Professional mistrust

I ran across a case recently, which brought to mind the way that the legal profession is perceived by the public.  The case is Whelan v. Beothic General Insurance Co., [1992] N.J. No. 336 (T.D.). 

The facts of the case are simple:  Mr. Whelan’s teenaged daughters set out to make some French fries.  They put some cooking fat into a large pot and put the pot on their electric stove, leaving the burner turned fully on.  Then they went upstairs to their room and started fixing their hair, forgetting completely about the fat on the stove.

Soon, the fat caught fire, and the girls ran screaming out of the house to their father, who had been working on a vehicle in the driveway.  He ran back into the house and was able to put out the fire.

He called his insurance company and told them what happened, and then went out to his lawn to recover from the smoke and fumes.

A neighbor happened along and told him that if it was a fat fire that had been the cause of his loss, then his insurance company wouldn’t cover the loss.

What happens next is what I find disturbing.

Mr. Whelan goes back into the house, takes the pot off the stove and hides it in the garage.  When he gets back, the fire in his kitchen re-ignited, and the house was destroyed.

When the police arrived that Wednesday night, he told them he didn’t know what caused the fire, but that he put on an electric kettle for tea, and when he came back, he found the fire on the stove.  He told the same story to his insurance adjuster on Friday.

By Saturday, he was beginning to worry about having lied to his insurance company.  On Monday, he called the insurance company back and told them what really happened.

The insurance company denied the claim.  The trial decision ordered payment of the claim, however in my opinion, the case is wrongly decided.  The fact is that the insurer is within its right to deny coverage on any misrepresentation made on an insurance claim, by virtue of the principle that an insurance contract is a contract of utmost good faith.

Nevertheless, the question for our profession is this:  Why didn’t Mr. Whelan check out his neighbor’s advice with a real lawyer?  There is no answer to that question in the case report.

He had plenty of time to do so.  The fire seems to have happened on a Wednesday, and he only gave his insurance adjuster a statement on the following Friday.

Unfortunately, I’ve met too many people who would have done exactly what Mr. Whelan did - shy away from consulting a member of the profession.  They do it because they think no lawyer cares unless they stand to charge a fee.  Or they think their question is too insignificant.

From an ethical standpoint, when so much is at stake for a client in Mr. Whelan’s position, the proper way to deal with the question is to meet with the client and get all the facts.

I would hope most lawyers would recognize the importance to him and take the time and care to give him an answer - even at a fairly low cost.

The problem is that most people don’t think that would happen.  We need to work to correct that perception.