibited from doing—things like failing to acknowledge a claim promptly or not providing a reasonable explanation for a denial. Reading this act gives you the specific language and the legal ammunition you need to hold your insurer accountable for their bad behavior.
Why that big law firm is actually doing it wrong for mid-market insurance disputes.
The Big Firm and the “B-Team”
You have a major insurance dispute, so you hire a big, famous law firm. You think you are getting their best. You are probably not. For a mid-market case, a big firm will often assign the file to their “B-Team”—a junior partner and a team of young associates. They will use your case as a training ground. You are often much better off hiring a smaller, “boutique” law firm where a senior, experienced partner will actually be handling your file personally. Don’t be fooled by the big name; demand the experienced lawyer.
Stop waiting for a denial letter to hire coverage counsel. Start when you get a reservation of rights.
The Reservation and the Race to Get Representation
Most people wait until after their claim has been officially denied before they even think about hiring an insurance coverage lawyer. This is a huge mistake. The race has already started, and you are far behind. The moment you receive a “reservation of rights” letter from your insurer, you should be on the phone with a specialist lawyer. That letter is the starting gun. It means the insurance company is already building its case against you. You need to get your own expert counsel involved immediately to level the playing field.
The “Cumis counsel” concept I use that most policyholders have never heard of.
The Conflict and the Right to Independent Counsel
“Cumis counsel” is a legal concept, born from a California court case, that most policyholders have never heard of, but it is incredibly powerful. It says that if your insurance company defends you under a “reservation of rights,” they have created a conflict of interest. And because of that conflict, you have the right to select your own, independent lawyer, and the insurance company has to pay the bill. You do not have to use the conflicted lawyer they appoint for you. Knowing this one term gives you immense leverage.
Your legal problem exists because you believe the insurance contract is written in plain English.
The Plain English and the Hidden Meaning
Your insurance policy might look like it’s written in plain English. It is not. It is a legal document where every single word has a specific, legally defined meaning that has been litigated in court for a hundred years. The word “occurrence” or “property damage” does not mean what you think it means; it means what a generation of court cases has decided it means. Your legal problem exists because you are reading the policy like a regular person, but the insurance company is reading it like a lawyer.
Delete that “legal advice” app. Your case will improve instantly.
The App and the Absence of Real Advice
There are new apps that promise to provide “legal advice” using AI. Delete them. An app cannot understand the unique facts of your case. It cannot exercise professional judgment. It does not have a license to practice law. And it cannot represent you in court. Real legal advice requires a confidential relationship with a qualified, human lawyer who understands your specific situation. The “advice” from an app is not just worthless; it’s a dangerous substitute for the real thing.
The advice on statutory penalties for bad faith I give that makes insurance lawyers uncomfortable (but works).
The Penalty and the Pressure Point
Here’s advice that makes insurance company lawyers very uncomfortable. In your first demand letter, you should always include a detailed section outlining the specific “bad faith” laws in your state, including the potential for statutory penalties, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. You are not just asking for your claim to be paid; you are politely reminding them of the massive financial penalty they could face if they are found to have acted in bad faith. This creates a powerful pressure point that often leads to a more reasonable negotiation.
Why the common fear of litigation is irrational and the real fear of waiving your rights is ignored.
The Fear of the Fight vs. The Fear of the Forfeiture
People are often so afraid of the cost and stress of litigation that they will do anything to avoid it. This is an irrational fear. The real, rational fear that you should have is the fear of unknowingly “waiving” your legal rights by waiting too long to act, by giving a recorded statement, or by signing a poorly worded release. The fear of a fight can lead you to forfeit your rights without even knowing it. It is better to have a difficult fight to enforce your rights than to have no rights left to fight for.
I tried to use my corporate lawyer for a coverage case so you don’t have to. Here’s what happened.
The Corporate and the Coverage Catastrophe
I had a major insurance coverage dispute, and I asked my trusted corporate lawyer to handle it. He was a brilliant contract negotiator, but he was not an insurance expert. He was completely outmaneuvered by the insurance company’s specialist lawyers. He missed key deadlines and didn’t understand the nuances of the policy language. It was a catastrophe. I learned that insurance law is a deeply specialized field. You would not use a heart surgeon to set a broken bone. Do not use a corporate lawyer for a coverage case.
The question about “estoppel” that instantly reveals if a lawyer knows insurance law.
The Estoppel and the Expert
When I’m interviewing a lawyer for an insurance case, I ask them this question: “Can you explain to me the principle of ‘promissory estoppel’ and how it might apply in our case?” An expert in insurance law will immediately be able to explain that estoppel is a legal doctrine that can prevent an insurance company from denying a claim if their own prior actions or promises led you to believe you had coverage. An agent who doesn’t know this key principle of insurance law is not the right lawyer for your case.
This old-school method of using a paper trail beats every verbal claim negotiation.
The Paper and the Power
Stop negotiating your claim over the phone. It’s a “he said, she said” trap. I use an old-school method that gives me all the power: a meticulous paper trail. Every single request, every offer, every piece of information is transmitted in writing. It creates a clear, undeniable, and legally admissible record of the entire negotiation. The insurance company’s lawyers know that a clean paper trail is a powerful weapon in court. The moment they see you are building one, their entire approach to your claim will become much more professional.
Stop romanticizing a “collaborative” approach with an insurer who has denied your claim. It’s an adversarial process.
The Collaboration and the Courtroom
After my claim was denied, I tried to take a “collaborative” approach. I thought if I was just nice and reasonable, we could work it out together. Stop romanticizing this idea. The moment your claim is denied, you are no longer in a collaborative relationship. You are in an adversarial legal dispute. The other side is not your partner; they are your opponent. You need to stop acting like a friend and start acting like a professional who is prepared to enforce your contractual rights through the legal system.
The principle of “contra proferentem” that guides every insurance contract dispute I litigate.
The Ambiguity and the Advantage
“Contra proferentem” is a Latin legal term that is the guiding principle of every insurance dispute I litigate. It’s a simple idea: if a clause in a contract is ambiguous, it should be interpreted against the party that drafted it. Because the insurance company wrote the policy, any confusing or ambiguous language will be interpreted by a court in the way that is most favorable to the policyholder. This is one of the most powerful legal principles a policyholder has, and it can be the key to winning a close case.
Why your legal budget is vanity and your ultimate recovery is sanity.
The Budget and the Bottom Line
A company’s board of directors will often be obsessed with the legal budget for an insurance lawsuit. They want to keep the costs down. This is a vanity metric. A low legal budget is meaningless if you lose the case and get zero recovery. The number that represents sanity is the ultimate, net recovery—the amount you get from the insurer minus your legal fees. I would rather pay a lawyer a higher fee to get a multi-million dollar recovery than a low fee for a case that results in nothing.
Forget a quick win. Aim for a legally enforceable settlement instead.
The Win and the Written Agreement
You’ve just had a breakthrough in your negotiation with the insurance company. They’ve verbally agreed to your number. You think you’ve had a quick win. You haven’t. A verbal agreement is not a settlement. The only thing that matters is the final, written settlement and release agreement. I’ve seen insurers try to sneak unfavorable language into the final document. The real win isn’t the handshake; it’s the signature on a clear, fair, and legally enforceable written contract that accurately reflects the deal you made.
The realization that made me hire specialist coverage counsel for every significant claim.
The Specialist and the Strategic Advantage
I used to think any good litigator could handle an insurance claim. That realization changed after my first major dispute. I saw how the insurance company’s lawyers used their deep, specialized knowledge of insurance law to run circles around my generalist attorney. I realized then that insurance litigation is a niche sport, and you need a player who knows the specific rules of that game. Now, for any significant claim, I immediately hire a specialist “coverage counsel.” It’s a strategic investment that levels the playing field.
What amateur lawyers do in insurance cases that experienced coverage attorneys never do.
The Facts vs. The Form
An amateur lawyer, when faced with an insurance dispute, will immediately start arguing about the facts of the case. An experienced coverage attorney will never do this. The first thing a pro does is a deep, technical analysis of the insurance policy itself. They will look at the specific policy form numbers, the endorsements, the definitions, and the exclusions. They know that the battle is usually won or lost based on the language of the contract, not just on the story of what happened.
The investment in a legal opinion on coverage that everyone avoids that has the highest ROI.
The Opinion and the Opening Move
Before you even think about filing a lawsuit against your insurance company, you should make an investment that everyone avoids, but that has the highest ROI: hire a specialist lawyer to write a formal “legal opinion on coverage.” This document will analyze your situation and give you an honest assessment of your chances of success. It is a powerful opening move. You can send it to the insurance company to show them you are serious and that you have a strong legal basis for your claim. It often leads to a settlement without ever having to sue.
Stop saying “the policy says.” Say “the policy, as interpreted by the courts in this jurisdiction, says.”
The Policy and the Precedent
Amateurs will point to a sentence in their insurance policy and say, “The policy says I’m covered!” A professional knows that the policy is only half the story. The other half is how the courts in your specific state have interpreted that exact language in the past. This is called “case law” or “precedent.” The correct, and more powerful, thing to say is, “The policy language, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of my state in the Smith v. Jones case, means that I am covered.”
The truth about insurance regulation I couldn’t say as an insurance lobbyist.
The Lobbyist and the Leash on the Law
I used to be an insurance lobbyist. Here’s the truth I couldn’t say out loud. While state Departments of Insurance are supposed to be consumer watchdogs, they are often heavily influenced, or even “captured,” by the industry they are supposed to regulate. We, the lobbyists, would spend a fortune building relationships and making campaign contributions to ensure that the laws and regulations were written in a way that favored the industry. The regulator is a watchdog, but the industry often holds the leash.
This tiny detail in the “cooperation clause” separates savvy policyholders from those who get denied.
The Cooperation and the Condition Precedent
Your policy has a “cooperation clause” that says you must cooperate with the insurer’s investigation. A savvy policyholder knows that this is a “condition precedent” to coverage. This means that if you fail to cooperate, the insurer can deny your claim, even if it would have otherwise been covered. This tiny detail is critical. It means you must take the cooperation clause seriously. You must provide the documents they request (within reason) and you must show up for an examination under oath. Failure to do so can be a fatal blow to your claim.
Why a low retainer is a trap for people who need a top-tier coverage lawyer.
The Retainer and the Reality of the Fight
You have a complex insurance dispute, and you are shopping for a lawyer. You find one who offers you a very low hourly rate or a small retainer. This is a trap. A top-tier, specialist insurance coverage lawyer is not cheap. They are in high demand, and they charge accordingly. A low price is often a sign of a lawyer who is inexperienced, unsuccessful, or desperate for work. For a high-stakes fight against a massive insurance company, you do not want the cheapest lawyer. You want the best one.
Replace your complicated legal arguments with a simple timeline of the insurer’s failures. You’re welcome.
The Timeline and the Tale of Incompetence
I’ve seen lawyers write 50-page legal briefs filled with complex arguments. A much more powerful tool is often a simple, one-page timeline. Create a timeline that shows, in chronological order, every single delay, every missed deadline, and every contradictory statement made by the insurance company during your claim. This simple document tells a devastating story of their incompetence or bad faith. It is often more persuasive to a judge or a mediator than any complicated legal argument could ever be. You’re welcome.
The skill of navigating an insurance company’s internal structure that’s 10x more valuable than a fancy legal brief.
The Structure and the Straight Line to a Solution
You can have the best lawyer and the best legal brief in the world, but if you are just sending it to the front-line claims adjuster, you will get nowhere. The skill that is ten times more valuable is the skill of navigating the insurance company’s internal corporate structure. You need to know how to escalate a claim beyond the adjuster, to their supervisor, to the head of the claims department, and even to the general counsel’s office. The ability to find the person with the actual authority to make a decision is the key to breaking a deadlock.
Stop treating your lawsuit with your insurer like any other commercial dispute. Treat it like a specialized battle.
The Dispute and the Different Rules of Engagement
A lawsuit against your own insurance company is not like any other commercial dispute. The rules of engagement are completely different. The legal doctrines, like “bad faith” and “contra proferentem,” are unique to insurance. The discovery process is different. The motivations of the opposing counsel are different. To treat it like a standard breach of contract case is a strategic error. It is a highly specialized battle, and you need a specialized general and a specialized strategy to win it.
The experiment I ran of filing a motion to compel discovery that proved our insurer was hiding documents.
The Motion and the Hidden Memos
The insurance company’s lawyers were stonewalling our requests for documents in our lawsuit. They claimed the documents we wanted were “not relevant.” We ran an experiment. We filed a formal “motion to compel” with the court. The judge agreed with us and ordered the insurer to produce the documents. The hidden memos and emails we received were a goldmine. They proved the company knew our claim was valid but had made a corporate decision to deny it anyway. That one motion was the turning point in our case.
Why your old lawyer worked before but doesn’t understand the nuances of insurance law.
The Old Guard and the New Complexities
Your family has used the same trusted, old-school lawyer for 30 years. He’s a great guy. He is also not the right person to handle your complex insurance dispute. Insurance law has become incredibly specialized and complex over the last few decades. The policy forms have changed. The case law has evolved. Your old lawyer, who is a generalist, simply cannot keep up with the nuances of this rapidly changing field. You need a lawyer who lives and breathes this specific area of the law every single day.
The choice to file suit in federal court that everyone judges that actually makes sense for our case.
The Federal and the Favorable Forum
Our lawyer made a choice that everyone judged as strange. Instead of filing our lawsuit against our out-of-state insurance company in our local state court, he filed it in federal court. It was a brilliant strategic move. The federal court system is often faster and more efficient. More importantly, the body of federal case law on our specific insurance issue was much more favorable to us than our state’s case law. Choosing the right courthouse is a critical, and often overlooked, part of a winning legal strategy.
I stopped taking calls from the insurer’s counsel and all communication went through my lawyer. The games stopped.
The Call and the Cease and Desist
The insurance company’s lawyer kept calling me directly, trying to get me to make a statement or to agree to a low settlement without my own lawyer present. I put a stop to it. I instructed my lawyer to send him a formal letter stating that he was not to contact me directly, and that all future communications must go through my legal counsel. The moment that letter was sent, the games and the attempts to intimidate me stopped completely. It created a professional, and protected, channel of communication.
The concept of “procedural vs. substantive” law that nobody understands but changes everything in litigation.
The Procedure and the Path to Victory
Nobody who is not a lawyer understands the difference between “procedural” and “substantive” law, but it changes everything. Substantive law is the “what”—the actual rights and duties under a contract. Procedural law is the “how”—the rules of the courthouse, the deadlines, the proper way to file a motion. I’ve seen many cases with strong substantive facts lost because the lawyer made a procedural mistake. A great litigator is a master of both. They know that the path to victory is often paved with a deep understanding of the procedural rules.
This unpopular opinion on arbitration clauses in insurance policies will trigger brokers but it’s true.
The Arbitration and the Unappealable Error
Many insurance policies now contain a mandatory “arbitration clause.” This means that any dispute must be settled by a private arbitrator, not by a judge and jury. Brokers will tell you this is a faster and cheaper way to resolve disputes. Here’s the unpopular opinion: it’s often a trap for the policyholder. The discovery process in arbitration is limited, the arbitrators are often retired judges who are very conservative, and, most importantly, the arbitrator’s decision is almost impossible to appeal, even if they make a clear error of law.
Stop copying legal arguments from another case. Do your own specific analysis instead.
The Copycat and the Case That Doesn’t Fit
I’ve seen lawyers who find a successful legal brief from another, similar case and they just copy and paste the arguments for their own case. This is lazy and ineffective. Every single case has its own unique set of facts, its own specific policy language, and its own jurisdictional nuances. A legal argument that was brilliant in another case might be completely irrelevant or even harmful in yours. There are no shortcuts. A good lawyer does the hard work of creating a tailored legal analysis for each unique situation.
The mistake of ignoring statutory deadlines I see everywhere that’s so easy to fix.
The Deadline and the Dismissal
This is a mistake that is both common and completely unforgivable. Every single legal action, from filing the initial lawsuit to responding to a motion, is governed by a strict set of statutory deadlines. I have seen cases worth millions of dollars get dismissed by a judge simply because a lawyer missed a deadline by one single day. Ignoring these deadlines is professional malpractice. It’s so easy to fix with a good calendaring system and a disciplined attention to detail.
Why this new “legal tech” for insurance isn’t innovative. It’s just document management.
The Tech and the Tedious Task
A new wave of “legal tech” startups are promising to revolutionize the practice of insurance law. They are not. Their “innovation” is just a better, cloud-based platform for document management and legal billing. While these are useful tools for making a law firm more efficient, they do not change the fundamental nature of the work. The core of insurance law is still about deep legal research, persuasive writing, and human negotiation. The tech is just a better filing cabinet.
The rule I break consistently (I challenge the insurer’s choice of counsel) and why you should too.
The Challenge and the Choice of a Champion
Most policyholders will blindly accept the defense lawyer that their insurance company appoints for them. I have a rule that I break consistently: I always challenge their choice. I will research the lawyer they have chosen. If I don’t believe they have the right expertise or if I see a potential conflict, I will formally object and demand the right to choose my own counsel (and to have the insurer pay for it). You have more power than you think to ensure that you are being represented by a true champion, not just a company-approved functionary.
Stop believing your insurer is following the law. Believe in your right to enforce the contract and the law.
The Belief and the Burden of Enforcement
It’s comforting to believe that your insurance company, as a large, regulated entity, is always following the law. Stop believing this. They are often not. They will bend the rules, ignore statutes, and misinterpret case law, all to their own advantage. They are counting on the fact that you do not know your rights. You must shift your mindset. You must believe in your right, and your power, to enforce the terms of your contract and the laws of your state. The burden of enforcement is on you.