re: Here are the details of the lead tort reform bill for the upcoming session.

Going to be a bitter sweet victory when the defense bar realizes they have to start trying cases all the time.

Uhhh, we bill by the hour. Jury trials require much more preparation. Bring them on!!

quote:

---

Having been in a recent accident (not at fault) the first thing the hospital is going to ask is “Where you in an accident”. As soon as you say “yes”, say goodbye to your health insurance coverage. It will get flagged in their claims systems and all your med bills from the wreck will be rejected.

---

Which is bullshite. Why the frick does it matter? I pay my health insurance premiums to cover me but bc this country is run by banks and insurance there’s an out for the insurance company.

It shouldn’t matter if I fell out of a tree trying to do backflips or got TBoned at an intersection. If I’m paid up then the insurance company needs to pay out then THEY can go after the auto insurance.

It’s harder to convince 12 people of guilt than one bought and paid for judge.

True for some courts in this state. As an insurance company, I would be terrified of juries in other parishes.... Orleans, EBR, Caddo

quote:

---

would think the average citizen juror wouldn’t side with the “victim” every single time when they can clearly see the “victim” didn’t get $150k worth of “damages” from though the small dent in their bumper from the accident.

---

You have a better belief in our fellow citizenry than me.

quote:

---

Sadly, none of these will pass.

---

two words

Senate SuperMajority

one big reason the insurance industry wants to decrease the jury trial threshold is because it takes a lot longer to get a jury trial on the docket and tried than a Judge trial. The longer it takes, the longer the ins co can keep its money in the market and earning them money (and the more likely it is that something goes wrong with the pla's case or pla is willing to take less).

Beyond who is deciding the case, lowering the jury threshold provides a marked strategic advantage to the defendant and has little to do with the merits of the claim. call me cynical, but its true.

quote:

---

HB 84 requires an automobile insurer to provide liability policy limits to a third-party claimant or his attorney within 30 days of receipt of a written request from the claimant or his attorney. It also requires the insurer to disclose: (1) the insurer's name; (2) the name of each insured; and (3) an indication of coverage limits or that the insurer did not issue a policy that provides coverage for the automobile accident.

---

Do not like.

Neither side wants to. At LSU’s trial advocacy boot camp they told us we’d rarely be trying cases in the state on the civil side. Which is pretty much true.

quote:

---

Don’t really agree with #3 - but really unsure of the solution.

Having been in a recent accident (not at fault) the first thing the hospital is going to ask is “Where you in an accident”. As soon as you say “yes”, say goodbye to your health insurance coverage. It will get flagged in their claims systems and all your med bills from the wreck will be rejected.

So, now you are on your own racking up ridiculously high medical bills cause they are billing you for the full amount. Meanwhile the at fault party’s insurance ain’t paying a dime “until the case settles”. So its up to you to work to plead the bills down to something you can afford before it ruins your credit and goes to collections. So now all you are doing is saving the auto insurance company $ by them not having to pay out as much in the end since YOU did all the leg work to get the med bills lower.

They need to also say in the law that the heath insurance can’t deny you if you are in a wreck or something to that effect.

All that does it make it easier for the auto insurance company and more work for the innocent person who got hit.

---

Why not a law to make your insurance company responsible for your bills, and make them go against the other driver and his insurance company?