Who is behind the "lawsuit abuse" commercials?

[ColbertWatcher]

I just saw a commercial for something about how the vast majority of Americans are against "lawsuit abuse."

Yes, yes, it's a new group calling themselves "Facesoflawsuitabuse.org," but who's behind them?

Just as the GOP was behind the swiftboaters, I suspect 'Faces' is a front for someone else.

Is it the U.S. Chamber? Wal-Mart? Halliburton?

Anyone know?

[rucky]

1. I bet it's someone who gets sued alot.

[ColbertWatcher]

2. LOL! This is my suspicions too! n/t

[Warpy]

12. Sounds like the kind of front group Bob Perry of Houston, Texas

would fund and it would be interesting to follow up on that.

He's the joker who's behind a lot of the anti tort legislation in Texas and he's the joker who provided seed money for the Swift Boaters.

Of course, his fortune is no longer unlimited because you can't make millions cutting corners in construction unless there is construction going on.

If it's not him, it's the same sort of lawsuit weary crook.

[TexasObserver]

21. The whole "citizens against lawsuit abuse" started 20 years ago in Texas.

They used it to go after the elected Texas appellate judges first, in order to take control of the Texas Supreme Court. Then they went after the district and appeals court judges. These guys took control of the judiciary in Texas in 1994, but began that battle in the late 1980s and early 1990s, targeting people like my old friend, Democratic stalwart and former Dallas State Senator Oscar Mauzy, who was then on the Supreme Court of Texas, and a friend to consumers and regular citizens.

The Texas Supreme Court is to the right of the US Supreme Court, but it's not a close vote like it is in the US Supreme Court.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

3. The majority of Americans are unaware that 80% of civil litigation is businesses suing each other.

Funny how the "tort reformers" never want to go after that.

[ColbertWatcher]

9. The truth does not serve their purpose. n/t

[Ikonoklast]

4. Here ya go, from their website

I Am Lawsuit Abuse.org is a project of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR). ILR is a national campaign, representing the nation's business community, with the critical mission of making America's legal system simpler, fairer and faster for everyone. ILR was founded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1998 to address the country's litigation explosion.

And the Chamber Of Commerce front, 'Institute For Legal Reform', under which they operate:

http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/


Businesses that want to be immune from lawsuits. That way they can fuck you over, and you have no recourse.

I say let the legal system punish those businesses that deserve it, not protect them.

[ColbertWatcher]

10. Thank you for looking that up and I have to agree with you. n/t

[Ikonoklast]

13. De nada. n/t

[Cerridwen]

5. The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform

Faces of Lawsuit Abuse.org is a project of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. For additional research, commentary and news related to legal reform, please visit InstituteForLegalReform.com.

The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) is a national campaign, representing the nation's business community, with the critical mission of making America's legal system simpler, fairer and faster for everyone. (from their link "About Us")

Businesses protecting businesses, it would seem. Surprise! Or not.

edit to add: (also from ILR's website): An affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Interesting given catburgler's note up thread about 80% of lawsuits being businesses suing businesses.

[ColbertWatcher]

11. "making America's legal system simpler, fairer and faster for everyone."

Somehow I don't think that's what will happen once their done.

Thank you for posting.

[Cerridwen]

16. You're welcome.

I'd love to see their definition of "everyone." I presume it has little to do with real people and more to do with corporate persons. Just a guess.

[ColbertWatcher]

19. True, they probably include corporate "persons." n/t

[TexasObserver]

6. Chamber of Commerce, Insurance industry, Hospital corps.

They like to exploit those in society who are of limited education and income, by pitting them against the potential winners of lawsuits against big business. They have hundreds of millions of dollars into such advertising the past 20 years.

They like to push the "it's money for nothin" meme, to get potential jurors thinking and repeating those notions.

The reality is that insurance companies and other big business interests are often their own worst enemy. They settle for nuisance value all the little cases that really aren't worth anything, then fight the real cases because they don't want to pay.

You're more likely to get rich winning a lottery than winning a personal injury lawsuit. And the interests that truly abuse the law are those companies who use it to defeat legitimate claims of other businesses. It's the big cases that eat up the courts' dockets. They're the cases that take a month or two.

All those big downtown firms are there to abuse the law for monied interests. They're not there to take care of your average plaintiff and their problems.

[ColbertWatcher]

14. "often their own worst enemy."

You'd think they'd figure that out, but then again, if the corporation gets too bogged down by their failed policies, they'll get a bailout.

So, I guess they win coming and going.

[TexasObserver]

20. If you ask jurors why they hit a big defendant with big damages ....

... almost always, a key factor is the arrogance of the company being sued, as evidenced by their officers and attorneys.

I've won cases with millions of dollars of punitives stacked on top, and the jury has to be pissed to give you punitives. The other side has to be so obnoxious that the jury wants to punish them for being asses. If someone just screwed up, if someone was merely negligent, or mistaken, or just thought they weren't liable, juries do not stick them with punitive damages. They stick them when the party being stuck acts as if they are too good to even be there defending the lawsuit.

[Mist]

7. Well, I guess the law would seem "abusive" to those who lose a lot. It seems to

me that if a judge agrees a suit has standing, there's no "abuse."

[ColbertWatcher]

15. Good point ...

"... if a judge agrees a suit has standing, there's no "abuse."

I guess that explains why the GOP also created the "activist judge" boogieman.

[Canuckistanian]

8. Tort Reform? Kind of late to be pushing for THAT now

Somehow, I don't think it's at the top of PE Obama's list.

[ColbertWatcher]

17. True, but that never stopped the GOP sleeper cells before. n/t

[stillcool]

18. Corporations..

not that they actually get 'convicted' for the crimes they commit, but those pesky fines are not acceptable...even though they get those reduced.

[HawkerHurricane]

22. All part of the "De-Fund the Left"

[ColbertWatcher]

23. Hmm ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4621047&mesg_id=4621047

[Captain Hilts]

24. The tobacco, pharmaceutical and auto industries fund it. nt

[rvablue]

25. It's most likely a conglomeration of

the tobacco companies, health care and other insurance companies, gun manufacturers and --- the ones who actually deserve more protection -- doctors.

[TexasObserver]

26. Doctors do not deserve more protection.

Doctors pay a smaller percentage of their gross revenues for insurance than the average American does for their home insurance. Many states already have ridiculously low limits on the damages they can face.

Doctors are one of the most powerful lobbies around, along with the private hospitals.

Some doctors get sued for malpractice because they commit malpractice. Under five percent of the doctors commit the vast majority of malpractice, so they're being sued for good reason.