He who made a gross miscalculation of the amount of damages (as a scare tactic) in Spencer v Hartford and "made" associate law professor Adam Scales "a household name", is now so emboldened by the proposed settlement to suggest that such case be "prostituted" and used as a threat to scare defendants into 468B trusts.
It's not like we haven't seen the scare tactic before. Look at the cottage industry that sprung up after Grillo v Pettiete et al. Cause No.96-145090-92 and Grillo v Henry Cause 96-167943-96, 96th District Court, Tarrant County, TX, whereafter plaintiff attorneys were lobbied by certain advisers over the perceived threat of legal malpractice. Sure plaintiffs should have proper advice. ANYONE should seek advice from someone credentialed and qualified to give it before entering into important financial decisions. But that case is still cited even though it is almost 18 years old. Given that there's a "huge threat" why have there been no other cases published and cited?
An IRC 468B Qualified Settlement Fund is a very useful tool for the right case. Recommending wholesale usage of the 468B QSF, particularly on smaller cases (often adds a needless cost that comes out of the plaintiffs' bottom line) is professionally irresponsible, in my opinion. It makes little sense to use a 468B QSF where a $50,000 structure is under consideration. Ironically the cost of the annuity for lead plaintiff in Spencer v Hartford, Oshanya Spencer, was $52,000, with another lead plaintiff having an amount in the same range.
Make no mistake Defendants and Insurers, Patrick Hindert seems a trojan horse.
(1)In April 2009 he was even implying that the Federal pull its TARP Funds from The Hartford. See Spencer v Hartford-3. Could that possibly be interpreted as having at heart the job security of thousands of insurance company employees ( many of whom are Connecticut residents and others who had nothing to do with the Spencer case), the financial security of the hundreds of thousands of structured settlement annuitants, retirees and life insurance policyholders of the Hartford?
(2) His unbalanced coverage of the financial crisis and attack on AIG at that time was "legendary". Upon information and belief he has recently solicited the company for business. Read AIG Structured Settlement Timeline: Hindert's Jelly Donut Missing The Jelly and Structured Settlements...The Day of "The Jackal"
Assuming the settlement in Spencer v Hartford was or is subject to a confidentiality agreement and/or under seal) and unless he was privy to internal settlement discussions, one wonders how Patrick HIndert could possibly know the specific reasons that Hartford decided to settle, other than to buy their peace.