Imagine a deposition in  which the very experienced independent adjuster for the insurer says this:

I have always worked for insurers but I have nothing to gain by having the claim denied or having it paid, and I have nothing to gain with whether the amount paid on the claim is larger or smaller. In fact, “‘[i]t would be to my benefit to find more coverage because the larger estimate I write, the more I get paid.'” He goes on to say that “insurance companies will continue to hire him as an adjuster even if he recommends payment on a larger number of claims.”

Pretty much this testimony was given in the trial of Patel v. Nautilus Insurance Company, Case # 13-08-00735, 2011 WL 345967 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi–Edinburg, January 28, 2011), no review in the Supreme Court of Texas was sought.

Many lawyers representing policyholders would be surprised to hear this said, and they would doubt its truth.  In any case,
What should examining counsel do at that point?  I will try and provide some suggestions about this in a later Blog. I will describe the case itself in another Blog.