How to Report Consumer Fraud and Scams

At Ross Law, we often get calls from consumers who were ripped off, but they may not have the best civil case for a lawyer to take on. Things like phone scams, robocalls, internet scams, and scams involving people overseas are often difficult for a non-government consumer lawyer to handle. However, that does not mean they should not be reported. Additionally, even scams like auto dealer fraud, debt collection scams, door-to-door sales scams, and unlawful trade practices should be reported even if a civil lawyer is able to assist. However, you should speak with a lawyer before reporting them.

Then the issue is how do you report these consumer scams? Here is a brief list of people and organizations that may be able to assist with your consumer Fraud:

1. Call Ross Law at 503.224.1658: We are happy to assist with referrals or discuss whether or not we would be a good fit to assist consumers who have been ripped off or defrauded by businesses. However, keep in mind we are not a government entity and we are limited by Civil remedies that we pursue on our client’s behalf. For more information about the difference between civil and criminal remedies click here.

2. Report to the Oregon Department of Justice: The Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ) has a couple of different ways to report complaints. You can call the consumer hotline at 18778779392 or you can file a complaint online. You are also able to search for past complaints against a business that operated in Oregon. Click here for more info.

3. Report to the CFPB & FTC: The Federal Government has the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) which is part of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The CFPB has a new website to report scams, fraud, and bad business practices. It is a user-friendly website that asks you to tell the CFPB about the scam. The FTC asserts it will use that information to investigate the scammers and hopefully bring them to justice. Click here for more information on how to make a report of fraud, scams, or unfair business practices.

4. Report to the Better Business Bureau: The Better Business Bureau is a private entity that focuses on consumer complaints and reviews. They are not a government entity so they have no power to enforce the law. The BBB also charges businesses to advertise with them. To search for a business or make a complaint click here.

5. Report to Local Law Enforcement: Some local law enforcement agencies have investigators to investigate fraud and scams.

The above list is not exhaustive. There are many other places you can report scams, fraud, and unlawful business practices, but please keep these in mind. Please remember that this blog post may be considered Attorney advertising. If you have any questions about auto dealer fraud the Oregon Lemon Law, personal injury cases, auto crash injuries, bicycle crashes, and other injury or death cases please call Portland Oregon Personal Injury and Consumer Fraud lawyer Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658.

2019 Was An Incredible Year for Ross Law's Clients!

2019 was an amazing year for Ross Law and our Clients! Ross Law worked tirelessly to assist Oregonians to obtain maximum compensation for their Personal Injury cases, wrongful death cases, crime victim cases, insurance disputes, and consumer cases.

Below is a rundown on some of the results from 2019:

• $2,225,000.00 Jury Trial Verdict where Jeremiah Ross co-counseled a two-week medical malpractice & Patient Safety case with another attorney against one of Oregon’s top medical malpractice defense law firms. Click HERE for more information on that case.

• Significant Settlement in Case Against DHS and others in a case where our young client was abused and neglected while she was in the legal custody of the Department of Human Services. Click HERE for more information on the lawsuit against Oregon’s DHS & CPS.

• Confidential Settlement in Wrongful Death Case against a mental health provider whose negligence resulted in a schizophrenic’s suicide;

• Confidential Settlement received in a civil domestic violence case against an abuser. Ross Law represented a young survivor of domestic violence and filed a lawsuit against the abuser after he was convicted of his crimes in criminal court. As a crime victim’s lawyer, Ross Law fought tirelessly to cut through very complex legal issues to ensure the victim received compensation to regain the power and control of her life.

• $100,000.00 settlement for Ross Law’s client who was backed over by a vehicle while she was urinating behind the vehicle due to her intoxication. The bad driver’s insurance company denied any liability until Jeremiah Ross litigated the matter.

• Insurance Benefits obtained for a client who the insurer denied personal injury protection benefits to a cyclist who was thrown into a car at a stop sign. The stopped vehicle’s insurer denied benefits based on its interpretation of the law that the cyclist had to be “struck by” the vehicle. The judge ordered the Insurance Company to pay the cyclist $15,000.00 in denied insurance benefits and the cyclist’s costs and attorney fees. Click HERE for more information on that case.

• Insurance Benefits obtained for a client who was wrongfully denied Personal Injury Protection benefits from USAA and Auto Injury Solutions. The judge ordered USAA to pay the outstanding benefits and our client’s costs and attorney fees. Click HERE for more information on that case.

• Numerous favorable Settlements in Lemon Law and Auto Dealership Fraud Cases. These settlements included cash that was paid directly to our clients by the dealership, buy-backs of vehicles, unwinding car deals, and the dealership or auto manufacturers paid Ross Law’s consumer client’s costs and attorney fees.

There were many other amazing results for or clients! Please remember that results for all clients will vary. Each case is different. Some cases are better than others. If you, or someone you know, needs a personal injury lawyer, wrongful death lawyer, crime victim’s lawyer, or consumer lawyer please call Ross Law at 503.224.1658.

Jeremiah Ross Selected as a SuperLawyer! Again....

2019 was an incredible year for Ross Law and Jeremiah Ross! Ross Law fought tirelessly for our clients in personal injury cases, insurance disputes, wrongful death cases, medical malpractice cases, lemon law cases, auto dealership fraud cases, and crime victim cases. Ross law achieved incredible results for our clients.

Peers selected Jeremiah Ross as a 2020 SuperLawyer for personal injury general plaintiff’s practice. This is the fifth year Jeremiah Ross has been recognized by SuperLawyers.

• 2020 Oregon Super Lawyers

• 2019 Oregon Super Lawyers

• 2018 Oregon Super Lawyers

• 2017 Oregon Rising Stars

• 2016 Oregon Rising Stars

We look forward to continuing with the amazing success Ross Law has had and are thankful to be rated as a SuperLawyer!

Please remember the results may vary for each client. Each case is different. If you or someone you know needs to speak with a Personal Injury Lawyer, Wrongful Death Lawyer, Crime Victim Lawyer, or Consumer Lawyer, please call 503.224.1658 to speak with Ross Law. This post may be considered Attorney Advertising.

Ross Law Is Open!

It has been a crazy couple of weeks. COVID-19 was an unknown term three weeks ago, now we are working to “flatten the curve” by staying home and social distancing in an effort to slow the spread of this virus. Here at Ross Law we are working hard to continue to provide exceptional client services while working remotely. Personal Injury case, Insurance Disputes, and Crime Victim case evaluations and meetings will now be by phone and email. Consumer consultations and auto fraud case evaluations will also occur on the telephone and email. This is less than ideal, but we are adapting as this situation unfolds.

Things may take a little longer because insurance companies and medical providers take longer to process claims and get us records, but we will keep moving forward. Please contact Ross Law at 503.224.1658 to discuss your personal injury case, insurance denial, consumer or auto fraud case. Oregon Personal Injury and Consumer lawyer Jeremiah Ross is happy to assist Oregonians during these difficult times.

Litigation Shenanigans & the Attorney Fee Multiplier-What You Need to Know

Most consumer and personal injury lawyers represent clients based on a contingency fee agreement. That means that the attorney will not get paid unless the client receives a settlement, award, or judgment in their favor. Many firms and attorneys defending lawsuits charge by the hour. They are then paid monthly by the corporate defendant or insurance company. This can often result in defense lawyers using tactics that are meant to drain the plaintiff’s attorney’s time, money, and resources in an effort to force the plaintiff to settle or divert the plaintiff’s lawyers attention from the issues in the case. These tactics can come at a price though, and an unpublished Ninth Circuit opinion sheds some light on the remedy available to a party who is subjected to litigation shenanigans. In Beck v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Co., No. 16-35816 (9th Cir. June 5, 2018) the Ninth Circuit approved an attorney fee multiplier of 2.0 due to the defendant’s litigation tactics. What this means is that the plaintiff’s lawyers attorney fee claim of $597,669.25 was doubled to $1,195,398.50 “due to the nature of this case and the conduct of Metropolitan and its Counsel.” Beck v. Metropolitan Prop. and Casualty Insurance Company,. 3:13-cv-00879-AC pg 44. (Dist. Or. Sept. 16, 2016)

You are probably wondering how was the plaintiff able to force the defendant Insurance company to pay double the amount of her attorney fees. Thankfully, John Acosta, United States Magistrate Judge, drafted a 56 page order that provides a clear road map for lawyers who are seeking an attorney fee multiplier in Oregon. In this breach of insurance contract case, Judge Acosta addressed the legal standard that permitted the plaintiff to seek fees under ORS 742.061 (whether or not the plaintiff satisfied the “proof of loss requirement). Judge Acosta found the plaintiff had satisfied the proof of loss requirement under ORS 742.061. As a result the defendant was forced to pay plaintiff’s reasonable attorney fees. The question then became, What is the reasonable amount of fees?

The Judge used the ORS 20.075(1) and (2) factors to determine what was reasonable. First, the Judge rejected defendant Metropolitan’s argument that the ORS 20.075(1) factors apply only to the court’s determination whether to award fees and not the amount of fees, and not to the reasonableness of the fees.. In doing so, the court provided clear guidance that both ORS 20.075(1) and ORS 20.075(2) factors are to be used to determine the reasonable amount of attorney fees to award.

The Court then delved into the factors under ORS 20.075(1). The court evaluated the parties’ respective pre-litigation conduct and did not look kindly at Metropolitan’s attempts to resolve the case on unilaterally established terms. The court also looked at the objective reasonableness of the claims and defenses asserted by the parties under ORS 20.075(1)(b). In addressing that factor the court acknowledged that the case was a simple breach of contract case. However, the defense asserted unreasonable defenses in its answer, and advanced unreasonable arguments to use as the equivalent of defenses. For example the defense asserted a merit-less “Fraud” defense. This is a common defense tactic in consumer cases, and the court did not take kindly to it. The Court then delved into the various other ORS 20.075(1) factors and found they either weighed in plaintiff’s favor or they did not apply.

The court then turned to the ORS 20.075(2) factors. The court did a fantastic job concisely addressing each of the numerous factors. In doing so, the court addressed the prevailing market rates for legal services in the relevant community. In this case the plaintiff’s attorneys submitted expert declarations as expert evidence of the plaintiff’s attorneys’ skill and experience in insurance law and to support the hourly rates she requested. The court used the expert opinions and the 2017 Oregon State Bar Economic Survey to assist in establishing the attorneys’ respective hourly rates.

The court also addressed whether the fee is fixed or contingent factor under ORS 20.075(2)(h). The plaintiff’s lawyer initially worked under an hourly fee and then transferred to a contingency fee. The Beck case is similar to many consumer cases, because the defense used tactics which made it impossible for the plaintiff to pay the lawyer an hourly rate. However, the firm representing Ms. Beck continued to be able to do so under a contingency fee agreement. The court noted that the defense’s litigation strategy increased the risk to Beck’s attorneys that they might not be fully compensated for their time, and that factor weighed in favor of an attorney fee award.

The court then addressed the attorney fee multiplier. The court noted, “Oregon law permits an enhancement of fees when it is supported by the facts and circumstances of the case. See Griffin v. TriMet, 112 Or. App. 575, 585 (1992) aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 318 Or. 500 (1994) (approving trial court award of 2.0 multiplier).” The court then spent significant time addressing the facts leading up to the litigation and the defense’s litigation tactics. The court noted that the defense’s efforts to attempt to obtain irrelevant evidence through the discovery process, using theories that lacked any relevance, and the defenses disorganized or deliberately untimely approach to raising various issues resulted in the plaintiff incurring fees for having to respond to both the substance of the issues and their “procedural infirmity.”

However, the court limited the 2.0 multiplier to the fees the plaintiff only incurred during the litigation. The court concluded that pre-litigation fees that were incurred were not subject to the multiplier because the defense’s litigation counsel played no role in the parties’ negotiations.

Judge Acosta did a magnificent job in providing a road map and guidance for future litigants facing a defendant who desires to engage in litigation shenanigans in a fee shifting case. Hopefully the opinion will have a deterrent effect and help litigants combat litigation shenanigans. The opinion is also a fantastic example of the various issues a fee petition should address and the arguments a fee seeking party may face. Lastly, the opinion is an excellent example of the facts and factors the court looks to when deciding if a fee multiplier is appropriate in a particular case.

If you are having an issue with an insurance company or have questions about attorney fees, call Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658. Ross Law PDX represents people in various claims against their insurance companies Ross LAW PDX is happy to represent Oregonians in Personal Injury Protection Insurance disputes, and claims for Uninsured Motorist Benefits and Under-insured Motorist benefits. Please remember the law is constantly changing and to not solely rely on this post.

Oregon Women Pay More For Car Insurance Than Oregon Men! Here is Why...

As an Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer and Consumer Lawyer, I am regularly asked by people if making a claim to their auto insurance will cause their insurance rates to go up. This is not an easy question to answer, because Insurance Companies are for profit businesses. As a result, Insurers are going to do what they feel is necessary in order to make a profit unless regulators or attorneys’ stop them. For example, GEICO was ordered to pay $23,000,000.00 to one of their insureds for GEICO failing to pay benefits, and denying payments on a whim. State Farm agreed to pay its customers $250,000,000 (That is not a typo) in order to avoid a racketeering trial in which customers claimed that State Farm was rigging an election for a Judge that had made favorable rulings for State Farm. USAA agreed to pay $39,000,000.00 to settle a lawsuit filed by its insureds (Veterans, Active Duty Military, and their families). These cases are evidence that some Insurance Companies are willing to skirt the law and disregard the moral high-ground in an effort to make a profit. Another example of insurers putting profit over people is how insurance companies are charging Oregon women more than Oregon men for auto insurance.

A recent study by an insurance search engine, The Zebra, found that Oregon women’ paid roughly $70.00 more for auto insurance last year than men did. A recent Pew Research study also came to the same conclusions on a national level. The studies found certain states prohibit gender based pricing, but Oregon is not one of them. What this means is that Insurers are at liberty to charge women more for insurance than men, and they do not have to have any justification for doing so.

The statistics support the fact that Oregon insurance companies are charging dramatically different rates for women than men. In 2016, insurers charged Oregon women $13.00 more for auto insurance than men. However, in 2018 that number inexplicably jumped to women paying $71.00 more for auto insurance than men. Does that mean that women are more dangerous on the road than men if insurers are charging them more? The answer is no.

The data does not support the Insurance Industry’s decisions to charge women more for car insurance in 25 States. The Zebra study affirmed that women and men equally engage in distracted driving, so that could not be a basis to charge women more. Additionally, fatality statistics do not support the insurance industry’s decision to overcharge Oregon women for car insurance. For example, men are the drivers in the vast majority of fatal Driving Under the Influence (DUII) crashes. Men also cause more speed related wrongful deaths on the road. The statistics show that men are riskier to insure than women.

View fullsize

Additionally, different companies charge different rates to similarly situated women throughout the country. For example, State Farm charged middle aged women the same as men. However, GEICO charged middle aged women 16% more than men. This is an important statistic. If insurance companies rates reflect the risk of a particular demographic of drivers then there would not be such a large disparity between the rates particular insurance companies are charging.

Then why are insurance companies charging women the so called “pink tax” to insure their vehicles? Why have the number of states where women pay more than men doubled in the past two years? The answer is simple, profits. The insurance industry is operating in a relaxed regulatory environment that permits them to take actions that will make their companies more profitable, even if that means imposing the “pink tax” on women.

For example, the insurance industry knows that Oregon does not have a bad faith claim, and Insurance Companies are specifically exempted from Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA). The UTPA is a law that provides consumers a remedy if consumers are ripped off by a business. However, the insurance industry lobbied the legislature to be exempted from that law. As a result the insurance industry knows they are likely immune from any real consequences of arbitrarily charging women more for insurance than men.

Despite the insurance industry’s protections, here at Ross Law we will sue insurance companies if a person has been wronged by an insurer and there is a recognized legal remedy for that person. For example we regularly sue insurance companies on behalf of people whose automobile insurers deny paying personal injury protection benefits. We also sue insurance companies to collect uninsured and under-insured motorist benefits. Ross Law has also sued insurance companies for denying insurance coverage for a car crash.

If you or someone you know has an issue with an auto insurance company please call Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658 for your free case evaluation. Ross Law PDX is happy to represent Oregonians in many types insurance disputes.

Please note that Ross Law PDX is not affiliated with The Zebra or the Pew Research Center. Please refer to the links in the article for the most accurate information. Please note that this blog may be considered attorney advertising and expresses the opinions of this law office. Please remember that the law is constantly changing and insurance issues are usually very complicated. Please consult with an Oregon attorney if you have a dispute with an Oregon insurer. Do not simply rely on this blog post.

Ross Law Files Lawsuit Against Ontario Auto Ranch for Unlawful Vehicle Sale

Ross Law PDX recently filed a lawsuit in Malheur County Circuit Court against Ontario Auto Ranch for an unlawful “Yo-Yo” sale of a vehicle. This is one of the more egregious “Yo-Yo” sales that we have seen in years.

Yo-Yo scams go by a few different terms (spot delivery, bushing scams), but essentially the scam goes like this: The dealership informs the consumer that their financing has been approved and the deal is done. The consumer then drives the vehicle off the lot and is under the impression it is theirs.

Days, weeks, or months later, the dealership calls the consumer and tells the consumer that the financing did not go through. The dealership will then claim they can obtain financing for the vehicle, but they will either need more money for a down payment, or they have to change the financing terms, or both. This puts the consumer in a difficult spot, because the consumer is under the impression the vehicle was theirs. Consumers don’t want to have to explain to friends and family that they had to return the vehicle because they couldn’t get it financed. Dealers know this, and capitalize on the consumer’s fears to get the consumer to agree to new less favorable financing terms. This allows the dealership to squeeze more money out of the consumer.

Yo-Yo sales are legal. However, the law requires the dealership to comply with certain deadlines and make certain disclosures in order to make a Yo-Yo sale legal. For example, the dealership has 14 days from the date the consumer takes possession of the vehicle to find the consumer financing or inform the consumer that financing under the original terms could not be obtained. During this 14-day period the dealership cannot sell the Trade-In vehicle. Additionally, if the dealership cannot obtain vehicle financing under the original terms, then the dealership must offer to immediately return any vehicle traded in and any cash down payment. If the dealership fails to do this, they have broken the law.

Usually there are other legal violations that flow out of these unlawful sales. Truth In Lending Act violations are common, unlawful “payment packing” is also common, and there will often be unlawful attempts to conceal negative equity or inflate cash down payments in an effort to obtain financing from the lender. This is what we allege Ontario Auto Ranch has done.

Ontario Auto Ranch is a large auto dealership in Ontario, Oregon. Auto Ranch sold our client a 2015 Ford truck in June 2018. Auto Ranch orchestrated the deal so that our client would trade in two vehicles for the Ford truck, and the dealership would obtain financing for the Ford Truck. Our client took possession of the vehicle in June 2018 and the dealership informed our client the financing had been approved. At that time, the dealership took possession of the 2 trade in vehicles.

One of the trade-ins was a 2017 Dodge truck, the other was an 2011 Ford. The Dodge was financed and the consumer owed more than the Dodge was worth. (negative equity) The financing documents do not note the Dodge had any negative equity, so it appears that the dealership gave our client cash for the 2011 Ford and applied that amount to the “Trade-In value” of the Dodge. The financing documents are silent on the amount the dealer paid our client for the 2011 Ford. This allowed the dealership to conceal the Dodge’s negative equity and make it appear the dealership paid more for the Dodge than they actually did.

The Retail Installment Contract was also silent as to “Theft Protection” and “Pre-Paid Maintenance.” Dealerships make significant profits on these additional products. However, these products appear on our client’s “Motor Vehicle Purchase Agreement.” It appears these products were unlawfully rolled into the purchase price of the vehicle, and were not disclosed in accordance with the law.

After the purchase of the Ford Truck, our client continued to contact Ontario Auto Ranch. He wanted to know where he would send his monthly payments to. Ontario Auto Ranch informed him that the vehicle financing was being processed and blamed the delay on the Credit Union.

Six weeks after our client took possession of the vehicle, Ontario Auto Ranch finally informed our client that they were having difficulty financing the vehicle due to a paperwork error. In August 2018, the dealership demanded our client sign a new Retail Installment Contract with new financing terms. Auto Ranch again failed to disclose the Dodge’s negative equity and there is no mention of the 2011 Ford on the August Retail Installment Contract. However, this time the dealership noted on the Retail Installment Contract that there was $299.00 paid to an entity for “Maintenance.” Similar to the June 2018 sale, our client was instructed where to sign and did so based on the dealer’s representations.

Our client continued to call Auto Ranch in August and September 2018. At this point, our client had the vehicle for roughly three months. However, Ontario Auto Ranch gave him the run-around and would not provide a clear answer on the status of the financing. In September, Ontario Auto Ranch asserted the loan needed to be re-submitted to the bank.

Later in September, the dealership informed our client that it was unable to obtain funding for the Ford’s loan under the terms of the agreement. Auto Ranch informed our client that a different bank could finance the deal, but at a substantially higher interest rate. Shortly thereafter, Auto Ranch informed our client that the options were: 1) sign a new financing contract with a higher interest rate, or 2) Auto Ranch would repossess the Ford. Auto Ranch never informed our client whether or not he could obtain his trade-ins back. In October 2018, our client contacted Ontario Auto Ranch in an effort to determine the status of financing. The dealership has yet to get back to him or contact Ross Law.

As a result, our client had no choice but to file a lawsuit against the dealership. This type of scam is all too common. However, it rarely gets to this point. As you can imagine this has been extremely frustrating and difficult for our client. We are eager to force the dealership to attempt to justify their actions and hopefully Auto Ranch will learn from this lawsuit.

FOR A FULL FACTUAL BASIS FOR THIS POST SEE: Malheur County Circuit Court Case 18CV55364. If you, or someone you know, has been ripped off by a car dealers, call Ross Law PDX at 503.224.1658. Jeremiah Ross represents consumers throughout the state of Oregon. Please note that this litigation is evolving and refer to the Court’s file for updated information, and this post is based on current information as we know it. The dealership may have a different version of events, and we look forward to hearing those.

Jeremiah Ross Votes to Approve The 2018 Final Report on the Task Force on Autonomous Vehicle

After numerous meetings, hours of reviewing documents, and collaborating and discussing issues with others, Oregon’s Task for On Autonomous Vehicles unanimously voted to approve a 2018 Final Report to the Oregon State Legislature. I was honored to represent consumers on this committee and protect their interests on the Liability and Insurance Sub-Committee. In addition to myself there was only one other personal injury lawyer on the committee and I was proud to be the only Consumer lawyer on the committee. The Report will now be forwarded to the Legislature to assist them in formulating laws and policies regarding Oregon’s Autonomous Vehicles. Click here to review the full task force on Autonomous Vehicles 2018 Final Report.

If you or someone you know has been injured in a crash with an Autonomous Vehicle Call Oregon Personal Injury and Consumer& Auto Fraud Attorney Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658 or Ross Law LLC. Please remember this post is for informational purposes only and that it can be considered ATTORNEY ADVERTISING.