- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Time for real reform in automobile insurance/liability in Louisiana
Posted on 9/3/14 at 4:55 am
Posted on 9/3/14 at 4:55 am
I am tired of paying for the uninsured drivers of Louisiana, the trial lawyer leeches and the doctors that suck off our auto liabilities laws.
This idea advance by John Bel Edwards and his trial lawyer buddies that a person that takes no responsibility has the same rights under as our tort system as the person that does is just idealistic BS.
Somehow in the twisted minds of trial lawyers having the highest auto insurance rates in the US is ok and good for the citizens of Louisiana.
In automobile accident liability the failures of the US tort system are laid bare. An injured person's ability to be compensated for loses depends on the plaintiff's sense of responsibility. There is no debating what civil awards will be if the plaintiff's have no money. There is no civil punishment of the plaintiff's that have nothing. However if the circumstances are reversed those with nothing may very well have hit the lottery if they are involved in an accident with a well insured driver.
It is unfair, unjust reality in Louisiana that could be rectified by a legislature and governor that actually cared about the citizenry.
The very first thing we should do is say if you are unlicensed or uninsured you have NO right to make liability claims against the other party regardless of who is at fault. NONE. Oh there will be flagrant tragedies where the unlicensed and uninsured will be maimed in accidents with no resources to care for themselves. But the fact remains that had those involved had been following the law they would not have been involved in an accident. They would not have been driving.
Give me true no fault. No concessions for either side. I buy to cover my risk. You buy to cover yours.
This idea advance by John Bel Edwards and his trial lawyer buddies that a person that takes no responsibility has the same rights under as our tort system as the person that does is just idealistic BS.
Somehow in the twisted minds of trial lawyers having the highest auto insurance rates in the US is ok and good for the citizens of Louisiana.
In automobile accident liability the failures of the US tort system are laid bare. An injured person's ability to be compensated for loses depends on the plaintiff's sense of responsibility. There is no debating what civil awards will be if the plaintiff's have no money. There is no civil punishment of the plaintiff's that have nothing. However if the circumstances are reversed those with nothing may very well have hit the lottery if they are involved in an accident with a well insured driver.
It is unfair, unjust reality in Louisiana that could be rectified by a legislature and governor that actually cared about the citizenry.
The very first thing we should do is say if you are unlicensed or uninsured you have NO right to make liability claims against the other party regardless of who is at fault. NONE. Oh there will be flagrant tragedies where the unlicensed and uninsured will be maimed in accidents with no resources to care for themselves. But the fact remains that had those involved had been following the law they would not have been involved in an accident. They would not have been driving.
Give me true no fault. No concessions for either side. I buy to cover my risk. You buy to cover yours.
7
Posted on 9/3/14 at 6:05 am to I B Freeman
quote:
I am tired of paying for the uninsured drivers of Louisiana,
You a lobbyist for the insurance industry, or did you just cut and past that from somewhere?
Umm..BTW..last time I checked Louisiana had a No Pay No Play system.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 6:34 am to TigerGman
NP/NP is riddled with loopholes and only bars the first $15k of BI and the first $25k of PD.
We need to:
A) get rid of direct action statute
B) require people to purchase their own protection
And
C) bar any lawsuits for a car accident except in the case of gross negligence (or higher degree of fault) or if the other driver was intoxicated.
We need to:
A) get rid of direct action statute
B) require people to purchase their own protection
And
C) bar any lawsuits for a car accident except in the case of gross negligence (or higher degree of fault) or if the other driver was intoxicated.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 6:52 am to udtiger
quote:
NP/NP is riddled with loopholes
Like for a drunk driver?
You have an interesting concept of riddled. Please list al these loopholes....
quote:
) get rid of direct action statute
Why?
quote:
bar any lawsuits for a car accident except in the case of gross negligence (or higher degree of fault) or if the other driver was intoxicated.
Let's just eliminate lawsuits all together. Then we could eliminate 90% of the insurance industry too.
ETA:
quote:
) require people to purchase their own protection
It's called U/M
This post was edited on 9/3/14 at 7:10 am
Posted on 9/3/14 at 7:21 am to I B Freeman
quote:
John Bel Edwards and his trial lawyer buddies
The problem right there.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 7:23 am to I B Freeman
quote:
I am tired of paying for the uninsured drivers of Louisiana, the trial lawyer leeches and the doctors that suck off our auto liabilities laws.
You forgot to mention who you're paying--insurance companies. the main reason your rates are high.
quote:
This idea advance by John Bel Edwards and his trial lawyer buddies that a person that takes no responsibility has the same rights under as our tort system as the person that does is just idealistic BS
This makes no sense but you might want to start with the Civil Code. Namely, article 2315. Then take a look at the no pay no play statute.
quote:
An injured person's ability to be compensated for loses depends on the plaintiff's sense of responsibility. There is no debating what civil awards will be if the plaintiff's have no money. There is no civil punishment of the plaintiff's that have nothing.
This makes no sense. The injured person is the plaintiff, dumbass.
quote:
But the fact remains that had those involved had been following the law they would not have been involved in an accident. They would not have been driving.
Yet still another's negligence is excused? You have a very odd view of the world. I hope someone never injures you or or your family to change your mind on this.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 7:43 am to I B Freeman
quote:
The very first thing we should do is say if you are unlicensed or uninsured you have NO right to make liability claims against the other party regardless of who is at fault. NONE. Oh there will be flagrant tragedies where the unlicensed and uninsured will be maimed in accidents with no resources to care for themselves. But the fact remains that had those involved had been following the law they would not have been involved in an accident. They would not have been driving.
or we could just take on the problem directly and increase the penalties for (1) driving without a license and (2) driving uninsured
i mean mandatory jail time for multiple offenses. that sort of thing. and i'm much more concerned with insurance than licensing
Posted on 9/3/14 at 7:45 am to udtiger
quote:
A) get rid of direct action statute
i don't know what this would do, other than lead to more preliminary defaults against idiots who don't tell their insurers, which will raise judgments
quote:
C) bar any lawsuits for a car accident except in the case of gross negligence (or higher degree of fault) or if the other driver was intoxicated.
that goes against (literally) hundreds of years of basic tort jurisprudence. it would be a MAJOR step away from the (international) norm
there is also the problem of segregating automobile accidents away from the general tort rules
Posted on 9/3/14 at 8:53 am to TigerGman
quote:
Please list al these loopholes....
quote:
get rid of direct action statute
Why?
Crickets Chirping...
Posted on 9/3/14 at 8:58 am to I B Freeman
quote:
The very first thing we should do is say if you are unlicensed or uninsured you have NO right to make liability claims against the other party regardless of who is at fault.
Dude! Brilliant idea!
(psst....that's already the case for uninsured drivers...
.... Well done on getting your idea passed into law before you even thought of it! ) This post was edited on 9/3/14 at 9:00 am
Posted on 9/3/14 at 9:13 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The very first thing we should do is say if you are unlicensed or uninsured you have NO right to make liability claims against the other party regardless of who is at fault.
Dude! Brilliant idea!
(psst....that's already the case for uninsured drivers... .... Well done on getting your idea passed into law before you even thought of it! )
Actually, that's not the case. Uninsured drivers can still make a claim but are precluded form recovering the first $15K of bodily injury and the first $25K of property damage, subject to a couple of loopholes, such as DWI on the part of the at fault driver. I think it is a fair penalty for being uninsured when one is not at fault (along with whatever traffic/misdemenaor penalties there are).
Posted on 9/3/14 at 9:18 am to Motorboat
Fair enough.
I know people who have been on each side of that equation. One was a guy who hit another car with his and didn't have to pay because they were uninsured. Another was a guy who was hit while riding his motorcycle. He had a leg injury that cost him 10k - he didn't have insurance. Somehow the other insurance company didn't realize this and paid him anyway - then came back later to collect the money back since he didn't have insurance.
In both cases the claims were under 15k so I see how I got the impression that it applied to claims.
I know people who have been on each side of that equation. One was a guy who hit another car with his and didn't have to pay because they were uninsured. Another was a guy who was hit while riding his motorcycle. He had a leg injury that cost him 10k - he didn't have insurance. Somehow the other insurance company didn't realize this and paid him anyway - then came back later to collect the money back since he didn't have insurance.
In both cases the claims were under 15k so I see how I got the impression that it applied to claims.
This post was edited on 9/3/14 at 9:20 am
Posted on 9/3/14 at 7:01 pm to Motorboat
quote:
You forgot to mention who you're paying--insurance companies. the main reason your rates are high.
The same companies operate on much less premium in other states.
quote:
The injured person is the plaintiff, dumbass
quote:
An injured person's ability to be compensated for loses depends on the defendants sense of responsibility. There is no debating what civil awards will be if the defendants have no money. There is no civil punishment of the defendants that have nothing.
This makes no sense. The injured person is the plaintiff, dumbass.
Fixed. Too early in the morning. Woke up angry over the consequences of this very issue.
This post was edited on 9/3/14 at 7:07 pm
Posted on 9/3/14 at 7:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
or we could just take on the problem directly and increase the penalties for (1) driving without a license and (2) driving uninsured
These local sheriffs can't even keep thieves in jail.
Stood and watched an uninsured, unlicensed individual walk away from an accident yesterday with only a ticket. Regardless of the fine he won't pay it.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 7:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
. it would be a MAJOR step away from the (international) norm
that is BS. Our tort system is unique.
The commonwealth countries have loser pay and far less litigation.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 7:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i mean mandatory jail time for multiple offenses. that sort of thing. and i'm much more concerned with insurance than licensing
This.
Didn't LA have a law that if a driver was caught for no insurance, the police would pull the vehicle off the road, put one of those bright orange stickers on the back windshield and give them 60 days to provide proof of insurance or the vehicle would be impounded?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 7:18 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
The commonwealth countries have loser pay and far less litigation.
loser pays has nothing to do with raising the standard of negligence
Posted on 9/3/14 at 7:24 pm to I B Freeman
Louisiana is one of, if not the most, litigious states regarding motor vehicle accidents. We have a culture of "my neck hurts $10k worth".
My solution is simple. Become a "no fault" state. The idea doesn't sit well with most, but its a good way to rid ourselves of the ridiculous injury claims/suits.
My solution is simple. Become a "no fault" state. The idea doesn't sit well with most, but its a good way to rid ourselves of the ridiculous injury claims/suits.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 7:25 pm to I B Freeman
Those chamber of commerce / lawsuit watch talking points are so tired. What happened? You rear ended somebody?
I thought Mike Foster straightened out everything with his tort reform? Didn't your insurance go down?
I thought Mike Foster straightened out everything with his tort reform? Didn't your insurance go down?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 7:53 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
My solution is simple. Become a "no fault" state. The idea doesn't sit well with most, but its a good way to rid ourselves of the ridiculous injury claims/suits.
I'm sure some smart folks would need to craft some exceptions, but I agree with this notion. Scumbag lawyers are making bank in this little two-step, and slow-pay/no-pay insurance companies are both fighting to get out of their responsibilities as well as passing the cost to consumers.
Time to make a radical change. There will be consequences but there needs to be a shake up of this low down profiteering system.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News