Excerpt from "Sisters blew whistle on Katrina claims"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060826/...wing_sisters_3

The insurance company in question? State Farm. Not exactly being a good neighbor.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

So are you saying we do not need any type of tort reform since this company apparently has some crooks working for it?

Yes, at least not the "tort reform" that corporate lobbyists want. And it's not like it's a few isolated incidents of crooks in Corporate America.

Oki -- there actually is no reason that tort reform could ever benefit you personally. However, if you want companies to know exactly what it will cost to create a product that kills some people, or allow doctors to repeat gross negligence over and over and know exactly what the cost is, or for insurance companies to deny coverage because it's just cheaper to pay that maximum cap on punitive damages than to pay for treatment, then I guess tort reform is for you!

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

It's not a few crooks Oki, many insurance companies have well documented institutional policies supporting bad faith with their insureds.

Here are some excerpts from State Farm Ins. vs. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 discussing State Farm's program called the Performance, Planning, & Review:

(the excerpted opinion was written by Justice Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court)

This is the mere tip of the iceberg though. Do a google search with these terms: allstate "bad faith"

See what happens.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Oki, if you want to make an argument that we do need tort reform, then go for it.

I of course will have the facts on my side while you won't. The tort reform concept is fundamentally based on lies supported by more lies, which I'll be glad to point out as you bring them up.

If you want to though, go ahead and walk into that wall.

-- just don't say I didn't warn you.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

hmmmm! I ask a wee Q, and this storm comes my way. You would not be a bit concerned about your financial future; would you, Mid?

Let me just say that I think we need tort reform, and if you want to research it to death and post numerous statistics that won't be read, have at it.

Actually, I don't plan on practicing in personal injury or medical malpractice. Therefore, no, I don't foreseeably have any personal stake in this fight unless I am injured, or unless I suffer from medical negligence.

I'm glad for your drive by comment, I really am, but if you cannot articulate your point, it either shows that you're gullible enough to swallow up the party line without any personal investigation, it could show that you yourself have some personal financial stake in liability reform (like you want to hurt people and still make healthy profits), or you're just being ignorant and argumentative.

The difference is that when I'm argumentative, I don't just spout platitudes and then slither away because I can't hold my own in a debate.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

There is nothing to debate; I have a personal preference that there be tort reform.

In your opinion, does a person not have the right to have a personal opinion?

So you have a personal opinion for no reason at all? I find that doubtful. Perhaps you're afraid your reasoning on the subject will not pass the smell test? Perhaps you are not sure why you believe that tort reform is needed?

Do you even know what sorts of tort reform you are in favor of? Do you even know what a tort is?

Either you are stating that it's your opinion for no reason, which is a lie, or you're really honestly ignorant as to why it's your opinion. In either instance, your "opinion," being rooted in nothing except some ambiguous belief that what someone else told you must be good because they say good things (or something equally as naive) is not a good thing.

Learn to think for yourself.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

I read them, Midtowner. But, then again, why let facts get in the way of unfounded opinion.

When I get a guard for my henhouse, it will not be the fox that I put there. OH! That would be just like letting a lawyer---correction, wannabe lawyer---tell me that tort reform is bad.

Then I factor in an interpretation of "or" that was put forth in the "Tattoo" (#46) thread, and I figure my opinion is just as valid as his is.

Bash away, boys! You are just showing your true colors.

For the record, this member is not a lawyer, wannabe lawyer nor do I play one on TV.

What's interesting is that you, Oki_Man, have yet to provide even one reason -- let alone a compelling one -- why you support or why anyone else should support "tort reform." Simply saying, "because I said so" may work for your kids, but falls woefully short to your fellow Oklahomans.

Brad, assuming you support not having tort reform, let me say you have not provided one reason why you support your position, so we are even.

I'm not an advocate for or against tort reform. I have found some of the arguments supporting so-called "tort reform" and some of the most vocal proponents of current "tort reform" proposals to be seriously lacking.

So, the reason for my present position is that neither side has presented sufficiently compelling reasons why I should support or oppose "tort reform."

The ball's back in your court.

Hilarious. So you'd rather trust the people who say it's good? Doctors and insurance companies?

Sounds ike you're breaking your own rule.

Your "argument" fails at the outset. The difference is that one group seeks to force those who injure others to pay the victim their due. The second group wants to be able to hurt people and get away cheap, or worse, be able to calculate with certainty what their exposure is.

Let's try another example: You're in the hospital to have a liver transplant. The doctor, at the time of the operation is high on pain pills. He makes an incision when he becomes distracted. Immediately, the doctor notices that this incision will most likely leave you paralyzed, or at the very least cause signficant real damages far exceding $250,000.

He also knows that if he doesn't treat you immediately, you could die. Further, it would be tough to prove that (besides the accident occuring) that your death was brought about intentionally on his part.

So, instead of spending millions in potential long-term health care, he just lets you die right there. Even if your malpractice lawyer could prove the guy was high at the time of the surgery, sorry, you're dead. Your noneconomic damages are now limited to $250,000. Killing you was a business decisions.

This is the kind of cold calculation which would now be possible with some of the suggested tort reform.

Of course, I really don't need to go there just yet. Oki, the ball's been in your court for some time now. Thus far, you've come back with a snappy playground-style ad hominum shoot the messanger type attack. Your "point" had nothing to do with the subject -- just for whatever reason, you distrust lawyers. That really proves nothing.

I, on the other hand have shown proof that insurance companies tend to have an institutional preference (in some cases, a well documented preference) already for not paying people their proper damages in injury cases. Instead, many of them decide just how vulnerable/needy the victim is, and if the victim is sufficently needy, the insurance company will bully them into taking a settlement which is less than their actual damages even though the insurance company still enjoys billion dollar profits.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

there are definitely two sides to this coin. i totally agree that some forms of tort reform would promote behavior that is contrary to the public good. just look at our past... i'll give you the ford pinto. the risk of limited damages is outweighed by other factors... in that case, profit. if damages have set limits, then large businesses aren't really punished by those damages. they end up just factoring into the matrix of risk and reward, as has already been stated.

on the flip-side, however, without tort reform the cost of doing business is kept high. litigation is seen as a way of making money... just look at the resthaven thread recently posted on this board. just look at the countless ads during the day that ask, 'have you been injured in an accident?' furthermore, litigation can be so expensive that it's cheaper to settle regardless of whether or not you're right or wrong. the risk of paying out huge damages in a frivolous case outweighs the cost of settlement. this can help spurn innovation and small business... it just potentially costs too much for the common person to stand on his own to do anything.

it's a tough balance. it's problematic writing legislation to effectively separate the 'users' from the 'abusers.' who is deserving of protection? who is just trying to abuse the system? so... you end up either limiting damages or you don't. personally, i think that that the problems created by limiting damages are greater than those caused by our overly litigious society.

-M (btw, the term is ad hominem. go back to latin class!)

m, never had Latin, and this browser doesn't run spell check. I thought you were personally above being the spelling police, but I suppose I was wrong. Forgive me for not opening my latin dictionary before I posted.

On to the actual content of your post (in which there are no capital letters to begin sentences )...

Do people make money prosecuting PI cases? Sure. There's a decent sized industry consisting of lawyers who almost exclusively handle this type of lawsuit. Most of them are extremely ethical, well-meaning people who really have their clients' best interest at heart.

The fact is that unless the system allows for those assisting in the claims process to receive some sort of payment for their troubles, then they wouldn't be helping in the first place. This would leave the insurance companies (who we've established have no problem screwing over their customers/claimants in bad faith) to have free reign. Without lawyers, injured people will have no redress. State Farm in the above case could have offered the Campbells a pittance, and the Campbells would have had to be happy with whatever they received.

My personal solution to this -- my "reform" would be to require all settlements between insurance companies and individuals in which the dollar amount was over a certain amount to be approved by a judge. Such a reform, I think would swing both ways -- if the lawyer were extorting the insurance company, the judge might not approve. If the insurance company was offering the injured less than was owed, and the lawyer was only interested in his 30%, again, the judge could not approve.

It appears that we substantially agree m. Thanks for not basing your arguments entirely on baseless and ignorant attacks on entire professions.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

while i can't say that i don't grimace at all the spelling errors i see, and i'm a little more sensitive when it comes to latin terms, i did mean that half-way tongue in cheek. i turned in my badge years ago. as an engineering grad from ou, it's my sworn duty to give anyone studying law a hard time. long standing rivalries, you know.

back to the issue at hand... as for insurance claims, i think your idea has legs. a minimum dollar amount would help the courts not get too clogged up with minor differences.

outside of that, another 'reform' i'd heard of limits the damages that actually go to the injured party... anything above that limit goes to uncle sam. that would accomplish two things: it would sufficiently punish large companies as to discourage bad faith behavior and it would help curb those seeking litigation for financial gain. what's your take on that? -M

Here's the where your "give the money to the gubmint" concept seems to fail: A torts case which goes to trial, and involves millions of dollars in liability is going to be an action which is vigorously defended by the insurance company/corporation charged with wrongdoing.

Such litigation EASILY costs the attorney into the tens-of-thousands. Sometimes, costs approach the hundreds-of-thousands.

When there's no certainty of winning, and the lawyer is forced to put up huge up-front costs, the system and society benefit. This cost barrier operates as a disincentive for attorneys to pursue frivolous claims. I know of not one attorney who enjoys losing money.

But are there huge verdicts sometimes? Darned right. If these verdicts, and these payouts to lawyers were not occuring, you'd be hard pressed to find a lawyer to take one of these sorts of cases. Further, there would be no incentive for an attorney to seek punitives when the attorney himself was not being paid to do so. Therefore, the social utility of large awards would essentially be nullified since only a few crusading-types would pursue those only to give money to the government. Nope, they'd just settle for whatever punitives they could be paid for, then move on down the road, again leaving the business knowing exactly what its exposure was in the event of a wrongdoing.

Also, don't worry, the insurance company (despite what they tell you) is not suffering. Here's a statement written by Carl T. Hook, the President/CEO of PLICO (they insure about 95% of Oklahoma physicians):

Yep... they're reaaaally suffering

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Repeating my statement in post #9 of this thread:

"There is nothing to debate; I have a personal preference that there be tort reform."

"In your opinion, does a person not have the right to have a personal opinion?"

Did I miss where you, Mid, answered my Q, or did you just not know how to bash me with an answer?

Well Oki, you have your right to an ignorant, uneducated opinion -- absolutely.

You have made the choice to be the sheep, and let the insurance industry be your shepherd.

You favor America's second most profitable business (next to banking), and its need for greater profits over the rights of the hurt people who the industry actually contracts to help.

Now, if you want to prove that your opinion is anything more than the ignorant and uneducated opinion, you will have to prove it. All we have right is the statement that you have this opinion, but not why you have it.

It creates 3 potential scenarios, none of which make you look good -- either you're too lazy to form opinions on your own, so you're trusting others to tell you what to think (in which case, I'd be interested to know exactly who this is), you're yanking our chains, or you're honestly not smart enough or articulate enough to set out why you believe as you do.

Of course, it remains for you to present other evidence which might clear that up, but my guess is that one of the above is probably on the money.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Actually, Mid, I do not think you understand even what you are saying, so why would I bother wasting my time on someone whom I know would not understand that either? Kinda like some here insisting that they are the only ones who know which candidate to support in the upcoming election; hahaha! I look at the credibility some have displayed and look at my station in life, and I get lots of those haha's just like here---A (insert year)-law student who has it all figured out, yet, in another thread, he has shown that he does not even understand the definition of "or." I cannot stop laughing long enough to type this.

Not calling any names, but some people are just a joke, yet they think they know it all. I believe some would label them "book smart but street dumb." Others would say they have no common sense. Then others know they are neither book smart nor street smart.

The people who fit either of those descriptions have no credibility. They serve to feed off their own egoes. They simply cannot understand that some things are just not as important to others as they are to them---That is so sad. I, for one, do not need anyone else to do my thinking---especially someone who fits one of the above descriptions.

Some of us can take whatever is dished out with the cool that inspires a feeling of greatness while the basher hits away losing even more of his credibility, but he or she cannot see it; that person is too lost in his or her own self worth; maybe even his or her purse has control of his or her thoughts.

Ever wonder why so many people sign onto OKC Talk just to shy away right away? If you were new, would you post to a thread where the "regular" bashes anyone who enters and does not bow at his feet in agreement? Yeah! Some, besides me, have personal opinions, and they plan to keep on having them.

Now, I will prepare for my warning notice or possibly better yet, my eviction from OKC Talk, but it is worth it.

Hello, Kettle? Pot's calling.

hey oki,
i think this is a pretty interesting subject and i'd like to hear your reasons for 'personal preference' in support of tort reform. using that alone as an explanation leaves much to be desired... sure, we all have our personal preferences but why do you have that opinion?

or are you implying that i'm too dumb to understand also? -M