Lots of great reviews but honestly i think they were there just for the money or just hugely NOT competent at all.
I had an issues with an insurance claim, them denying my claim even though they couldn’t prove they weren’t liable.
I was very clear from the start that my moving company made the insurance with the insurance company and that I did not have any documentation regarding the Pick-Up but only regarding my Drop-Off.
1. Phone consultation with Maureen, of course she can’t predict the outcome but the consultation was quite specific as to know if there was a strong case, which she said there was, she also said the proof of being liable or not, was on the insurance company side that’s why they have investigators.
2. Philip Haas calls, I find out that Maureen is not my lawyer but he will be, never spoke to him before and with a non-disclosed speech impediment that makes communication hugely hard (first bad sign, she should have contacted me telling me and asking if that was ok before taking a non refundable deposit).
3. You would think that if you change your clients lawyer without consulting with the client you’d provide every bit of information that very client provided you; NO, not the case, Philip Haas started doing his own without even consulting first and knowing half of the case; I got mad and made him aware of it and he apologized saying Maureen didn’t send him the info (hugely unprofessional and once again a very bad sign); because I did send details by email there were no way you could dispute it so he wrote off what he charged me so far with whatever he did without consulting me first and then made out a strategy plan with me starting from zero (that was well appreciated but not encouraging).
4. If you know the case and set up a strategy but then a month later forget about details regarding that case...VERY BAD SIGN. Philip Haas blamed it on the fact they just had a new born and thanked me for reminding him the details of my case and because of that now he would re-contact the insurance company (he should have done that immediately as soon as he got another “claim denied”).
5. Out of the blue turns out that the burden of proof that the insurance company is liable or not, is on me and not on the insurance company so even though the insurance company can’t prove they aren’t liable, I have to prove they are by providing documents of the truck and driver that did my pick-up... SURPRISE!
So my lawyer knowing from the start I did not have any documents alike as I specified from the beginning with Maureen, at the very end let’s me know I have the burden of proof which, not having documents is clear that there is no case at all then, that’s just common sense right? ... can you prove in a very specific way who the driver and truck type is? NO, you don’t have a case, so why on earth would you take a case knowing there is no case? Because you mislead and was there for the money OR just were hugely incompetent not knowing what you were doing.
Philip Haas insists they didn’t mislead, which can be true but that just means they were hugely incompetent then, which one is it?
A. The insurance company have to prove they are not liable and if they can’t the burden for compensation is on them at least partially. (Maureen) -“ knowing I didn’t have documentation to prove specifics regarding the pick-up driver and truck type.
B. You have to prove the insurance company is liable (even though you were insured) in order for them to compensate you by providing documents of who the driver and truck type was (Philip)
Both are contradicting each other and therefore misleading or simply pure incompetence in the matter.
Federal court? That was an option it would just have been hugely costly and time consuming and no guarantee of anythings pf course.
Bad experience and a huge waste of money!