Tort Reform

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.

Should damages be capped?

Yes
18
28%
No
47
72%
 
Total votes: 65

User avatar
A'nold

Gold
Posts: 3617
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby A'nold » Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:44 pm

I'm not into name calling but you are a COMPLETE MORON if you actually think insurance companies will pass on any "savings" they get from tort caps or at least anything that will make your doctor visit cheaper. Go ahead, buy the insurance company hype hook, line, and sinker, you're only hurting yourself.

User avatar
TheTopBloke

Bronze
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby TheTopBloke » Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:47 pm

ravens9111 wrote:No I am not suggesting that awards be capped based on the assumption the insurance companies are going to reduce rates. One has nothing to do with the other. I am suggesting that there be caps so companies do not have UNLIMITED liability. Or so awards are not based on the amount of assets a defendant has.


First of all, the other poster was correct, awards are not based on the amount of assets a defendant has.

And second, what is the purpose of reducing liability? Just so that it is not unlimited?

ravens9111

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:42 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby ravens9111 » Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:52 pm

A'nold wrote:I'm not into name calling but you are a COMPLETE MORON if you actually think insurance companies will pass on any "savings" they get from tort caps or at least anything that will make your doctor visit cheaper. Go ahead, buy the insurance company hype hook, line, and sinker, you're only hurting yourself.


I think you are missing the point. The rate of incidence will be the same regardless what the cap is. The difference is that a doctor will not have to purchase, for example, $20 million in malpractice insurance. Instead, they may only need $5 million in coverage. Your premium is based on the amount of coverage you buy. Obviously, a $20 million policy is much more expensive than a $5 million policy.

User avatar
A'nold

Gold
Posts: 3617
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby A'nold » Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:55 pm

ravens9111 wrote:
A'nold wrote:I'm not into name calling but you are a COMPLETE MORON if you actually think insurance companies will pass on any "savings" they get from tort caps or at least anything that will make your doctor visit cheaper. Go ahead, buy the insurance company hype hook, line, and sinker, you're only hurting yourself.


I think you are missing the point. The rate of incidence will be the same regardless what the cap is. The difference is that a doctor will not have to purchase, for example, $20 million in malpractice insurance. Instead, they may only need $5 million in coverage. Your premium is based on the amount of coverage you buy. Obviously, a $20 million policy is much more expensive than a $5 million policy.


You don't understand how the business world, and especially insurance companies work. The doctor will still pay up the ass. Even if he/she doesn't, the doctor will still find a way to keep the rates the same.

ravens9111

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:42 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby ravens9111 » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:00 pm

TheTopBloke wrote:
ravens9111 wrote:No I am not suggesting that awards be capped based on the assumption the insurance companies are going to reduce rates. One has nothing to do with the other. I am suggesting that there be caps so companies do not have UNLIMITED liability. Or so awards are not based on the amount of assets a defendant has.


First of all, the other poster was correct, awards are not based on the amount of assets a defendant has.

And second, what is the purpose of reducing liability? Just so that it is not unlimited?


Maybe not as a percentage of assets. But the more assets you have, the higher the award is likely to be, no?

The purpose is not reducing liability. It is the mere fact that companies have no idea how much they are liable for anything. For all I care, you can set the max. liability to 500 million. As long as companies know what they are responsible for, that's all that matters.

taxguy

Bronze
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby taxguy » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:01 pm

Actually, I don't believe in tort caps per se since I don't think it will solve the main problem: reducing the number of wild law suits.

However, if we adopt the British system where the loser pays the winners legal fees, suits with little merit won't be brought.

User avatar
TheTopBloke

Bronze
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby TheTopBloke » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:05 pm

taxguy wrote:Actually, I don't believe in tort caps per se since I don't think it will solve the main problem: reducing the number of wild law suits.

However, if we adopt the British system where the loser pays the winners legal fees, suits with little merit won't be brought.


Again there are already remedies in place to reduce frivolous lawsuits. And besides that, this frivolous lawsuit nonsense is just that, utter nonsense, a myth. There is no great problem with frivolous lawsuits. A SLAPP suit does provide for the defense to be awarded fees. This whole argument is moot by process already in place.

ravens9111

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:42 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby ravens9111 » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:07 pm

A'nold wrote:
ravens9111 wrote:
A'nold wrote:I'm not into name calling but you are a COMPLETE MORON if you actually think insurance companies will pass on any "savings" they get from tort caps or at least anything that will make your doctor visit cheaper. Go ahead, buy the insurance company hype hook, line, and sinker, you're only hurting yourself.


I think you are missing the point. The rate of incidence will be the same regardless what the cap is. The difference is that a doctor will not have to purchase, for example, $20 million in malpractice insurance. Instead, they may only need $5 million in coverage. Your premium is based on the amount of coverage you buy. Obviously, a $20 million policy is much more expensive than a $5 million policy.


You don't understand how the business world, and especially insurance companies work. The doctor will still pay up the ass. Even if he/she doesn't, the doctor will still find a way to keep the rates the same.


What are you talking about? I don't know how insurance works? Have you ever purchased liability insurance? Or E&O? As the purchaser, you set the terms. You decide how much coverage you need. You also decide how high a deductible you want. Did you know you pay more as your liability coverage increases? Did you also know your premium increases when your deductible decreases? Your premium on a $20 million policy with a $20,000 deductible will ALWAYS be more than a $5 million policy with a $20,000 deductible. Hence, the higher the coverage, the higher the premium. Needless to say, this has nothing to do with setting a cap. I am only showing you this so you understand that costs go down when a cap is in place. On the flip side, the cap could be higher than 20 million. In which case, the premium would increase because more coverage would be needed.

Leeroy Jenkins

Silver
Posts: 958
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:19 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby Leeroy Jenkins » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:19 pm

Tort caps are generally restricted to noneconomic damages (pain & suffering, NOT lost economic worth). Ya'll be on crack.

ravens9111

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:42 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby ravens9111 » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:23 pm

Leeroy Jenkins wrote:Tort caps are generally restricted to noneconomic damages (pain & suffering, NOT lost economic worth). Ya'll be on crack.


That's correct. And I believe if someone was medically injured, medical care/bills would not be affected either. Punitive damages is where it would apply, no?

User avatar
vamedic03

Gold
Posts: 1577
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Tort Reform

Postby vamedic03 » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:25 pm

ravens9111 wrote:
Leeroy Jenkins wrote:Tort caps are generally restricted to noneconomic damages (pain & suffering, NOT lost economic worth). Ya'll be on crack.


That's correct. And I believe if someone was medically injured, medical care/bills would not be affected either. Punitive damages is where it would apply, no?


NO, it would apply to noneconomic damages... you really need to take a Torts class to understand the issues.

Leeroy Jenkins

Silver
Posts: 958
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:19 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby Leeroy Jenkins » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:30 pm

ravens9111 wrote:
Leeroy Jenkins wrote:Tort caps are generally restricted to noneconomic damages (pain & suffering, NOT lost economic worth). Ya'll be on crack.

That's correct. And I believe if someone was medically injured, medical care/bills would not be affected either. Punitive damages is where it would apply, no?

You also lack a huge misunderstanding of how tort cases work. Few cases are economically viable for lawyers to even take. For example, an old lady who goes through a botched operation to get rid of clots in her legs and loses her leg? There is basically no economic worth behind such an event. Old ladies don't work, they don't functionality. A lawyer won't even take the case because he'll recover peanuts. And that's not counting the tens of thousands of dollars he'll need to front, himself, to pay for experts to give affidavits citing the original doctor was negligent in the operations (expert fees which are generally not included in settlement costs). Capping non-economic damages will further heighten the threshold for tort lawsuits to even be filed. You hear outrageous stories of tort judgments but for each one you hear, there are a thousand that never even get filed because they're not monetarily viable.

User avatar
TCScrutinizer

Bronze
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:01 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby TCScrutinizer » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:41 pm

A'nold wrote:
TCScrutinizer wrote:
To say that any amount of money can replace a lost loved one is patently absurd. I'm not sure why 50k is too much. Was your hypothetical daughter's life worth 150k? 1.5 mil? Are there actuaries that determine this sort of thing?

Secondly, how can we even reform something when we can't even seem to come up with a clear legal definition of it?


What the hell are you talking about?


Page one of Keeton and Prosser informs us that to this day there is no agreed-upon legal definition of "tort." But that was a sarcastic aside and not what I care about.

What I do care about is that at some point there is a sum of money that you think would alleviate the pain of losing one of your offspring. Apparently 50k is just not enough. How much would you expect? How much would be worth it?

User avatar
TheTopBloke

Bronze
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby TheTopBloke » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:48 pm

Leeroy Jenkins wrote:
ravens9111 wrote:
Leeroy Jenkins wrote:Tort caps are generally restricted to noneconomic damages (pain & suffering, NOT lost economic worth). Ya'll be on crack.

That's correct. And I believe if someone was medically injured, medical care/bills would not be affected either. Punitive damages is where it would apply, no?

You also lack a huge misunderstanding of how tort cases work. Few cases are economically viable for lawyers to even take. For example, an old lady who goes through a botched operation to get rid of clots in her legs and loses her leg? There is basically no economic worth behind such an event. Old ladies don't work, they don't functionality. A lawyer won't even take the case because he'll recover peanuts. And that's not counting the tens of thousands of dollars he'll need to front, himself, to pay for experts to give affidavits citing the original doctor was negligent in the operations (expert fees which are generally not included in settlement costs). Capping non-economic damages will further heighten the threshold for tort lawsuits to even be filed. You hear outrageous stories of tort judgments but for each one you hear, there are a thousand that never even get filed because they're not monetarily viable.


And yet this clown and others claim that there is some epidemic of frivolous lawsuits.

User avatar
A'nold

Gold
Posts: 3617
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby A'nold » Sat Jul 10, 2010 12:42 am

TCScrutinizer wrote:
A'nold wrote:
TCScrutinizer wrote:


What the hell are you talking about?


Page one of Keeton and Prosser informs us that to this day there is no agreed-upon legal definition of "tort." But that was a sarcastic aside and not what I care about.

What I do care about is that at some point there is a sum of money that you think would alleviate the pain of losing one of your offspring. Apparently 50k is just not enough. How much would you expect? How much would be worth it?


What the hell are you talking about?

User avatar
TCScrutinizer

Bronze
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:01 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby TCScrutinizer » Sat Jul 10, 2010 1:12 am

A'nold wrote:
TCScrutinizer wrote:
A'nold wrote:
TCScrutinizer wrote:


What the hell are you talking about?


Page one of Keeton and Prosser informs us that to this day there is no agreed-upon legal definition of "tort." But that was a sarcastic aside and not what I care about.

What I do care about is that at some point there is a sum of money that you think would alleviate the pain of losing one of your offspring. Apparently 50k is just not enough. How much would you expect? How much would be worth it?


What the hell are you talking about?


You are arguing against tort reform. When you say this:

A'nold wrote:Anyone with half a brain easily sees through the insurance lobby's bs. However, those on the extreme right never show that they have half a brain and just follow whatever the party line espouses. The sad thing is that this will absolutely devestate these same people. Lose you daughter because a doctor injects here with rat poison? Here's 50k baby, don't you feel better now?


I take that as you mocking the low amount of money that the company is paying out.

I am asking you what amount you think would be reasonable to compensate you for the loss of a loved one.

User avatar
A'nold

Gold
Posts: 3617
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby A'nold » Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:18 am

A'nold wrote:
TCScrutinizer wrote:
A'nold wrote:
TCScrutinizer wrote:




Page one of Keeton and Prosser informs us that to this day there is no agreed-upon legal definition of "tort." But that was a sarcastic aside and not what I care about.

What I do care about is that at some point there is a sum of money that you think would alleviate the pain of losing one of your offspring. Apparently 50k is just not enough. How much would you expect? How much would be worth it?


What the hell are you talking about?


You are arguing against tort reform. When you say this:

A'nold wrote:Anyone with half a brain easily sees through the insurance lobby's bs. However, those on the extreme right never show that they have half a brain and just follow whatever the party line espouses. The sad thing is that this will absolutely devestate these same people. Lose you daughter because a doctor injects here with rat poison? Here's 50k baby, don't you feel better now?


I take that as you mocking the low amount of money that the company is paying out.

I am asking you what amount you think would be reasonable to compensate you for the loss of a loved one.


What the hell are you talking about?

User avatar
TCScrutinizer

Bronze
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:01 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby TCScrutinizer » Sun Jul 11, 2010 4:42 am

Fuck yourself, and get a life.

User avatar
A'nold

Gold
Posts: 3617
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby A'nold » Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:16 pm

TCScrutinizer wrote:Fuck yourself, and get a life.


Exactly what I figured you were getting at.
8)

selfloathingtransfer

Bronze
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:58 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby selfloathingtransfer » Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:25 pm

This is a pretty superficial conversation. The fact that a conversation among "law students" on this topic is going like this is absolutely depressing. Superficial and ignorant. FML.

User avatar
TCScrutinizer

Bronze
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:01 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby TCScrutinizer » Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:37 pm

selfloathingtransfer wrote:This is a pretty superficial conversation. The fact that a conversation among "law students" on this topic is going like this is absolutely depressing. Superficial and ignorant. FML.


Killself. One less person for me to compete with.

User avatar
PhillyFan09

New
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:16 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby PhillyFan09 » Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:38 pm

selfloathingtransfer wrote:This is a pretty superficial conversation. The fact that a conversation among "law students" on this topic is going like this is absolutely depressing. Superficial and ignorant. FML.


The fact that "selfloathingtransfer" finds a thread to be absolutely depressing is pretty perfect.

User avatar
enygma

Bronze
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:03 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby enygma » Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:53 pm

selfloathingtransfer wrote:This is a pretty superficial conversation. The fact that a conversation among "law students" on this topic is going like this is absolutely depressing. Superficial and ignorant. FML.


good job raising the level of debate.

User avatar
TheTopBloke

Bronze
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby TheTopBloke » Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:03 pm

selfloathingtransfer wrote:This is a pretty superficial conversation. The fact that a conversation among "law students" on this topic is going like this is absolutely depressing. Superficial and ignorant. FML.


Nothing Alan Dershowitz wouldn't try to get away with.

xyzbca

Bronze
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 2:36 pm

Re: Tort Reform

Postby xyzbca » Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:08 pm

A'nold wrote:I'm not into name calling but you are a COMPLETE MORON if you actually think insurance companies will pass on any "savings" they get from tort caps or at least anything that will make your doctor visit cheaper. Go ahead, buy the insurance company hype hook, line, and sinker, you're only hurting yourself.


You really shouldn't be calling others out on this topic.

I speak with confidence on this topic as I worked as an actuary for a major insurance company (not an agent or adjuster).

Do you even know what the targeted combined ratios are for various insurance channels? You realize that if an insurance company beats their targeted combined ratio by more than 2 points they'll cut their premiums, right? And if they overshoot their combined ratio target by more than 1 point they'll typically raise premiums.

Here is an industry source forecasting lower med-mal premiums in 2010 as industry wide combined ratios had come in much better than expected in 2008 and 2009:

--LinkRemoved--

Insurance is just an actuary game that operates on margins. I've never been involved in med-mal so I won't speak authoritatively on it, but speaking for the personal lines P&C side of the business, it is such a highly competitive market in personal lines P&C channels that there isn't a single insurance company that can allow their combined ratio to get too strong. If you start beating your combined ratio target by more than 2 points you'll only end up pricing yourself out of business as everybody else will undercut you on price. In other words, this idea that an insurance company would pocket any savings that may materialize is just too tough to swallow, especially in the personal lines P&C channels. The above link on med-mal seems to suggest that med-mal is under the same price pressures as everybody else in P&C.



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.