It should come as no surprise that a court in Hinds County found liability coverage for punitive damages mandatory. While the carrier may have been interested in making sure that MS insurance consumers have a choice in what they buy, and thus how much they have to pay for it, no doubt the Court’s interest was in making sure that the plaintiff bar has a source of recovery for the punitive damages awarded, and that the threat of having to pay punitive damages will force carriers to overpay claims in order to avoid bad faith exposures.
What is disturbing is that the real issue is the moral moral hazard associated with making punitive damages coverage mandatory.
How can it be considered punitive when the tortfeasor doesn’t suffer the punishment personally, but, rather, hangs his head in mock shame to conceal his grin while his insurer writes the check for his mis-deeds?
How can you justify having to increase the premiums of every liability consumer in the state to pay for the punishment of a few miscreants?
If the MS Supreme Court doesn’t find it against public policy to insure punitive damages, then some legislator needs to introduce a bill to that effect.
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.
It should come as no surprise that a court in Hinds County found liability coverage for punitive damages mandatory. While the carrier may have been interested in making sure that MS insurance consumers have a choice in what they buy, and thus how much they have to pay for it, no doubt the Court’s interest was in making sure that the plaintiff bar has a source of recovery for the punitive damages awarded, and that the threat of having to pay punitive damages will force carriers to overpay claims in order to avoid bad faith exposures.
What is disturbing is that the real issue is the moral moral hazard associated with making punitive damages coverage mandatory.
How can it be considered punitive when the tortfeasor doesn’t suffer the punishment personally, but, rather, hangs his head in mock shame to conceal his grin while his insurer writes the check for his mis-deeds?
How can you justify having to increase the premiums of every liability consumer in the state to pay for the punishment of a few miscreants?
If the MS Supreme Court doesn’t find it against public policy to insure punitive damages, then some legislator needs to introduce a bill to that effect.