Tort Reform Legislation Passes House, Moves to Senate

October 28, 2005

  • October 28, 2005 at 12:59 pm
    Ned says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    ATLA says the law is unnecessary and state laws already cover it. If that\’s the case, why fight it?
    ATLA also says you have to travel over seas to sue a foreign company. This blatantly ignores what the bill says. Suits can be filed where the plaintiff lives, where the plaintiff was injured, or at any principal location of the company. So only if you live in Mexico and were hurt in Japan and the company has no US offices, will you have to leave the country to sue. Of course if you live in Mexico and were hurt in Japan, you shouldn\’t be suing in a US court anyway.

  • October 28, 2005 at 3:16 am
    Shari Macioch says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It\’s about time something is being done to eliminate time-consuming and money-consuming lawsuits.

  • October 28, 2005 at 6:05 am
    Larry says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why are there no similar provisions to punish insurance companies and corporations who pursue frivilous defenses or hire seedy experts who will say anything so long as the price is right? Seems like this would reduce costs substantially or at least provide a disincentive for such conduct.

  • October 29, 2005 at 11:52 am
    James Wilson says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If you have ever been pursued and extorted via a frivolous lawsuit, you will applaud any and all efforts to bring about some legal reform for the civil legal system. The civil legal system in this country is in serious need of reform. Unlike the criminal system, under the civil system, you have no rights, you are guilty until proven innocent, there is no right to a speedy trial, and you have no legal recourse to go after those that brought the frivolous suit in an effort to recoup the tens of thousands (if you are lucky) to hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to defend yourself and/or your company. There are numerous bad attorney’s that have made careers of running up the hourly billings while advising their clients that they need to continue their efforts of filing motions, doing depositions, subpoenaing, etc all the while, advising their clients that they have hope and will win their lawsuit. Then there is Corp abuse of the system.
    See this example: http://www.nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php
    I have been involved in a frivolous suit for 3 years as of March \’06. Each time we get close to trial, the plaintiff either does not comply with something that we require to defend ourselves, that file some new motion, add a new defenant, etc and the trail is again delayed and costs continue to mount. It is a self propagating system created by attorneys and judges (whom most are all ex-attorneys) and they have no interest in the reform as it is their livelihood — at our expense.

  • October 29, 2005 at 4:57 am
    Dginslaw says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Simply pathetic grandstanding by the Congress. Every state already sanctions lawyers for frivolous lawsuits. If insurance companies were sanctioned for frivolous defenses there would be a lot less litigation. But lets not forget this is the same Congress who approved going to war on a lie without asking any questions. The same Congress whose family value members are constantly caught lying and cheating on their spouses. The same congress who can never get anything done of any true value, like health care reform. Frivolous Lawsuits are few and far between. Too bad where can\’t say the same about do nothing and know nothing congressmen.

  • October 31, 2005 at 8:50 am
    Ned says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yes, I love the frivolous insurance company defense of contract language. Who cares what the contract says? Who cares what the insured actually paid for? Just pay the claim.

    Again, if this bill will have no effect, why are you opposed? I think the biggest win in this bill is the restriction on forum shopping. The lawyers won\’t be able to move the suit to a court they know will never find anything to be frivolous.

    And socialized medicine? NO THANK YOU!

  • October 31, 2005 at 11:34 am
    dginslaw says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    How do you define a frivolous lawsuit:

    It is one where you are the defendant.

    or it is one where the person rearended should have no right to sue because he stopped suddenly.

  • October 31, 2005 at 12:00 pm
    Ned says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Frivolous lawsuit – one with no merit.

    An attempt to place the blame of your own stupidity on someone with a lot of money or a lot of insurance, eg suing McDonalds for spilling coffee on yourself.

    An attempt to collect for injuries you don\’t have, eg an asbestos case for mental anguish because plaintiffs agonized over the possibility of someday contracting an asbestos related illness.

    An attempt to collect for benefits you didn\’t purchase, eg coverage for flood damages under a homeowner\’s policy that expressly excludes damage from flood.

    How do you define frivolous defense?

  • November 1, 2005 at 8:41 am
    Rob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I second Ned.

    Also, just so we all know what\’s going on, insurers are REQUIRED to defend thier insureds when they are sued.

    A very common scenario is a rear-end collision with < $1000 of superficial damage, which, after the \"victim\" hires an attorney, somehow translates into $20K of PT and Chiro treatment. The plaintiff didn\'t take the $3-4K the insurer offered before suit was filed because he probably thinks he should never have to work again. (Probably a notion supported by his attorney.) This is similar to the many slip and falls people mysteriously have after walking around the wet floor sign (after which, they literally expect to own the store). The vast majority of insurers, adjusters, and insurer\'s attorneys have no problem paying legitimate money for legitimate claims, the unreasonable expectations/demands of the plaintiffs and their attorneys\' financial desires are what drive these matters into litigation. Why not sue when you know you\'ll get another 25% or better? Are you familiar with the term \"nuisance value\"?

  • November 1, 2005 at 3:01 am
    notsolucky says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Rob & Ned –
    What about a case I\’m familliar with:

    Auto collision – defendant turned left at an intersection with a green light, didn\’t notice the oncoming traffic going straight through a green light, and caused a collision.
    No one was cited at scene because the officer \”didn\’t feel right\” about citing since he did not witness it happen, but his report stated that the left turn was an error that caused the accident. There were injuries to the oncoming driver, requiring tests and PT, and vehicle was damaged.

    The man who turned left vehemently denies any wrong-doing – despite much evidence to the contrary, including his lie that he had a green arrow when there IS NO green arrow at the intersection – so his auto carrier denies the claim.
    The oncoming driver\’s medical payment limit is used up and requires further treatment, including the possible need for surgery in the future from the injury caused by this accident. Left-turn driver\’s insurance won\’t pay.
    What\’s the injured supposed to do??

    The injured not only had to go through many medical treatments caused by this accident, but has to also hire an attorney, pay for experts, pay for copies of records, pay for the treatments still required, etc., and is not likely to see enough of a judgement or settlement to just pay off the legal fees and the subbrogation amount – still stuck paying for future treatments and nothing for the ADDITIONAL pain and suffering caused by being forced into filing a lawsuit to begin with!

    To me, this is a prime example of insurance company frivolously defending a claim that did not need to become a lawsuit! (no settlement was offered before or since suit filed)



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*