Prime- only newbies sing the praises 2

uberhaulin · Oct 18, 2009

DirtySideDown said: ↑

Yeah. It is so wonderful...

I guess it will be good for me though... the more guys you run off from applying at Prime, the more miles there will be for the guys that are happy there.
Click to expand...

i secound that!!! there not running me off

cactusjack · Oct 18, 2009

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
PROVIDENCE, SC. Filed November 29, 2006 SUPERIOR COURT
RHODE ISLAND INSURERS :
INSOLVENCY FUND, :
Plaintiff :
:
V. : C.A. No. 04-1703
:
NEW PRIME, INC. and PRIME, INC., :
Defendants :
DECISION
GIBNEY, J. In the matter before this Court, the Rhode Island Insurers' Insolvency Fund
("Plaintiff") and New Prime, Inc. and Prime, Inc. (collectively, "Defendents") bring
opposing motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Rhode Island Rules
of Civil Procedure. Both parties move for summary judgment regarding whether
payments received by Irene Desautel from her insurers ' Casco Indemnity ("Casco")
and United Healthcare ("United") ' should serve to offset payments necessitated by the
insolvency of Defendants' insurer.
FACTS AND TRAVEL
On December 23, 2000, Desautel received injuries in an automobile accident
involving a truck operated by Michael Grimm and owned by Defendants. In response,
Desautel filed a negligence claim against Grimm and Defendants in this Court on May
10, 2001. Plaintiff's Ex. A (citing P.C. No. 01-2344). Grimm and Defendants
subsequently filed a third-party complaint against Casco, Desautel's automobile insurer,
and United and Healthcare Recoveries, Inc., Desautel's health insurers.1
1 Healthcare Recoveries, Inc. is not an interested party in this motion.
2
As one of Desautel's health insurers, United provided health coverage and paid
medical bills resulting from the accident. United's payments totaled approximately
$380,000. Under Desautel's automobile insurance policy, Casco limited her
uninsured/underinsured motorist ("UM") coverage to a maximum of $100,000 per person
and a maximum of $300,000 per accident. Plaintiff's Ex. B. Pursuant to the policy's UM
limits, Casco paid Desautel $100,000.
At the time of the accident, Defendants and Grimm were insured by Reliance
National Insurance Company ("Reliance") for bodily injury claims up to $4,000,000.
However, Reliance was declared insolvent and ordered liquidated before Desautel could
recover under Defendants' insurance policy. Because of Reliance's insolvency, Desautel
sought recovery from Plaintiff. Plaintiff is a not-for-profit legal entity created by the
state legislature pursuant to the Rhode Island Insurers' Insolvency Fund Act ("Act"),
G.L. 1956 Sec. 27-34-1 et. seq.
Plaintiff and Defendants agreed to settle Desautel's claim for $900,000. Plaintiff's
Ex. F. Defendants paid $600,000 of the total settlement, while Plaintiff paid the
remaining balance of $300,000. Id. As a condition of the settlement, Plaintiff reserved
the right to litigate by way of declaratory judgment whether the law entitles Plaintiff to
offset its contribution to the settlement with payments made by United. Id. However, the
record is unclear regarding whether Plaintiff sought a similar provision regarding
payments made by Casco. Furthermore, United expressly waived any right of recovery or
subrogation against the settlement funds. Stipulation; Defendant's Ex. A.
3
PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENT
Essentially, Plaintiff wants this Court to excuse the Plaintiff from paying the
agreed upon settlement amount of $300,000. Plaintiff asserts that it bears no
responsibility for paying any amount toward Desautel's settlement that United or Casco
would ultimately claim as a repayment. United and Casco's payments to Desautel would
thereby offset any settlement amount assigned to Plaintiff. In support of this argument,
Plaintiff contends that the Act's definition of a "covered claim" excludes any amount
"[d]ue any reinsurer, insurer, insurance pool, or underwriting association, as subrogation
recoveries or otherwise . . . ." Sec. 27-34-5(8)(ii)(C). Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges that
United and Casco have a right to recover their payments to Desautel from Plaintiff and
Defendants' negotiated settlement fund. Therefore, the statute reduces Plaintiff's
contribution to the settlement fund by the amount due to United and Casco. Moreover,
pursuant to Sec. 27-34-12(a), Plaintiff claims that Desautel must exhaust her rights under
available insurance policies, and after doing so, Plaintiff is entitled to an offset for any
amount paid by another insurer. Thus, Plaintiff alleges that this Court should grant
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as a matter of law.
DEFENDANTS' ARGUMENT
Defendants counter that United cannot collect any portion of Desautel's
settlement with Defendants and Plaintiff, because United has expressly waived any right
of recovery or subrogation against the settlement funds. Because of United's waiver,
United cannot claim any portion of the settlement funds. Defendants assert that absent
such payment or possibility thereof, Sec. 27-34-5(8)(ii)(C) does not apply to the funds
paid out by United or Casco.
4
Alternatively, Defendants argue that even if this Court considers Plaintiff's
argument persuasive, the facts of this case preclude granting summary judgment to
Plaintiffs. Defendants bring to light the issue of adequacy and effect of Desautel's
recovery. Particularly, Defendants claim that the Court will need to determine if this is a
situation where the offsets sought by Plaintiff may amount to an impermissible reduction
in Desautel's "already inadequate" recovery, thus failing to serve the purposes of the Act.
ANALYSIS
The Act functions to provide payment of insured parties' covered claims arising
out of policies provided by insurers that have become insolvent. Rhode Island Insurers'
Insolvency Fund v. Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc., 813 A.2d 47, 48 (R.I. 2003). The Act defines
a "covered claim" as "an unpaid claim, including one for unearned premiums, submitted
by a claimant which arises out of and is within the coverage and subject to the applicable
limits on an insurance policy to which this chapter applies issued by an insurer if the
insurer becomes an insolvent insurer . . . ." Sec. 27-34-5(8). Section 27-34-5(8)(ii)(C) of
the Act goes on to exclude from the definition of a "covered claim" any amounts "[d]ue
any reinsurer, insurer, insurance pool, or underwriting association, as subrogation
recoveries or otherwise . . . ." Moreover, the Act limits payment of a "covered claim" to
a maximum recovery of $300,000. Sec. 27-34-8(a)(1)(iii).
To support its claim that Sec. 27-34-5(8) allays its obligation to pay the settlement
amount, Plaintiff erroneously relies on McGuirl v. Anjou International Co., 713 A.2d 194
(R.I. 1998). The injured plaintiff in McGuirl was covered by two workers compensation
policies, one of which was issued through an insurer that was declared insolvent. Id. at
195. As a result, Plaintiff was required to pay the covered claims for the policies issued
5
by the insolvent insurer. Id. Additionally, the lower courts found that the claimant's
injury was a recurrence of an original injury and held Plaintiff responsible for benefits
and reimbursement to the solvent insurer which had paid the claimants benefits while the
trial was pending. Id. On appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that "a plain reading of
Sec. 27-34-5(8)(ii)(C) specifically excludes from the definition of 'covered claim' all
payments made . . . to insurers for reimbursement." Id. at 199. Accordingly, the Court
did not require Plaintiff to reimburse the solvent insurer for payments it had made while
the trial was pending.
Here, United has paid approximately $380,000 in medical expenses for injuries
that Desautel sustained as a result of the accident. Additionally, Casco has paid $100,000
pursuant to the UM portion of Desautel's policy. In lieu of Defendants' policy with the
now insolvent Reliance, Desautel agreed to settle her claims with Plaintiff and
Defendants for $900,000. A portion of the settlement included the medical care payment
that United provided.
However, given the plain meaning attached to Sec. 27-34-5(8)(ii)(C) by the court
in McGuirl, Plaintiff's use of this section of the statute to bolster its argument for an
offset of its payments is fatally flawed. As a stipulation of the settlement, United
expressly waived any right of recovery or subrogation against the settlement
funds. Stipulation; Defendant's Ex. A. Because of this waiver, the Act's exclusion from
"covered claims" of funds payable to an insurer "as subrogation or otherwise" does not
apply here. Thus, contrary to the solvent insurer in McGuirl, United has not received, nor
will receive in the future, any payment from the settlement proceeds.
6
Furthermore, although Casco has not waived any right of recovery or subrogation
against the settlement funds, the Act does not entitle Plaintiff to an offset of Casco's
$100,000 payment under Desautel's UM policy. Again, in lieu of Defendants' policy
with the now insolvent Reliance, Desautel agreed to settle her claims with Plaintiff and
Defendants for $900,000. Unless further investigation determines that Desautel has
received full compensation to the extent that Casco's reimbursement would involve
excess funds, Plaintiff's full $300,000 should remain a part of the settlement in
accordance with Sec. 27-34-5(8)(ii)(C). Plaintiff, however, has presented no evidence to
suggest Desautel has been overcompensated in this matter.
In addition to its first line of arguments, Plaintiff next asserts that Sec. 27-34-
12(a) of the Act requires that any amounts paid by United and Casco should offset
Plaintiff's obligation. Defendants argue in the alternative using the same statute and case
law. Neither argument warrants summary judgment.
Section 27-34-12(a) states that:
[a]ny person having a claim against an insurer under any provision in an
insurance policy other than a policy of an insolvent insurer which is also a
covered claim, shall be required to exhaust first his or her right under that
policy. Any amount payable on a covered claim under this chapter shall
be reduced by the amount of any recovery under the insurance policy.
The statute defines a "covered claim" as "[a]n unpaid claim, . . . which arises out of and
is within the coverage and subject to the applicable limits on an insurance policy to which
this chapter applies issued by an insurer if the insurer becomes an insolvent insurer . . . ."
Sec. 27-34-5(8). Interpreting this statute, the Rhode Island Supreme Court stated that "a
claim is a 'covered claim' only if it results from the insolvency of an insurer." Rhode
Island Insurers' Insolvency Fund v. Benoit, 723 A.2d 303, 307 (R.I. 1999).
7
In Benoit, Plaintiff sought as an offset a $50,000 uninsured motorist payment and
a $5,000 medical payment made to the estate of the insured by John Hancock & Casualty
Insurance Co. ("John Hancock"), the insurance carrier for the insured's parents. The
insured had been a passenger in a car driven by Cynthia Murray which was involved in
an accident with Roger Benoit. Benoit was insured through American Universal
Insurance Co., which had been declared insolvent.
After the insured's estate collected the funds from John Hancock, Plaintiff refused
to pay Benoit's $25,000 policy limit. There, Plaintiff asserted that Sec. 27-34-12(a)
entitled Plaintiff to offset the $50,000 paid by John Hancock because the amount received
from John Hancock exceeded the insolvent insurance company's obligation. However, in
Benoit, the insured's parents also brought a wrongful death action against Benoit. If
found liable, Benoit would have had to pay no less than $100,000 in damages. Pursuant
to this issue, the Rhode Island Supreme Court stated that "[Plaintiff] may not offset the
amount due from an insolvent insurer in the event a claimant has not received full
compensation for damages. In [Benoit], therefore, [Plaintiff] may not apply the estate's
partial recovery as an offset to the amount due from [Plaintiff]." Benoit, 723 A.2d at 308.
Thus, in holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to an offset for the John Hancock
funds, the Supreme Court's analysis ultimately centered on whether the claimant received
full compensation. Because the total of the John Hancock funds and Plaintiff's
contributions only amounted to $75,000 ' a sum less than the possible $100,000 ' the
Supreme Court reasoned that no offset was permissible.
Both Plaintiff and Defendants rely on the decision in Benoit, but each fails to
recognize that the Supreme Court ultimately based its reasoning on the fact that a
8
claimant deserves full compensation. Here, Defendants were insured by Reliance under a
policy with limits up to $4,000,000. Desautel's recovery could conceivably have reached
the policy limit of $4,000,000. However, Reliance subsequently became insolvent and
unable to pay Desautel anything for the injuries stemming from the accident. As a result
of Reliance's insolvency, Desautel had to recover from her own insurance policies with
United and Casco and file a claim under the Act. Accordingly, if Desautel had recovered
through Defendants' policy with Reliance, then logically, Desautel would not have
needed to recover through her own insurance policies. In that instance, Desautel would
have recovered a greater amount than the settlement she actually received through
Plaintiff and Defendants.
This Court requires a complete examination of Desautel's recovery amount. If
this Court were to determine that the settlement amount represents full compensation to
Desautel, an offset would be appropriate. Alternatively, if this Court were to determine
that the settlement amount does not represent full compensation to Desautel, an offset
would not be appropriate. At the present time, this Court has not seen sufficient evidence
to make a determination in either respect.
CONCLUSION
Given the plain meaning attached to Sec. 27-34-5(8)(ii)(C) by the court in
McGuirl, Plaintiff's use of this section of the statute to bolster its argument for an offset
does not persuade this Court. Because United expressly waived any right of recovery or
subrogation against the settlement funds, the Act's exclusion from "covered claims" of
those funds to be paid to an insurer "as subrogation or otherwise" does not apply here.
Moreover, unless further investigation demonstrates that Desautel has received full
9
compensation to the extent that Casco's reimbursement would involve excess funds,
Plaintiff's claim to offset Casco's payment fails as well. Consequently, this Court denies
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in this matter.
Furthermore, this Court holds that a determination that Sec. 27-34-12(a) in
conjunction with Benoit requires or precludes any offset is premature. In order to make
such a decision, this Court must resolve whether the settlement agreement fully
compensated Desautel given the fact that Defendants possessed an insurance policy for
bodily injury up to $4,000,000. The statutory cap on Plaintiff's contribution likely
hindered the amount of Desautel's recovery through settlement. As a result, this Court
denies summary judgment to both Plaintiff's and Defendants' motions on this matter.
Order to enter; hearing to be scheduled by counsel.
Click to expand...

see more at>>>>http://www.courts.ri.gov/superior/pdf/04-1703.pdf

ironpony · Oct 19, 2009

cactusjack said: ↑

I have never intended to agree or disagree with anyone on here ...... i am just posting the facts ... some folks can not handle it.... my question to you and anyone else that reads this is why would someone who is obviously ignored . Still defend prime like I or any one else cares....
Click to expand...

I take exception to this... you're not posting "facts" in a manner that leads to any sort of constructive criticism. For example... the last couple of posts have been court cases involving accidents. By implication, you're trying to say that Prime is a bad company because drivers have accidents. This is bull, and you know it. Every trucking company has accidents, and with the state of tort litigation in this country we all know what attorneys will do with something like that. This stuff is a matter of public record so it's out there. So what??? CRE just defended a case where they hired a triple murderer from Puerto Rico, who had an accident within 100' of the terminal on his first day out, and then went on to kill an old lady... so what?

I will still do my thing so I hope that whatever the deal with the oposition that they just get over it....
Nothing that they can do or say will change what i will do or say and since this is missouri's thread ," that i brought back because the original got locked because of the cheerleaders" If he asked me to slow down or have some collective criticism for me then i would consider that!
All anyone in the cheering section can do is nay say... and only the newbies sing the praises!
Click to expand...

And only the peanut gallery can post junk like this.

DirtySideDown · Oct 19, 2009

***Disclaimer: I have had no experience (good or bad) with Prime. I speak objectively. ***

C'mon CJ... The stuff you're posting is just a bunch of SPAM. Is anybody really reading it?

Okay, so you are representing the "disgruntled driver"... You tell his side of the story... but then when IP and some of the other guys tell about Prime from the "happy driver's" point of view, that makes them a "defender" or a "cheerleader."

You act like the happy driver has no right to tell about his experience. Why doesn't IP have a right to tell about his experience with Prime? Doesn't he have a right to be happy with his job?

Doesn't Prime have something like 3500 drivers? Don't you think every driver's experience is unique? All I am saying is that just because there are some drivers who had a bad experience with a company doesn't mean nobody at that company (any company) is happy.

I'm just saying... you can't post all of these "disgruntled" experiences without allowing room for and respecting the happy driver's experience also.

Doesn't a prospective driver need to read both sides of the story in order to be able to make an educated decision whether or not to choose a particular company to drive for? All I am saying is that guys come to this forum to research and make a decision on a company, and all of this SPAM is not helping us... 90% of it is not relevant and is no help to us.

cactusjack · Oct 19, 2009

dirtysidedown said: ↑

***disclaimer: I have had no experience (good or bad) with prime. I speak objectively. ***

c'mon cj... The stuff you're posting is just a bunch of spam. Is anybody really reading it?

Okay, so you are representing the "disgruntled driver"... You tell his side of the story... But then when ip and some of the other guys tell about prime from the "happy driver's" point of view, that makes them a "defender" or a "cheerleader."

you act like the happy driver has no right to tell about his experience. Why doesn't ip have a right to tell about his experience with prime? Doesn't he have a right to be happy with his job?

Doesn't prime have something like 3500 drivers? Don't you think every driver's experience is unique? All i am saying is that just because there are some drivers who had a bad experience with a company doesn't mean nobody at that company (any company) is happy.

I'm just saying... You can't post all of these "disgruntled" experiences without allowing room for and respecting the happy driver's experience also.

Doesn't a prospective driver need to read both sides of the story in order to be able to make an educated decision whether or not to choose a particular company to drive for? All i am saying is that guys come to this forum to research and make a decision on a company, and all of this spam is not helping us... 90% of it is not relevant and is no help to us.
Click to expand...

there is no spam...ie. Junk mail on here ....
I have never singled out drivers ......
I do give drivers information on an company that has questionable practices so the prospective applicants can make an intelligent decision....
The points of legal actions is to read the court proceedings to see what and where prime is coming from and going.... Not to say all is bad but all is not good either.....
You will read what you want and make decisions based upon that....
I will keep posting and some people will get it and some will not !!!!
That is what makes this thread and forum so great !
Have a great day!

cactusjack · Oct 19, 2009

My husband bought tie downs, tarps, was charged for his room during his orientation, and the only thing they reimbursed him for was his room charges, but that was after 3 months. Prime conveniently forgot to pay for anything and everything they could. In the mean time we are getting deeper and deeper indebt.

I don't know if it is possible but it seemed the more driving my husband did (he got home once every two or three months) and the longer he was gone the less money he was paid. Does 400 dollars a week sound right to you? And over 500 dollars a month for health insurance? You have got to be kidding me.

Meanwhile, payday is today and the mortgage payment is due and guess what (big surprise)? No check. Now what?

I was looking for a way to contact the company and found all these complaints so at least I know we are not alone. Any suggestions on what to do next?

Now I am going to research the new company that my husband decided to work for. Once bitten....

Sherry
Potlatch, Idaho
Click to expand...

SEE MORE AT>>>>http://americasworstemployers.blogspot.com/2008/05/prime-inc.html

cactusjack · Oct 19, 2009

I worked for them...sorry, "leased with them", in '05 and '06. I've just found out that all those license and tax fees they promise to pay for you don't actually get paid. The IRS filed a return based on their reports during the 2 years I worked for them, instead of the accountant who I had paid to do so, who has an office in the Prime terminal.

Long story short, I just found out that I owe 76,000 to the IRS, and yet, the entire time I worked for Prime I was living paycheck to paycheck...barely. If I hadn't opted out of renting an apartment I wouldn't have been able to eat.

Now watch, in a few days or so an "employee or leaser with prime" will respond to this saying that they make all kinds of money and that I and your husband and everyone else who posts afterward with more truth about this horrible company are wrong and they'll offer to show a settlement to prove it.

It should be (but isn't) well known that companies who offer "safe self-employment" such as Prime or Bankers Insurance group (as another example of this type of scheme in a different field [telemarketing sales]) pay people to search the web for any negative press and to blog standardised arguments against the facts of those burned by such companies.

Keep an eye out for those, and I don't recommend believing them.
Click to expand...

SEE MORE AT>>>>>http://americasworstemployers.blogspot.com/2008/05/prime-inc.html

cactusjack · Oct 19, 2009

I have brought alot of information to drivers and potential drivers alike....
I will monitor this thread but limit my posts on here .....
Everything that needs to be said about prime has been said by myself and others!
Regurgatating the same old over and over by the opposition is useless and pointless ....
So for now i will leave it at that!!!

Censored !!!!!

ironpony · Oct 19, 2009

cactusjack said: ↑

SEE MORE AT>>>>http://americasworstemployers.blogspot.com/2008/05/prime-inc.html
Click to expand...

My husband bought tie downs, tarps, was charged for his room during his orientation, and the only thing they reimbursed him for was his room charges, but that was after 3 months. Prime conveniently forgot to pay for anything and everything they could. In the mean time we are getting deeper and deeper indebt.
Click to expand...

All peripheral equipment is bought by the driver... this is a common practice among trucking companies... so this wannabe significant other has no complaint.

There is about $2000 - $3000 worth of equipment a flatbed driver buys. It's much less on the reefer side - don't know about tankers. Tarps are expensive.

But actually, after a couple of years of seeing dozens of locks left on trailers, I agree with the practice. It's going to make you concious of what you do after shelling out $40 for a quality lock enough times. BTW... I bought my equipment once. Don't plan on being stupid enough to keep shelling out for it, and if you keep your receipts this comes off of your taxes on schedule A.

As for the rest of this post, this is another example of a driver who doesn't understand that he's getting into a business, not a paycheck on steroids. Either you have the capital reserves available to make the deal work, the income to pay the bills and some business experience and training, or you will allow the free market to eat you alive.

kwray · Oct 19, 2009

Morbid curiosity compels me to return daily....

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Find Trucking Jobs

Prime- only newbies sing the praises 2

DO YOU THINK PRIME TREATS DRIVERS EQUAL AND FAIRLY?

NOPE THEY TEND TO CATER MORE TO THE COMPANY DRIVER!

NO THEY CATER MORE TO THE LEASE OPERATOR!

EVERYONE IS TREATED FAIRLY!

EVERYONE IS ON THEIR OWN!

uberhaulin Bobtail Member

Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

Wait, employers can't reach you!

cactusjack Medium Load Member

ironpony Road Train Member

DirtySideDown Light Load Member

cactusjack Medium Load Member

cactusjack Medium Load Member

cactusjack Medium Load Member

cactusjack Medium Load Member

ironpony Road Train Member

kwray Medium Load Member

Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

Wait, employers can't reach you!

Log in or Sign up

Useful Searches

Find Trucking Jobs

Prime- only newbies sing the praises 2

DO YOU THINK PRIME TREATS DRIVERS EQUAL AND FAIRLY?

NOPE THEY TEND TO CATER MORE TO THE COMPANY DRIVER!

NO THEY CATER MORE TO THE LEASE OPERATOR!

EVERYONE IS TREATED FAIRLY!

EVERYONE IS ON THEIR OWN!

uberhaulin Bobtail Member

Wait, employers can't reach you!

cactusjack Medium Load Member

ironpony Road Train Member

DirtySideDown Light Load Member

cactusjack Medium Load Member

cactusjack Medium Load Member

cactusjack Medium Load Member

cactusjack Medium Load Member

ironpony Road Train Member

kwray Medium Load Member

Wait, employers can't reach you!