Tort Reform Forum
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.
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.
- A'nold
- Posts: 3617
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm
Re: Tort Reform
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.
- TheTopBloke
- Posts: 486
- Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm
Re: Tort Reform
First of all, the other poster was correct, awards are not based on the amount of assets a defendant has.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.
And second, what is the purpose of reducing liability? Just so that it is not unlimited?
-
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:42 pm
Re: Tort Reform
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.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.
- A'nold
- Posts: 3617
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm
Re: Tort Reform
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 wrote: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.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.
-
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:42 pm
Re: Tort Reform
Maybe not as a percentage of assets. But the more assets you have, the higher the award is likely to be, no?TheTopBloke wrote:First of all, the other poster was correct, awards are not based on the amount of assets a defendant has.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.
And second, what is the purpose of reducing liability? Just so that it is not unlimited?
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.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:46 pm
Re: Tort Reform
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.
However, if we adopt the British system where the loser pays the winners legal fees, suits with little merit won't be brought.
- TheTopBloke
- Posts: 486
- Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm
Re: Tort Reform
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.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.
-
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:42 pm
Re: Tort Reform
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.A'nold wrote: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 wrote: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.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.
-
- Posts: 958
- Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:19 pm
Re: Tort Reform
Tort caps are generally restricted to noneconomic damages (pain & suffering, NOT lost economic worth). Ya'll be on crack.
-
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:42 pm
Re: Tort Reform
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?Leeroy Jenkins wrote:Tort caps are generally restricted to noneconomic damages (pain & suffering, NOT lost economic worth). Ya'll be on crack.
- vamedic03
- Posts: 1577
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am
Re: Tort Reform
NO, it would apply to noneconomic damages... you really need to take a Torts class to understand the issues.ravens9111 wrote: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?Leeroy Jenkins wrote:Tort caps are generally restricted to noneconomic damages (pain & suffering, NOT lost economic worth). Ya'll be on crack.
-
- Posts: 958
- Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:19 pm
Re: Tort Reform
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.ravens9111 wrote: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?Leeroy Jenkins wrote:Tort caps are generally restricted to noneconomic damages (pain & suffering, NOT lost economic worth). Ya'll be on crack.
- TCScrutinizer
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:01 pm
Re: Tort Reform
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.A'nold wrote:What the hell are you talking about?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 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?
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- TheTopBloke
- Posts: 486
- Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm
Re: Tort Reform
And yet this clown and others claim that there is some epidemic of frivolous lawsuits.Leeroy Jenkins wrote: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.ravens9111 wrote: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?Leeroy Jenkins wrote:Tort caps are generally restricted to noneconomic damages (pain & suffering, NOT lost economic worth). Ya'll be on crack.
- A'nold
- Posts: 3617
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm
Re: Tort Reform
What the hell are you talking about?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?
- TCScrutinizer
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:01 pm
Re: Tort Reform
You are arguing against tort reform. When you say this:A'nold wrote:What the hell are you talking about?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?
I take that as you mocking the low amount of money that the company is paying out.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 am asking you what amount you think would be reasonable to compensate you for the loss of a loved one.
- A'nold
- Posts: 3617
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm
Re: Tort Reform
What the hell are you talking about?A'nold wrote:You are arguing against tort reform. When you say this:TCScrutinizer wrote:What the hell are you talking about?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?
I take that as you mocking the low amount of money that the company is paying out.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 am asking you what amount you think would be reasonable to compensate you for the loss of a loved one.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- TCScrutinizer
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:01 pm
Re: Tort Reform
Fuck yourself, and get a life.
- A'nold
- Posts: 3617
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm
Re: Tort Reform
Exactly what I figured you were getting at.TCScrutinizer wrote:Fuck yourself, and get a life.

-
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:58 pm
Re: Tort Reform
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.
- TCScrutinizer
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:01 pm
Re: Tort Reform
Killself. One less person for me to compete with.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.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- PhillyFan09
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:16 pm
Re: Tort Reform
The fact that "selfloathingtransfer" finds a thread to be absolutely depressing is pretty perfect.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.
- enygma
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:03 pm
Re: Tort Reform
good job raising the level of debate.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.
- TheTopBloke
- Posts: 486
- Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm
Re: Tort Reform
Nothing Alan Dershowitz wouldn't try to get away with.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.
-
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 2:36 pm
Re: Tort Reform
You really shouldn't be calling others out on this topic.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 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.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login