- 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
In other news... Gov. Landry once again endorses outright theft in tort litigation - maybe
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:23 pm
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:23 pm
Vetoed SB231, which crazily says that plaintiffs can only recover their actual medical costs, and not the outrageous number their lawyer's doctor put on the bill.
ETA: this may be premature. I had been informed he had vetoed the bill, but it was actually a different bill. He has not vetoed this bill yet (at least as of this edit)
ETA: this may be premature. I had been informed he had vetoed the bill, but it was actually a different bill. He has not vetoed this bill yet (at least as of this edit)
This post was edited on 6/11/25 at 7:18 pm
14
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:25 pm to udtiger
So who’s gonna challenge him next go around?
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:30 pm to udtiger
That’s what happens when you elect a Democrat.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:34 pm to udtiger
I already decided I am voting against him almost right after he took office.
This post was edited on 6/11/25 at 6:35 pm
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:44 pm to udtiger
The insurers might only make a couple billion next year. Sympathies.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:46 pm to graychef
I’m a republican and he’s never getting my vote again
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:46 pm to udtiger
It is completely unconstitutional anyway so if would have lasted 5 minute before Louisiana Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. It’s war political theater. So no one lost anything except dumb asses that thought it was real.
I hope a fricking 18 wheeler driven by a Mexican creams you or a member of your family and then tells you to go frick your self bro. You deserve it.
Louisiana law says you are responsible for fixing anything or anyone you frick up. Tell me what the frick is wrong with that? You got a better system mfer?
The theft is the money spent whoever tried to teach you anything in school. Money completely wasted
I hope a fricking 18 wheeler driven by a Mexican creams you or a member of your family and then tells you to go frick your self bro. You deserve it.
Louisiana law says you are responsible for fixing anything or anyone you frick up. Tell me what the frick is wrong with that? You got a better system mfer?
The theft is the money spent whoever tried to teach you anything in school. Money completely wasted
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:46 pm to udtiger
If transparency to the jury is so important, why are insurers generally no longer allowed to be added as party defendants and named in the caption? They’re a separate juridical entity that has agreed to pay on behalf of the other defendants.
Why should that be hidden from the jury?
Why should that be hidden from the jury?
This post was edited on 6/11/25 at 6:54 pm
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:49 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
It is completely unconstitutional anyway so if would have lasted 5 minute before Louisiana Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. It’s war political theater. So no one lost anything except dumb asses that thought it was real.
I hope a fricking 18 wheeler driven by a Mexican creams you or a member of your family and then tells you to go frick your self bro. You deserve it.
Louisiana law says you are responsible for fixing anything or anyone you frick up. Tell me what the frick is wrong with that? You got a better system mfer?
The theft is the money spent whoever tried to teach you anything in school. Money completely wasted
Completely unconstitutional?
Maybe of they tried to make it retroactive. Otherwise, you're a fricking idiot.
So you're saying you are entirled.to recover more than your actual damages? Sounds kinda punitive, which is NOT the purpose of tort law.
The purpose it to make the victim whole, not more than whole.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:52 pm to udtiger
Gordon doing workkkkkkkkkk
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:53 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
If transparency to the jury is so important, why are insurers generally no longer allowed to be added as party defendants and named in the caption? They’re a separate juridical entity that has agreed to pay on behalf of the other defendants.
Why should they be hidden from the jury?
The insurer of the tortfeasor is there because of the contact between them. Period.
Its existence has no bearing/relevance to: the fault of the parties or the damages suffered by the plaintiff, which is all that matters.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:53 pm to TigerAllNightLong
And we wonder why insurance rates are so high
Ambulance chasers make lots of money
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:54 pm to udtiger
Many plaintiff attys have contracts with some physicians, especially chiropractors, to where they will discount their charges to the atty but the attys presents the full costs when it comes time to settle. As most plaintiff attys front the medical costs......in big money cases... but claim the full, actual costs when it comes time to get their share of the settle money.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:56 pm to udtiger
I didn’t vote for him and I’m a republican . John Schroeder . Couldn’t vote for that other yo-yo either.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 6:59 pm to udtiger
quote:
The insurer of the tortfeasor is there because of the contact between them. Period.
And Blue Cross paid a contracted rate on behalf of the plaintiff because of a contract between them and the plaintiff. Why are we telling the jury of the existence of one insurer and not the other?
quote:
Its existence has no bearing/relevance to: the fault of the parties or the damages suffered by the plaintiff, which is all that matters.
Neither does that fact that an insurer has accepted a premium to pay the judgment on behalf of the tortfeasor.
You want the substitute payor to be known on one side of the equation but not the other.
This post was edited on 6/11/25 at 7:00 pm
Posted on 6/11/25 at 7:01 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
And Blue Cross paid a contracted rate on behalf of the plaintiff because of a contract between them and the plaintiff. Why are we telling the jury of the existence of one insurer and not the other?
Because one has nothing to do with the value of the plaintiff's damages and one does.
Are you saying that the judgment value of a case for the same plantiff with the same injuries and treatment is different based on the amount of liability insurance available?
Posted on 6/11/25 at 7:10 pm to udtiger
I’m saying that the plaintiff suffered a diminution of his patrimony to secure the coverage from BCBS and the tortfeasor is capitalizing off that without some sort of remuneration for it.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 7:15 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
I’m saying that the plaintiff suffered a diminution of his patrimony to secure the coverage from BCBS and the tortfeasor is capitalizing off that without some sort of remuneration for it.
That warrants a windfall?
If his insurance premium is 2k per month but he has 5 on his policy, his patrimony is only decreased by $400/month.
But, wait... is all of his premoum just for medical expenses related to the accident? Of course not. So now we're down to maybe half that, so $200 per month for his 2 years of treatment = $2400. I have no issue with that because that is actual damage suffered by the victim.
However, under current law, they can recover 40% of the difference between actual costs and billed charges. So let's say that same person has billed charges of $100k, but actual costs are $10000. Instead of $2400 "cost of procurement" he can recover $36K
This post was edited on 6/11/25 at 7:27 pm
Posted on 6/11/25 at 8:27 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
And Blue Cross paid a contracted rate
Udtiger and other pro-tort reform folks do not want lower premiums .
Why should the premiums I pay to BCBS benefit the tortfeasor or Progressive?
The bill basically shifts the burden of medicals onto the health insurer, creating further inefficiencies within the macro insurance market.
The summer of covid tort reform package and last year’s tort reform package have exhibited ZERO impact to auto insurance premiums. This one won’t either.
The auto insurance industry doesn’t care about claims costs. If they did, they wouldn’t waste so much defending clear cut cases.
Our insurance commissioner allows them to charge so much higher premiums that their profit margins are higher here than in most states.
We have more wrecks here per capita than most places. Our terrible roads and lack of any real traffic enforcement drive up the wrecks. You want meaningful change that may actually affect auto premiums? Start with legislation geared towards lowering the number of wrecks.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 8:36 pm to boosiebadazz
The amendments to the direct action statute will end up fricking the insurance companies in the end. Straight up hubris.
Insurance premiums are high, because insurance companies charge whatever they want, and they engage in propaganda blaming “trial lawyers.”
Interesting that all of the laws they pass make it easier for them to avoid paying covered claims.
PS I do agree with amendments to the collateral source rule. One thing that “trial lawyers” do that actually does increase litigation expense is this unholy union with orthopedic surgeons and pain management doctors. Attys have gotten to the point where they finance the doctors so the bill can say whatever the lawyer wants to show the jury. That shite is shady AF
Insurance premiums are high, because insurance companies charge whatever they want, and they engage in propaganda blaming “trial lawyers.”
Interesting that all of the laws they pass make it easier for them to avoid paying covered claims.
PS I do agree with amendments to the collateral source rule. One thing that “trial lawyers” do that actually does increase litigation expense is this unholy union with orthopedic surgeons and pain management doctors. Attys have gotten to the point where they finance the doctors so the bill can say whatever the lawyer wants to show the jury. That shite is shady AF
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News