DBR Defends Quote

By Bob Norman Mon., Apr. 23 2007 at 9:07 AM

Pin It

The Dade County Bar Association was outraged by a Daily Business Review story by Forrest Norman about insurance fraud cases. In the April 16 article, Norman quoted the general counsel of an insurance company was quoted as saying:

"When we get cases in front of juries, we were like 80 percent successful. But now the judges don't let that happen. They either grant motions for summary judgment or they somehow take it away from the jury's discretion. I think the judges are being paid off, but I can't prove that." (I added the italics).

The quote came from Charles Grimsley, who works for United Automobile Insurance, which is trying to remove Judge Jacqueline Schwartz from its cases, claiming she is biased. Bar President Merrick L. Gross wrote the newspaper to complain that "the inclusion of an unsubstantiated quote directly attacking the integrity, independence and fairness of the trial judges of the Miami-Dade County Circuit and County Courts is reprehensible."

The Bar wasn't the only entity upset with Grimsley's words. The insurance company itself took out a full-page ad in the Daily Business Review saying the suggestion of bribery "does not remotely reflect the opinion of

United Automobile Insurance or any of its defense attorneys."

Grimsley admitted he said it, but also said he doesn't really believe any judges are being paid off. DBR held strong. Editor-in-Chief David Lyons was quoted in Friday's newspaper about the fallout saying

It is not the role of the news media to censor the comments of newsmakers, particularly those of individuals who are at the center of a controversy. As general counsel of United Auto Insurance, Charles Grimsley is one of those individuals. His comments were highly newsworthy and placed in the context of his company’s dispute with the judges and opponents in court.

So is DBR right or wrong? Do you let important people throw around vague claims of criminality? Or do you throw the quote in the trash?

Like this Story?

Sign up for the Weekly Newsletter: Our weekly feature stories, movie reviews, calendar picks and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox.

Write Comment

Email to Friend

Print Article

Related Content

I think United Auto's sensitivity about Grimsley's comment may arise from its track record concerning judges. Here's a passage I wrote in New Times awhile back about the company's approach to judges: [[With judges in both Broward and Miami-Dade counties starting to come down on United for abusing the court system, what's a poor fraud-hunting company to do? For United, one tactic is apparently to seek goodwill from the men and women in black robes by offering them money. During 2004, United, its sister companies, officers, affiliated insurance agents, and family members lobbed cash at certain candidates running for county judgeships in Miami-Dade. That didn't sit well with Ada Poza Revilla, who received $11,000 under United's family and friends plan. The campaign quickly refunded the money. "I think the main consideration was that it didn't seem right to take so much money from one entity or people connected to it," explains Steven Goldstein, who served as Revilla's campaign treasurer. "It was believed that there might be an appearance of impropriety as well." Another candidate, Judith Rubenstein, received almost $12,000 in United-related contributions, which she kept. Parrillo denies seeking influence. "The intent was to support judges for reelection and candidates for office who would render decisions based solely on the merits of the case and would not favor either the plaintiff or defendant," he said in a written response.]] Uh-huh.
DBR has a problem because they excercised absolutely no journalistic integrity. They didn't even remotely show the other side of the story, while printing United's slander. There could have been a little something about the fact that Perillo (owner of United Auto) has made millions/billion from defaulting on payment of his companies insurance claims. The fact that his niche market is lower income and probably less able to defend themselves maybe why he gets away with it. Maybe it's the fact that he is a major political campaign contributor, who would otherwise probably be in jail. He runs his business like a thug mafioso. Intimidating attorneys, judges, and medical providers are his MO. Perillo is being investigated in Chicago, where he is building his $40 Million home. This isn't the first time Carlos Lidsky (representing United Auto) has used DBR for his own deviant purposes. There seems to be a realtionship for some time. The whole thing stinks. I really feels sorry for the judges.
United is run by a bunch of mafiosos who routinely slander judges, threaten medical providers, and intimidate attorneys, but are unwilling to pay thier clients claims. How they have managed to keep their criminal activity alive for so long is beyond me.
Because for the DBR to print this article which the facts shows is a joke, shows if anyone got paid off its the DBR United Auto has a continuing practice of not paying the cliams of their insured. THey know many of their client base are illegal citizens and they do all they can to intimidate these people so they drop their cliams, though they paid the premium. For citizens/local residents, they again refuse to pay any claim before them. How can the Judges not get frustrated when year in year out there are THOUSANDS of cases that Untied can show no legit reason why they didnt pay the claim. United, not the Judges, made many attorneys millionaires because of how they ran their business, yet they blame the judges. There have been enough stories on United Auto over ther years to refute their cries of fraud, bad judges etc. They have been a fraud for years, representing to people who pay their premiums that they have converage when in fact they have no intention of paying anything on behalf of their insured.
If I had a car for every time a source said he couldn't prove it but so-and-so was being paid off, I'd be competing head-to-head against General Motors right now.
I'm at a loss to understand why these people are mad at DBR, not Grimsley. Why shoot the messenger? It's the lawyer that said something he shouldn't have.