Edwards! - Page 5

11-17-2006, 04:25 PM

They won't go down because the number of frivolous suits will go up. Ambulance chasers will go for quantity over quality. The option of making less will NOT be an option.
Believe it or not, if you like, not all insurance companies are just out to bleed everyone for everything they can.
I was told, often, to do the right thing for my clients, and always did what was right for my clients. If someone tried to buy too much insurance for their needs or for what they could afford, I told them not to. I did this on a weekly basis. I was present for several sessions where claims adjusters told clients not to sue because they had been indemnified.
The "evil, blood sucking, soulless insurance companies" is a myth. The profit margin for most insurance companies is tiny compared to retail and other businesses.
When looked-at for what it is, it is one of the most altruistic forms of business out there.
The company assuming risk for the individual by investing for them and taking a loss in case something happens to the many in the short-term... that is the business plan. The rates are controlled by the state, "they" do not just raise rates as they like, your elected officials do that. Most companies only put in for a rate change when they have to, if they raise rates and are not competitive people & businesses leave to go to more competitive/cheaper companies... it is not like we get to charge what we want. There is no OPEC of insurance. No one company knows how another underwrites or has their prices like they do and those secrets are held VERY tightly. (This is why Progressive's ad campaign is such a huge lie and joke)
Urban myths fuel the common idea of what insurance companies are.

Flint · 11-17-2006, 05:34 PM

Super fucking busy at work. Let me refine my position to say: I think Tort Reform is bullshit, and I think the rhetoric used to support it is bullshit.

11-17-2006, 05:38 PM

BTW... if my posts seem like they are conflicted on this point. They are not.
I am not for Tort Reform as it is currently presented. Across the board caps will simply make for more suits.
Nor are insurance companies the problem. They are the safety-net. Without them, no one would get anything.
We need more, and more strict, guidelines for the lawyers that bring the suits.
There is the source of the problem... not only the source, but The Problem itself.

Clodfobble · 11-21-2006, 05:29 PM

I think there should be a large, mandatory financial penalty to both the plaintiff and their lawyer if a case is thrown out as frivolous.

xoxoxoBruce · 11-26-2006, 05:15 PM

Tort reform does not mean blame lawyers, despite your strawman examples.
Layers can't be blamed more than the greedy people that misuse them.
Tort reform is simply changing the laws, the framework, that lawyers work under and we all live under.

The discussion should be whether the laws are fair to all parties or should be changed to make them so. That's all, everything else is smoke and mirrors, a distraction from the issue.

tw · 11-26-2006, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Tort reform does not mean blame lawyers, ...
The discussion should be whether the laws are fair to all parties or should be changed to make them so.

Those same laws in 1970s, well, provided are multiple examples including Firestone 500 and Beverly Hills Supper Club. Did tort laws change? No. What changed?

Tort reform believes we can legislate 'fair' by restricting lawyers. Yes laws could change. For example empower logical members of a jury at the expense of emotional ones. Fill a jury room with facts. Today a jury room is full only of perceptions found inside each brain. That is perfect for those who think emotionally. That is a recipe for unfair.

So where do restrictions on lawyers solve this problem? Where is this reform that would solve 'unfair'? Where are the specific examples? All I see are 'blame the lawyer' posts. Any attempt to restrict lawyers does not solve this obvious problem.

tw · 11-29-2006, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesman065

Did you miss the above tw???

Long before Yesman065 posted a 'four letter word' emotional tirade, a problem was defined and a solution was proposed. Yesman065 - I shall make it simpler just for you.
Which is not my experience. Problem was not too many people seeking a windfall profit. ...

See how it works? A problem is identified. Only then is a solution proposed.

So that Yesman065 need not remain so confused and for a third time: this question defines a problem long before any solution can be proposed: What is the problem? Juries, lawyers, or the Judge? What is the problem? Yesman065 - can you answer that one question?

yesman065 · 11-29-2006, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw

One fact I did observe - we were shorted information massively so that a number based in logic and historical precedent was not possible.

So you as a juror know know that you were shorted facts. By whom? The judge, the lawyers or both? Again, you have not specified. Perhaps it is a design flaw within the system. That is not known as you did not address who "shorted you information." In your case it is possible and probable that the award was raised by this unclear withholding of information, but it is not known by whom.

That does not change the fact that most believe the compensation awards are ridiculously large in many cases and do not begin to prevent that for which they were intended. Overtly high awards have left many disenfranchised with "the system", creates an ever increasing number of cases and backlogs the system from concentrating on other cases that most likely deserve more time & attention.

Therefore, I believe that you have not given us all enough information to ascertain where the fault lies. You have only told us that you were "shorted information massively" without informing us by whom.

yesman065 · 11-27-2006, 07:36 AM

Sorry I was away and couldn't respond earlier, but. . . When did the definition "tort reform = blame lawyers" become a fact. I thought tort reform was going to limit the amount of compensation that could be received by the plaintiff. Thereby creating a known award. This will not blame lawyers, it will simply reduce the rediculous amount that some ill-informed jurys emotionally can award. If the lawyer is just trying to get rich, then yes they will be sadly underpaid. The courts will also have less cases to try as the number of "get rich quick" frivolous lawsuits will vastly diminish. Blaming lawyers has nothing to do with it. Then again, after my experience with lawyers, I'm not so sure thats a bad thing.

I think a larger problem is the people that are sitting on these juries. From what I can gather, they do not represent a fair "jury of peers." Many people get off without serving on juries because of other issues they feel are more important or because their viewpoints are not condusive to one side or the other. This leaves a group of people who cn be easily swayed either way and come up with outrageous and ill-conceived verdicts. One, just one example would be the O.J. Simpson case. There are many many more to support this argument as well.

Happy Monkey · 11-27-2006, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesman065

I thought tort reform was going to limit the amount of compensation that could be received by the plaintiff. Thereby creating a known award. This will not blame lawyers, it will simply reduce the rediculous amount that some ill-informed jurys emotionally can award.

And if that known award can be budgeted for, a corporation can skimp on the safety!

yesman065 · 11-27-2006, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

And if that known award can be budgeted for, a corporation can skimp on the safety!

I agree 100% - that point was made earlier and it still holds true. Although it seems that those who have the most to lose (lawyers) are the only ones against reform. Just an observation.

Happy Monkey · 11-27-2006, 03:12 PM

And the ones who have the most to gain (corporations that make potentially dangerous products) are the only ones for reform. Just an observation.

yesman065 · 11-27-2006, 04:01 PM

Very good point - begs the question - Where does that leave the rest of us?

tw · 11-27-2006, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesman065

Sorry I was away and couldn't respond earlier, but. . . When did the definition "tort reform = blame lawyers" become a fact. I thought tort reform was going to limit the amount of compensation that could be received by the plaintiff. Thereby creating a known award. This will not blame lawyers, it will simply reduce the rediculous amount that some ill-informed jurys emotionally can award.

How do you have a solution without first defining the problem? Do you also fix computers by assuming and then installing more fans? Do you see snow and therefore know 4 wheel drive is safer? Do you know a hurricane will not strike because previous predictions did not occur? Do you run stop signs because you did so previously and no one died? Do you "tort reform" using same logic?

Each example has a common factor. No need to read further if you understand such basics. If not, then continue reading.

Where is a paragraph or long and detailed definition of the problem? How does one cure symptoms and not first define a problem? If you don't blame lawyers, then do you blame juries or judge? Or is problem solved by curing symptoms? Yesman065 - repeated posts and you still have not even defined a problem.

From junior high school science: first a hypothesis that is consistent with current known reality. You did not do that. Then provide experimental evidence. You did not do that either. Instead you arbitrarily assume jury verdicts are too high (without doing what you were taught to define a fact). Even then you make assumptions by violating these basic concepts. Why is speculation (jury verdicts are too high) automatically a fact? Simple principles necessary to establish a fact are violated. Then you follow that speculation by 'curing symptoms'.

yesman065 · 11-28-2006, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw

How do you have a solution without first defining the problem?

Where is a paragraph or long and detailed definition of the problem? How does one cure symptoms and not first define a problem? If you don't blame lawyers, then do you blame juries or judge? Or is problem solved by curing symptoms? Yesman065 - repeated posts and you still have not even defined a problem.

I did not start this post nor did I bring up the subject of Tort Reform - You did. I simply stated my opinion. I believe in an earlier post I asked you to define the problem. All you have done is assess blame and get defensive. Just like anything in life our system is not perfect and the amounts awarded in many cases are not representative of the "damages incurred." Unlike you, I am not trying to blame anyone.

Please don't lecture me on the scientific method of problem solving. I am well aware of it, thank you.
It seems to me that you have no real defense to some sort of systemic reform and are now trying to dodge the issue with irrelevancies and disparaging remarks.

Now lets try this like adults. You tell me:
Is there a problem with the tort system?
If so, what is the problem?
Is this problem, if any, fixable?
Does the system need to be reformed or modified?
What alternatives are there to rectify the situation?

11-17-2006, 05:34 PM	#2
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	Super fucking busy at work. Let me refine my position to say: I think Tort Reform is bullshit, and I think the rhetoric used to support it is bullshit. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

11-26-2006, 05:15 PM	#5
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Tort reform does not mean blame lawyers, despite your strawman examples. Layers can't be blamed more than the greedy people that misuse them. Tort reform is simply changing the laws, the framework, that lawyers work under and we all live under. The discussion should be whether the laws are fair to all parties or should be changed to make them so. That's all, everything else is smoke and mirrors, a distraction from the issue. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

11-27-2006, 07:36 AM	#9
yesman065 Banned - Self Imposed Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,847	Sorry I was away and couldn't respond earlier, but. . . When did the definition "tort reform = blame lawyers" become a fact. I thought tort reform was going to limit the amount of compensation that could be received by the plaintiff. Thereby creating a known award. This will not blame lawyers, it will simply reduce the rediculous amount that some ill-informed jurys emotionally can award. If the lawyer is just trying to get rich, then yes they will be sadly underpaid. The courts will also have less cases to try as the number of "get rich quick" frivolous lawsuits will vastly diminish. Blaming lawyers has nothing to do with it. Then again, after my experience with lawyers, I'm not so sure thats a bad thing. I think a larger problem is the people that are sitting on these juries. From what I can gather, they do not represent a fair "jury of peers." Many people get off without serving on juries because of other issues they feel are more important or because their viewpoints are not condusive to one side or the other. This leaves a group of people who cn be easily swayed either way and come up with outrageous and ill-conceived verdicts. One, just one example would be the O.J. Simpson case. There are many many more to support this argument as well. Last edited by yesman065; 11-27-2006 at 07:40 AM.

11-27-2006, 03:12 PM	#12
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	And the ones who have the most to gain (corporations that make potentially dangerous products) are the only ones for reform. Just an observation. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-17-2006, 04:25 PM	#1
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	They won't go down because the number of frivolous suits will go up. Ambulance chasers will go for quantity over quality. The option of making less will NOT be an option. Believe it or not, if you like, not all insurance companies are just out to bleed everyone for everything they can. I was told, often, to do the right thing for my clients, and always did what was right for my clients. If someone tried to buy too much insurance for their needs or for what they could afford, I told them not to. I did this on a weekly basis. I was present for several sessions where claims adjusters told clients not to sue because they had been indemnified. The "evil, blood sucking, soulless insurance companies" is a myth. The profit margin for most insurance companies is tiny compared to retail and other businesses. When looked-at for what it is, it is one of the most altruistic forms of business out there. The company assuming risk for the individual by investing for them and taking a loss in case something happens to the many in the short-term... that is the business plan. The rates are controlled by the state, "they" do not just raise rates as they like, your elected officials do that. Most companies only put in for a rate change when they have to, if they raise rates and are not competitive people & businesses leave to go to more competitive/cheaper companies... it is not like we get to charge what we want. There is no OPEC of insurance. No one company knows how another underwrites or has their prices like they do and those secrets are held VERY tightly. (This is why Progressive's ad campaign is such a huge lie and joke) Urban myths fuel the common idea of what insurance companies are.

11-17-2006, 05:38 PM	#3
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	BTW... if my posts seem like they are conflicted on this point. They are not. I am not for Tort Reform as it is currently presented. Across the board caps will simply make for more suits. Nor are insurance companies the problem. They are the safety-net. Without them, no one would get anything. We need more, and more strict, guidelines for the lawyers that bring the suits. There is the source of the problem... not only the source, but The Problem itself.

11-21-2006, 05:29 PM	#4
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	I think there should be a large, mandatory financial penalty to both the plaintiff and their lawyer if a case is thrown out as frivolous.

11-27-2006, 04:01 PM	#13
yesman065 Banned - Self Imposed Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,847	Very good point - begs the question - Where does that leave the rest of us?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)