Tyler Staggs is Reclaiming Justice for the Plaintiffs

Tyler Staggs has had a busy start to the year. His firm, Spooner Staggs, relaunched in January with a brand-new beat. The firm, formerly famous throughout Oregon and nationally for their work on the insurance defense side (as “Spooner & Much”), is now representing plaintiffs, advocating for rightful compensation for seriously injured accident victims. And the phone is ringing off the hook.

Staggs is a trial lawyer, through and through. He expertly combines legal knowledge and creativity to develop innovative and winning strategies for his clients. Perhaps even more powerful is his capacity for empathy. Staggs works from a place of deep respect for the people around him – clients, colleagues, and court officials alike.

He grew up with an eclectic childhood that makes him as comfortable at a gala as a kegger. His ability to deeply connect with folks from all walks of life makes him a great advocate and adds to his impact in the courtroom.

“You have 12 people sitting there watching every move you make, every gesture. They can smell authenticity,” says Staggs. “It’s no different than real life. If you feel somebody is exaggerating or hiding something, you’re going to distrust whatever they tell you. That’s death to a trial lawyer.”

A recent ruling in the Supreme Court in Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union offers a seismic shift for injured victims looking for fair compensation. This decision generates tort liability under the Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act for negligent denial of a claim, essentially leveling the playing field for individuals going up against insurance companies.

Staggs has a deep understanding of the Moody ruling – what it means for injured parties, and how it can be wielded as a powerful tool for plaintiffs facing off against big insurance companies.

“It allows first-party bad faith against insurers in Oregon for negligent claim handling,” says Staggs. “Now, at Spooner Staggs, we’re seeing a huge number of requests to handle those cases because we have a particular knowledge in this space from our years defending the insurance industry.”

The firm’s motto is “See you in court.” It speaks to the well-earned confidence that Staggs and his team exude. The seasoned trial lawyer is highly attuned to the impact he’s able to have for wrongfully injured people, and the change suits him well.

Lawdragon: Congratulations on the launch of the new firm, Spooner Staggs!

Tyler Staggs: Thank you! After years defending insurance companies, we’ve moved to the plaintiffs’ side. We took out some pretty bold ads to broadcast our move to the Oregon legal community, and people are calling it our “manifesto.” It’s been extremely well received, and the phone is ringing off the hook. We’re super busy, which is what we were hoping for. We’re thrilled.

LD: Tell us what it’s been like – switching to the plaintiffs’ side after so long working for the defense.

TS: When we were working for the defense, we really felt that we were on the right side of those cases. The insurance companies had worked the cases effectively, they paid the ones that deserved to be paid, and they sent us the ones that needed to be defended – because they’d determined that the plaintiff was wrong and the defendant was right. Those were the cases that got tried.

Getting sued can be traumatizing. People would come to us in tears believing that they’d done nothing wrong and didn’t deserve to be sued. We’d go to court and help vindicate them; we were getting them justice. And that was a great feeling.

The tide started turning when insurance companies stopped paying just claims. This put us in the awkward position of defending cases where it was getting a little grayer, a little foggier. Sometimes we’d find ourselves being told to defend cases that we felt really should have been settled fairly.

It didn’t happen all at once; it came by degrees over many years. We finally got to the point where we said, “We’ve had it!” As trial lawyers, we want to accomplish justice, and it felt like we couldn’t do it on the defense side anymore. Not under their new rules and policies. Algorithms and artificial intelligence just upended the insurance game.

LD: What has the reaction of some of these insurance companies – your former clients – been as you have made this change?

TS: Well, we’re friends with a lot of the insurance adjusters. We’d developed strong relationships with these hard-working professionals over many cases over many years. We have a lot of empathy for them and what they’re also going through. Candidly, they don’t like it either, the insurance industry has removed them and so much of their expertise from the calculation.

They know things have changed; they see it too, but they’re in a tough spot. It speaks to the broader issue that’s happening to the American worker with the rise of AI and companies’ reliance on technology and algorithms over actual human expertise, nuance, and discernment.

It’s interesting because some terrific trial lawyers who Ralph [Spooner], Tom [Spooner], or I used to wage war against are starting to call us. They either want to bring us in as co-counsel to fight alongside them on their biggest, toughest injuries, or just send us their best cases in exchange for a 30 percent referral fee. They’re actually super excited and relieved to have us on their side.

They know our insider’s knowledge of how insurers make decisions can help persuade them to pay what they should. We’ve already had cases where we were able to negotiate for tens of thousands of percent increases over the best offer they’d been able to squeeze out of an insurance company. We’ve been able to turn final four-figure offers into seven-figure settlements.

We understand that it’s a data-driven system. The adjustors input data points and the system kicks out authorization to pay a certain amount of money. You can’t fight the data points – they’re non-negotiable – so it’s a waste of time to try. Input [X] spits out offer [Y]. Most injury lawyers try to argue why [Y] is inadequate. That’s an argument that’s going to lose every time.

But, if you know what their data points are, then you can work within their system. You have to provide them with the information that recalculates the [X] variable, so it spits out [Y] times 10, or times 100, or times 100,000.

This often requires developing a specific type of additional evidence, but you can’t do it if you don’t have a comprehensive understanding of the how the insurance industry makes these decisions. That’s how we have been able to generate exponentially larger settlement offers. And the adjustors don’t argue much about it because their own system generated that number. We just helped them feed into it the data that recalculated it.

Those variables often include PTSD and other psychological, emotional, or mental health injuries. Accidents and injuries can be emotionally devastating, destroying a person’s peace of mind or ability to function.

Tragically, most plaintiffs’ lawyers don’t adequately value these “invisible” injuries because the insurance industry has historically refused to pay for them. We know how to credibly argue those types of injuries to win some remarkably big numbers that help our clients get the care they need. We recently got an Oregon state record $5.5M uninsured motorist award for a client whose primary injury was PTSD.

LD: What can you tell us about your current caseload?

TS: Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union came down from the Oregon Supreme Court last December. Now Oregon lawyers are asking us to handle those cases for them. They know we have unique insight in this area from 50 years as defense lawyers. And our settlement numbers directly bear that out.

In fact, when we were on the defense side, we wrote the insurance industry’s amicus brief, arguing against Moody because Oregon law didn’t allow this claim. Of course, now that the Oregon Supreme Court elected to change the law and permit insurance bad faith actions, we applaud that for Oregon consumers. We’re able to use that tool as a potent weapon to force them to treat our clients with greater fairness and compassion.

LD: Can you give us an example?

TS: Sure. We had a terrific young lawyer bring us a case where his client was wrongfully denied benefits by her own insurance company under pretty egregious circumstances. She’d had to live in pain for an entire year without the surgery that she desperately needed.

We got the case a few weeks before the trial was to start. We immediately asked the judge to let us amend the Complaint to include an allegation of negligent claim handling and increase the prayer for relief by $2M. This was a considerable amount, as the initial claim had been quite small.

The court acknowledged that it was cognizable under Moody and let us add the new claim. With that persuasive new threat, the case settled promptly (and confidentially). The client was thrilled to have her serious and legitimate injuries acknowledged and compensated.

LD: To go back a bit, what first drew you to the legal profession?

TS: I always wanted to be a lawyer and knew I wanted to be a trial lawyer. Law is a profession that I always aspired to and thought would be a great career for me. I met Ralph Spooner when I was in college and told him I was planning to go to law school. He said, “Well, then you can come work for us if you want.”

So, I spent summers in Salem clerking at the firm. I licked stamps and envelopes, filed things – I started at the bottom and did all of it. When I was in school, Ralph would send me legal research projects to work on, and I’d send him my memos and analysis. I don’t know if he really needed it or if he was just trying to put a little cash in my pocket to help me pay for law school.

Regardless, when I graduated, Ralph told me if I wanted to work at the firm, there was a place for me. Ralph’s widely considered the best trial lawyer in Oregon; who wouldn’t want to learn how to try cases from the master?

LD: What are some of the qualities that you think make an excellent trial lawyer?

TS: Everything I learned about trials comes straight from Ralph. I’d say the most important things are to be polite and prepared. Usually, the winning lawyer is the one who’s willing to work harder. It’s almost a cliché to say you also have to be authentic, but I think that just means being honest with yourself, your client, and the jury.

You have 12 people sitting there watching every move you make, every gesture. They can smell authenticity.

LD: It sounds like Ralph was a great mentor to you.

TS: They don’t make them like Ralph anymore. He’s a throwback from a bygone era of absolute gentlemen, with a strong moral compass that points due north – he’s 100 percent ethical. Ralph is Oregon’s Atticus Finch – the guy everybody reveres and wants advice from. Lawyers from all over Oregon cold call him for advice, and he’s always taken those calls. I’m in the fortunate position to get to ask him questions every day.

I can’t tell you how many people have told me how lucky I am. Ralph’s the consummate professional – absolutely brilliant, but completely down to earth. I can’t possibly say enough good things.

You could fill a conference room with people whose legal careers he’s influenced and enhanced. There’s a long list of successful attorneys who have worked at our firm and been mentored by him. When word gets around that Ralph’s trying a case, the area’s top trial lawyers and sitting judges come in to watch and learn. No other lawyer gets that level of respect.

LD: Have you had a chance to be a mentor to younger lawyers yourself?

TS: Yes, I mentor a few of the younger lawyers at the firm – we use that analogy, “the wolf pack.” We attack everything together and we talk every single day. Ralph’s had an individual hand mentoring all of them as well, of course, but they haven’t gotten to spend as much time in the courtroom with him as I have. But they try cases with me. We all believe in paying it forward.

So, I pass along the lessons that Ralph taught me. One of my favorites is the idea that it takes a lot of guts to “do less.” Knowing what not to do is as important as knowing what to do.

Civil attorneys don’t spend as much time in front of juries as criminal defense lawyers do. I’ve heard judges say that they don’t enjoy civil attorneys trying cases in their courtrooms. This is especially true for younger lawyers who tend to “shoot at anything that moves.”

That is, when it comes to objecting, sure you can, but should you? You have to consider that people won’t remember what you say, but they’ll remember how you made them feel.

If there’s something that’s technically objectionable, you always need to ask yourself, “do I want to stop the trial and highlight this issue for the jury?” Because they’ll remember both your objection and the objectionable evidence. So that’s what I mean by “doing less.” Sometimes, you’re helping your case by not objecting and just letting the information slide by.

And understandably, young lawyers have a really hard time with that. It comes with hundreds and hundreds of hours of real, hands-on, in-the-trenches trial experience. And that’s almost impossible for most lawyers to get these days.

Additionally, when you’re taking a defendant’s deposition and you get some great testimony, the young lawyer’s instinct is to excitedly ask 10 more questions about it. But the right thing to do – the “Ralph” thing to do – is to always “have one in the chamber.” Recognize what you got, don’t react, and quickly ask another question on a different subject area.

Move on, so that that great testimony you elicited is preserved intact, and you’ll be able to use it against them at trial. Don’t give the deponent a chance to realize what they’ve said and fix it or water it down.

LD: Do you think that your style has changed at all since moving over to the plaintiff side?

TS: That’s a good question; I’ve been thinking a lot about this. I still believe in substance over style. We never posed or postured as defense attorneys. We approached our defense practice that way, and now we handle plaintiffs’ cases the same way; we do every ounce of the hard work. It’s not about flash, it’s not about being coy or clever, it’s about putting in the time, being honest and authentic, and having integrity. And of course, telling a compelling story the jury can believe in.

I think that on the defense side I was good at being the chess master, being the strategic and procedural gamesmen. That skill doesn’t always transfer well; in injury cases you don’t win high-value recoveries on technicalities. But what does transfer well is our firm motto – “See you in court.” That’s our ethos. If we can get you into the courtroom, we have the skills to win, that’s what we mean.

I don’t especially like gun metaphors, but in this situation, we see ourselves as the old-west gunslinger who is standing alone on the side of righteousness, ready to protect those who can’t protect themselves. I’ll meet you at high noon. Bring a gun, and it better be loaded.