- 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
re: Does anyone hope that the La. legislature will pass a "loser pays" law?
Posted on 2/14/17 at 5:41 pm to LSURussian
Posted on 2/14/17 at 5:41 pm to LSURussian
look i'm not being personal or making crazy assertions. there are ways to improve the system. i do not like the "factory firm" approach, mainly b/c it does raise costs and affects how the public views actual victims who are actually hurt...plus they don't really care about their clients and i hate that + it gives lawyers a bad name (generally)
i even gave you a more direct issue to address (the medical care that creates value in the claims)
i even gave you a more direct issue to address (the medical care that creates value in the claims)
1
Posted on 2/14/17 at 5:42 pm to LSURussian
quote:
You actually believe plaintiff and defense lawyers are on opposing sides, don't you?
ok man, I give up.
Lets get to reality though, any gov you get is probably going to be a lawyer, the house and the senate are full of them, it is not going to happen.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 5:43 pm to LSURussian
I see the typo, but you can still figure out the question. C'mon I know you can do it.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 6:08 pm to LSURussian
quote:
LSURussian
quote:
If an insurance company has the choice of 1) paying a fair compensation OR, 2) paying a fair compensation PLUS a portion of the other party's legal fees, which would they prefer?
What is stopping an insurance company from making fair settlement offers now in an effort to avoid a lawyer getting involved?
Posted on 2/14/17 at 6:36 pm to boosiebadazz
damn, I called in a favor to get unbanned to participate in this thread
Posted on 2/14/17 at 6:47 pm to boosiebadazz
Posted on 2/14/17 at 6:54 pm to Lakeboy7
quote:As I've already replied to another poster who made the same statement, I tend to agree. And that's part of the problem, too.
the house and the senate are full of them, it is not going to happen.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 6:56 pm to LSURussian
Glad you're back.
I've seen you mention a few times how your proposed system would incentivize the insurance companies to make more fair offers in an attempt to avoid paying the fees of the plaintiff's lawyer... What is stopping them from doing so now?
I've seen you mention a few times how your proposed system would incentivize the insurance companies to make more fair offers in an attempt to avoid paying the fees of the plaintiff's lawyer... What is stopping them from doing so now?
Posted on 2/14/17 at 7:02 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Even better would be to have the losing attorney on the hook to pay some of the winning attorney's fees
Absolutely would solve the problem
Posted on 2/14/17 at 7:02 pm to Mulat
So does that mean I can take every rear-end car accident to trial and your insurance company pays my fee?
And what defines a "win"?
And what defines a "win"?
Posted on 2/14/17 at 7:11 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:Nothing "stops" either side from doing anything. It's a matter of financial incentives.
What is stopping an insurance company from making fair settlement offers now in an effort to avoid a lawyer getting involved?
Under our current contingency system, if an adjuster makes an offer that the claimant thinks is unfair and is rejected, the worse thing that can happen (from the insurance company's viewpoint) is a shyst....er, a lawyer gets hired and the insurance company then must make a higher payment, either via a settlement or a judgement and it will have to pay its own attorney's fees.
Under loser pays, if the claimant rejects the initial offer and hires a lawyer, the insurance company will make a higher payment, either via a settlement or a judgement, and it will pay its own attorney's fees, PLUS it will have to pay a portion of the claimant's now highly inflated (according to SFP) legal fees because under loser pays, all the highly ethical plaintiff lawyers will now jack up their fees.
For those lawyers who believe the legal profession's mantra that just getting a lawyer involved will automatically increase what a claimant will receive, GFY. That is unproven and after paying the plaintiff lawyer his cut, many plaintiffs receive less than they would have if they had just agreed to the adjuster's first offer.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 7:14 pm to LSURussian
Of course I wish we had loser pay. No chance lawsuit engineer Edwards would sign such legislation.
I will take it one step further---I support the establishment of a chancery court to hear civil cases and be done completely with jury verdicts in civil cases. The CC judges should be appointed and could actually be 3 judge panels.
The leeches here will trash both proposals but they should be reminded that all the Commonwealth Counties have loser pay and their citizenry seem better off for it.
I will take it one step further---I support the establishment of a chancery court to hear civil cases and be done completely with jury verdicts in civil cases. The CC judges should be appointed and could actually be 3 judge panels.
The leeches here will trash both proposals but they should be reminded that all the Commonwealth Counties have loser pay and their citizenry seem better off for it.
This post was edited on 2/14/17 at 7:16 pm
Posted on 2/14/17 at 7:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Total gibberish. The only financial incentive now is for adjusters to make as low of a settlement as the claimant will accept. There is no incentive for the adjuster to make a fairer offer.
if the "fair market" offer by adjusters was an optimal move, i'm sure one of the major insurance companies would have gone that direction by now (b/c it would lower costs and they'd be able to seize market share by this shift).
See my post above why loser pays adds an incentive for the adjuster to make a fairer payment in hopes of avoiding having the injured person from hiring an attorney.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 7:17 pm to LSURussian
One more thing--the poor with small claims will be better off with loser pay.
What lawyer today is going to take a case worth $5000 on contingency? None.
What lawyer today is going to take a case worth $5000 on contingency? None.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 7:18 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:You are as blinded by your preference for the current system as SFP is.
So does that mean I can take every rear-end car accident to trial and your insurance company pays my fee?
The incentive "loser pays" creates is for the insurance company, and the plaintiff with a weak case, too, is to avoid having to hire a lawyer.
And, of course, that's why the lawyers on this board, and in the legislature, will always fight tooth and nail to prevent loser pays from being adopted in Louisiana. They won't be needed as much any more.
This post was edited on 2/14/17 at 7:34 pm
Posted on 2/14/17 at 7:19 pm to I B Freeman
We finally completely agree on an issue, IB. You're getting smarter.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 7:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
Reading back through this thread, I notice two things:
1) The lawyers on this board are against loser pays because they claim lawyers will increase their fees and make even more money from it. Lawyers are worried they might make MORE money under loser pays.
2) The lawyers here claim the loser pays law in Alaska really doesn't do much different because it has exceptions to it. So, it doesn't really have much effect but they continue to oppose it. You know, just because....
1) The lawyers on this board are against loser pays because they claim lawyers will increase their fees and make even more money from it. Lawyers are worried they might make MORE money under loser pays.
2) The lawyers here claim the loser pays law in Alaska really doesn't do much different because it has exceptions to it. So, it doesn't really have much effect but they continue to oppose it. You know, just because....
Posted on 2/14/17 at 7:37 pm to LSURussian
quote:
I don't have to be a chicken to smell a rotten egg.
This is rich coming from the number one defender of the Fed and financial industry when people say the same thing about them.
Anyway, Michigan has a mechanism called case evaluation forced upon the parties which is right up your alley. After discovery, a three person panel puts a number on your case. If you don't do 10% better at trial, you have to pay the other party's costs/fees.
LINK
Posted on 2/14/17 at 7:38 pm to LSURussian
I've got V-Day duties with future Mrs. Boosie. I'll bump this thread and respond tomorrow.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 7:39 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Lawyers are worried they might make MORE money under loser pays.
outside of boosie i don't think one plaintiff's attorney posted in this thread
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News