Ah yes, the US Chamber of Commerce in its never ending fight to restrict access to the courts; except of course when it’s their (or their members’) access that is at stake.
What’s really ridiculous is the our pathetically flawed and senseless legal system allowed these frivolous suits to proceed. The plaintiff attorneys should be fined for gross stupidity and contempt.
But let’s not forget the media’s role in this too. If you’re going to publish the big wins – i.e. popcorn fume plaintiff’s award – then provide equitable reporting on the big losers who get nothing……and make sure plaintiff counsel’s name is in bright lights.
Surely part of the problem is as other have pointed out is it pays to be stupid.
There are plenty of cases were claimants have received payouts for claiming they did not know what they were doing and could not be expected to know.
Also there is no loser pay system to deter the legal industry from making what appear to be ridiculous claims.
Another contribution is failure to settle claims unless the insured is taken to court and ordered to settle.
After which in all probability, the insured will go through a lengthy appeals process to prolong the period taken to settle.
As a risk service engineer in the Far East, we reviewed claims and it boiled down to:
1 Is it covered under the policy?
2 If yes how much is it going to cost.
Whereas here the attitude seems to be can we get away with not paying even though under policy terms we are liable or how long can we spin this out.
it is desperate need to make money and one can imagine under what stress the people would be living out of fear, they cannot be friends anytime. The latest incidents of reckless killings is the fallout of the stressful living.
Apparently the drunk driver suing the victim(s) scenario is getting to be more common. I know that there’s a lawsuit in rural Illinois with the same issue. However, I believe it started as a counter-claim and response to the victims and survivors filing a civil suit against the drunk driver.
Not for me to say, a contributory factor may be pedestrians walking into the path of vehicles with complete disregard for the consequences.
Hence, the drivers may consider “the accident” was caused by the neglect of the pedestrian.
i.e., failing to look left, right, and left again before stepping on to the road?
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Ah yes, the US Chamber of Commerce in its never ending fight to restrict access to the courts; except of course when it’s their (or their members’) access that is at stake.
What’s really ridiculous is the our pathetically flawed and senseless legal system allowed these frivolous suits to proceed. The plaintiff attorneys should be fined for gross stupidity and contempt.
How often the ILR butts heads with the ACLU? We should go to a loser pays system. Not perfect, but could help.
But let’s not forget the media’s role in this too. If you’re going to publish the big wins – i.e. popcorn fume plaintiff’s award – then provide equitable reporting on the big losers who get nothing……and make sure plaintiff counsel’s name is in bright lights.
Surely part of the problem is as other have pointed out is it pays to be stupid.
There are plenty of cases were claimants have received payouts for claiming they did not know what they were doing and could not be expected to know.
Also there is no loser pay system to deter the legal industry from making what appear to be ridiculous claims.
Another contribution is failure to settle claims unless the insured is taken to court and ordered to settle.
After which in all probability, the insured will go through a lengthy appeals process to prolong the period taken to settle.
As a risk service engineer in the Far East, we reviewed claims and it boiled down to:
1 Is it covered under the policy?
2 If yes how much is it going to cost.
Whereas here the attitude seems to be can we get away with not paying even though under policy terms we are liable or how long can we spin this out.
it is desperate need to make money and one can imagine under what stress the people would be living out of fear, they cannot be friends anytime. The latest incidents of reckless killings is the fallout of the stressful living.
As long as there is money to be made lawyers will pursue this stuff.
Too many judges are willing to let these cases proceed rather than throwing them out.
Where is the integrity of the attorneys who represent these cases and how do they sleep at night?
Apparently the drunk driver suing the victim(s) scenario is getting to be more common. I know that there’s a lawsuit in rural Illinois with the same issue. However, I believe it started as a counter-claim and response to the victims and survivors filing a civil suit against the drunk driver.
Not for me to say, a contributory factor may be pedestrians walking into the path of vehicles with complete disregard for the consequences.
Hence, the drivers may consider “the accident” was caused by the neglect of the pedestrian.
i.e., failing to look left, right, and left again before stepping on to the road?