“another perspective” has made an assumption that the Trial Lawyers love…that in every tragedy there has got to be some form of litigation. If your child is killed the presumption is that a lawsuit will follow, almost as a foregone conclusion. Such thinking is flawed on its face. Can a Trial Lawyer undo what has been done? Will a lawsuit bring back a dead loved one? The reasoning is as flawed as the legal system it has spawned: That any form of human tragedy can be alleviated by the transfer of wealth, and the vehicle for the transfer of wealth has become our justice system. Avarice has overtaken reason in this society.
It’s like an Eddie Izzard bit – “If you don’t think civil service is the best thing in the world . . . then you should.” “You smell . . . because you do.”
What drivel. I guess the majority of the audience reading the Claims Journal is by profession biased. Screw the policy-holders, drive your profits through the roof, keep your companies in the Fortune 50, and maintain those multi-million dollar bonuses and stock options for the insurance big whigs. And who’s greedy???
I wonder if the results such as the Texas tort reforms were included in the study? For example med mal insurance rates decreased several times (this was before the soft market) and the flood of doctors leaving the state stopped.
Don’t think I’ll have to read the report to answer my question.
Another Perspective does NOT make the assumpton alleged, that in every tragedy there has got to be some form of litigation. On the contrary, he suggests that in most situations there is not litgation however those everyday cases don’t make the news.
Wow, attorneys sure are heroes. I just bet a lot higher percentage of them are in the wealthy class than insurance people. Amused, you wouldn’t be connected to the Legal profession somehow? If not, you need to take a good look at these greedy, blood-sucking good smaritans.
Let me make sure I understand your position on tort reform….
Since it’s not really the “at-fault” party’s money on the line, but the insurance company’s – it’s “greedy” for the insurance company to want to protect itself against excessive and ridiculous jury awards.
Remembering that juries and prosecuting attorneys also view it as a deeper set of pockets than the party causing the injury.
If a guy who had very little in the way of money, property or any material wealth (and little chance of acquiring any), and little to no insurance, hit and killed a doctor in an auto accident, not many trial lawyers would even bother as there is no real money to be made. But, let this same guy have protected himself with a good deal of auto coverage, and the trial lawyers will line up to take the case.
Who’s greedy, you asked. Compare the parties: Insurance carriers who are paying OUT for someone else’s screw up; or trial lawyers that GET from someone else’s screw up and another’s misfortune.
Keep this in mind, without insurance we’d have nothing we have. No buildings would be built, no houses built, no new products developed, etc. All these require insurance protection somewhere; so be careful to attack an industry that allows us to live the lives to which we are accustomed.
Trail lawyers also benefit from the insurance industry – without it, they wouldn’t have the massive houses they have or the boats, or….
Insurance is a business, never lose sight of that. They have to have and make money to honor their commitments. Some years are good years, some are bad; the bad are paid by the good.
If money can ease the pain of loss — you had no real pain. No person, and especially no lawyer who was not even a party to the event, should get rich off tragedy. Payment for actual loss, if that can truly be established, I’m fine with; punitive damages — I’m fine with if there was an egregious act — provided that NO part of those payments go to the lawyer and that it is used for the betterment of society, not the enrichment of anybody — remember, it’s supposed to be a punishment for the wrongdoer, not a windfall for the injured/grieving party.
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.
“another perspective” has made an assumption that the Trial Lawyers love…that in every tragedy there has got to be some form of litigation. If your child is killed the presumption is that a lawsuit will follow, almost as a foregone conclusion. Such thinking is flawed on its face. Can a Trial Lawyer undo what has been done? Will a lawsuit bring back a dead loved one? The reasoning is as flawed as the legal system it has spawned: That any form of human tragedy can be alleviated by the transfer of wealth, and the vehicle for the transfer of wealth has become our justice system. Avarice has overtaken reason in this society.
It’s like an Eddie Izzard bit – “If you don’t think civil service is the best thing in the world . . . then you should.” “You smell . . . because you do.”
What drivel. I guess the majority of the audience reading the Claims Journal is by profession biased. Screw the policy-holders, drive your profits through the roof, keep your companies in the Fortune 50, and maintain those multi-million dollar bonuses and stock options for the insurance big whigs. And who’s greedy???
I wonder if the results such as the Texas tort reforms were included in the study? For example med mal insurance rates decreased several times (this was before the soft market) and the flood of doctors leaving the state stopped.
Don’t think I’ll have to read the report to answer my question.
Another Perspective does NOT make the assumpton alleged, that in every tragedy there has got to be some form of litigation. On the contrary, he suggests that in most situations there is not litgation however those everyday cases don’t make the news.
Wow, attorneys sure are heroes. I just bet a lot higher percentage of them are in the wealthy class than insurance people. Amused, you wouldn’t be connected to the Legal profession somehow? If not, you need to take a good look at these greedy, blood-sucking good smaritans.
Amused,
Let me make sure I understand your position on tort reform….
Since it’s not really the “at-fault” party’s money on the line, but the insurance company’s – it’s “greedy” for the insurance company to want to protect itself against excessive and ridiculous jury awards.
Remembering that juries and prosecuting attorneys also view it as a deeper set of pockets than the party causing the injury.
If a guy who had very little in the way of money, property or any material wealth (and little chance of acquiring any), and little to no insurance, hit and killed a doctor in an auto accident, not many trial lawyers would even bother as there is no real money to be made. But, let this same guy have protected himself with a good deal of auto coverage, and the trial lawyers will line up to take the case.
Who’s greedy, you asked. Compare the parties: Insurance carriers who are paying OUT for someone else’s screw up; or trial lawyers that GET from someone else’s screw up and another’s misfortune.
Keep this in mind, without insurance we’d have nothing we have. No buildings would be built, no houses built, no new products developed, etc. All these require insurance protection somewhere; so be careful to attack an industry that allows us to live the lives to which we are accustomed.
Trail lawyers also benefit from the insurance industry – without it, they wouldn’t have the massive houses they have or the boats, or….
Insurance is a business, never lose sight of that. They have to have and make money to honor their commitments. Some years are good years, some are bad; the bad are paid by the good.
If money can ease the pain of loss — you had no real pain. No person, and especially no lawyer who was not even a party to the event, should get rich off tragedy. Payment for actual loss, if that can truly be established, I’m fine with; punitive damages — I’m fine with if there was an egregious act — provided that NO part of those payments go to the lawyer and that it is used for the betterment of society, not the enrichment of anybody — remember, it’s supposed to be a punishment for the wrongdoer, not a windfall for the injured/grieving party.
Thanks for saying this 100% better than I did CJB.