I've said it once, and I will say it again. This is a baaaaaaad idea. Does something need to be done in areas where jury awards are getting way out of hand? Yes, but the majority of the country is responsible and awards are within norms.
First, limiting jury awards will not drive down the cost of insurance. This has already been shown in states that do limit jury awards, like Louisiana. While the very large awards will be reduced, smaller awards will increase. It is like the speed limit. If the limit is 55mph, We go 55. If it is 65mph, we go 65mph. There is no law that says we must drive 65 in a 65mph zone, but we do. Same things happen with awards. If the award limit is $250,000, the jury will award $250,000 even though before caps the award would have been $100,000. It is just human nature.
Second, do you really want to put this in the hands on legislatures who get lobbied by groups like the insurance industry. They spend millions of dollars each year lobbying congress. How much do you spend to make sure you get a fair shake? Do you want a congressman deciding how much your life is worth? Insurance companies will pay for that congressman's vacation... will you? Juries are one of the last elements of truly individual citizen participation. Don't let the federal government take this away from you.
Third, this has absolutely no bearing on frivolous law suits. Capping an award does nothing to stop the frivolous suits. It just reduces the amount awarded to legitimate suits.
Fourth, the main reason that premiums are rising is because of bad investing by insurance companies. Only 50% of an insurance companies income comes from premiums. The other 50% come from investments. Insurance companies lost a bundle with all of the recent corporate fraud. So, take you anger out on Ken Lay, not the poor woman who lost her husband because a doctor left a sponge inside his chest.
My solution is to have a panel made up of doctors and civilians who look at the merits of a case before it goes to trial to weed out the frivolous suits.
Link to Story
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with Boomr on a lot of this. As usually, he is very elegant in his flowery prose.
As to my love of juries, I will say this. As you and I both know from working in Louisiana - 1) judges there are elected and pander a lot. 2) Judges there are routinely bought. How man judges in New Orleans have been indicted in the past 5 years? 3-4? or is it more now? But I do agree that judges should have more of a role in being a gate keeper. Maybe just not in NO
As for caps on non-monitory damages - I think basing awards on purely monetary means is bad. What if I go in for a hernia operation and come out not being able to walk ever again. I can still do my job, so there is no lost wages, but what is the value of being able to walk... What about the fact that paraplegics have a much shorter life expectancy than people who have functioning legs. What is the value of a constant, knowing back pain from a doctor who sliced open disc and you never get a real decent nights sleep again? I can still work. So, again, there are no lost wages, but I have lost so much more. As you know, before I became a lawyer I also worked for insurance companies. I read Doctor's reports all day long. What I learned is 15% of doctors are absolutely great, top notch, when there is an accident, it is REALLY and accident. 80% of doctors are good and hardly ever screw up, but they are sometimes negligent. But, then there are those 5% at the bottom that really have no business being doctors. there were more times that I had to call up the doctor and tell them that their patients was an extreme diabetic or close to dieing from kidney disease. They don't deserve to have caps on your and my losses.
Post a Comment