wrong again, Jimmy m’ boy. Punitive damages are designed to punish. (like the Tobacco companies lying about the safety of their product and causing untolled harm-though any credible source warned of the danger) In this situation punishment is not the point, paying for the harm is the point. Compensating this poor soul for what has been taken away from him is the point–BTW, insurance actuaries put his life expetency at 6.6 years my friend– he deserves compensation for the 6.6 years of human losses he will endure. As for your folks, I am very sad to hear of your loss but this poor fellows own behavior didn’t contribute to his condition.
I am not going to hold the coat of the insurance companies (they are big boys and can do it themselves), but you need to forget for a moment that you are a plaintiff attorney and get to the real issue.
You can say it any way you want, but paying for the harm means one thing – punishment. Go back and read the exchanges from the begining. My point has always been that the caps are intended to address the runaway punitive damages, paid for by insurance settlements, not the defendant. A big punitive settlement might make you feel better, but I am not sure about the injured individual.
Jimmy, I don’t think insurance policies cover punitive damages at all. They are intended to punish and thus, excluded from coverage just as any intentional conduct would be excluded.
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.
wrong again, Jimmy m’ boy. Punitive damages are designed to punish. (like the Tobacco companies lying about the safety of their product and causing untolled harm-though any credible source warned of the danger) In this situation punishment is not the point, paying for the harm is the point. Compensating this poor soul for what has been taken away from him is the point–BTW, insurance actuaries put his life expetency at 6.6 years my friend– he deserves compensation for the 6.6 years of human losses he will endure. As for your folks, I am very sad to hear of your loss but this poor fellows own behavior didn’t contribute to his condition.
I am not going to hold the coat of the insurance companies (they are big boys and can do it themselves), but you need to forget for a moment that you are a plaintiff attorney and get to the real issue.
You can say it any way you want, but paying for the harm means one thing – punishment. Go back and read the exchanges from the begining. My point has always been that the caps are intended to address the runaway punitive damages, paid for by insurance settlements, not the defendant. A big punitive settlement might make you feel better, but I am not sure about the injured individual.
Jimmy, I don’t think insurance policies cover punitive damages at all. They are intended to punish and thus, excluded from coverage just as any intentional conduct would be excluded.