There’s an old bit of advice for lawyers that has been repeated many times over the years. It goes something like this.

“If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table.”

The old adage came to mind as I was thinking about Gov. Josh Green’s recent rather intemperate public statements blasting the insurance companies who are, he says, delaying a “global settlement” of the Lahaina fire lawsuits based simply on their sheer greed for profits.

Honolulu Star-Advertiser writer Dan Nakaso reported earlier on Green’s comments before the newspaper’s editorial board.

“They’ve been running roughshod over communities for decades,” Green said.

He praised local attorneys for being willing to give up the right of their insurance company clients to sue those ultimately responsible — including the state — in order to reach a settlement because “it was for the good of the community” by getting settlement money into the hands of Maui victims over three years, beginning in 2025.

But Green repeatedly told the Honolulu Star-­Advertiser editorial board on Wednesday that he blames mainland lawyers representing State Farm Insurance for demanding to be able to sue to recoup their insurance payouts.

“They don’t care about Hawaii at all,” Green said. “They just want their money.”

Among several names, he called State Farm “greedy” and “ruthless” and more interested in profits than helping Maui victims become “whole.”

He accused the company of wanting to pursue lawsuits to maintain “massive profits” and “giant profits.”

At issue is a provision of the proposed global settlement that would bar insurers that have paid out fire claims from suing those responsible for the fire to recover the amount of claims paid. Nearly 150 insurance companies, which were not parties in the lawsuits, have gone to court challenging the settlement provision that would prohibit them from pursuing reimbursement through a standard insurance practice known as “subrogation.”

According to the website, Investopedia.com:

Subrogation is a term describing the right held by most insurance carriers to legally pursue a third party that caused an insurance loss to an insured. This allows the insurance carrier to recover the amount of the claim it paid to the insured for the loss.

Subrogation refers to the act of one person or party standing in the place of another person or party. It effectively defines the rights of the insurance company both before and after it has paid claims made against a policy. Also, it makes the process of obtaining a settlement under an insurance policy easier.

When an insurance company pursues a third party for damages, it is said to “step into the shoes of the policyholder.” Thus, the carrier will have the same rights and legal standing as the policyholder when seeking compensation for losses. If the insured party does not have the legal standing to sue the third party, the insurer will also be unable to pursue a lawsuit as a result.

States differ in the way they allow or restrict subrogation in different types of insurance claims, and it isn’t unusual to have disagreements over how a state’s insurance laws are to be interpreted.

But the governor’s broadsides against “greedy insurers” fail to recognize any of the legal complexities.

Indeed, maybe I’m confused here. The governor says getting money into the hands of fire victims is vital. And yet that’s what the insurance companies have been doing. In court filings, they say they have paid out $2.3 billion in claims, with another billion already in the pipeline. On the other hand, Green’s global settlement, if it is finally approved, provides for payments that will not even begin until 2025, and will be spread out over several years.

Knowing that Green can’t be accused of being an anti-corporate crusader, it seems to me that he’s simply pounding the table. And that makes me wonder whether the unusual table-pounding is because neither the law nor the facts are on his side.

It’s going to be interesting to see how the Hawaii Supreme Court sorts through the issues and attempts to balance the varied and conflicting interests of the parties without throwing a monkey wrench into the gears of the property insurance system that we all rely on directly or indirectly.