I live in a state that has tort reform legislation.

[ronzo]

My insurance just went up... I don't buy the repub idea. sorry.

[SharonAnn]

1. Of course, it's a lie. The real reason for tort reform is for the

insurance companies to make much larger profits. You see, they won't have to pay out very much so they can keep all that beautiful money for their executives' bonuses, etc.

[Samuraimad]

2. Isn't tort reform unconsititutional?

If tort reform put limits on damages awarded and such, isn't that an infringment of due process? any law gurus with an opinion on that, any ruling support such infringments?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. Good luck making that stick with this Supreme Court

[Samuraimad]

5. no joke!

but I think it is something the progressive community should think about "fixing" WHEN we get the supreme court back in our balance.

[ronzo]

4. I live in Louisiana.. it's different here.

Napoleonic code.

[Samuraimad]

6. Short man diease???

lol... ;-)

[ronzo]

7. maybe... it's the closest thing to a rogue state.

Banana republic, we call it.

Don't make me google!!!
(napoleonic code)

[juajen]

8. Not that different.

Have you not heard of the Medical Malpractice Act that limits awards. It screwed our family. Though we had good case, we got minimal for a lifetime of pain.

[ronzo]

9. We're in a similar situation.

We're in a similar situation it would seem. We're dealing with the Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund. The bushco plan hugs this model, ask me...

[TreasonousBastard]

10. OK, I spent 20 years in the insurance business...

and I've seen abuses on all sides that should sicken everyone.

Tort reform is a minefield. There are some goood arguments for it, but I have never seen a reform package that makes sense.

The easy part is yelling about the bullshit lawsuits, excessive judgments, and fraud that permeate civil courts. The hard part is reducing the fraud without screwing more legitimate claimants than crooks.

A few things that aren't usually mentioned in these debates--

Insurance companies have an extremely tough time fighting fraudulant claims. Fighting claims is expensive and when denying a claim, the company exposes itself to calls from regulators, politicans making hay, and lawsuits from the claimant. Add all that to the investigative costs of fighting the claim, and it's a lot easier to just write a check to make them go away. It would be nice if more states got as tough on crooked claimants as they do on insurance companies.

Related to this is the decision whether to settle or go to court. We NEVER wanted to go to court because trials are a crapshoot, and even if we won, there could be an expensive appeal. Sometimes, we would see new law created out of the suit, and we could be stuck with that law forever.

All insurance companies reinsure themselves heavily, and are at the mercy of the terms of their reinsurers. Reinsurance is largely controlled by London companies, and they have been slaughtered over the past 10 years, raising rates and tightening conditions, which means policy holders end up getting the higher bills. C.T. Bowring has more to do with higher premiums than trial lawyers or greedy insurers.

Insurance rates are cyclical. Many of the commercial areas have seen competition drive rates down to where everyone loses money. Then they go up again, sometimes higher than they were before. Many of the complaints about increases are from those who got major reductions in the past, and who are now seeing their rates make up for past stupidity. Insurance companies can be incredibly stupid in rating risks, and the customer ends up paying in the end.

Insurance company data is confidential. The best stuff is locked away in their own data banks and they won't let you see it. All you see is what they want you to see to make their point. Arguments on both sides are flawed because no one is arguing with the real data.

I could go on, but it might get even more boring.