- 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: Louisiana may now rest easy- the torts have been reformed
Posted on 7/1/20 at 7:33 am to theronswanson
Posted on 7/1/20 at 7:33 am to theronswanson
Just do your best, take the depositions you need to take, don't mail in your defense of the insured, and go try the case. If the jury comes back with a crazy verdict, take an appeal.
An excess judgment doesn't mean you are in bad faith.
An excess judgment doesn't mean you are in bad faith.
0
Posted on 7/1/20 at 7:33 am to The Johnny Lawrence
i mean, even with those hurdles, this is going to hurt the mills a bit. losing 15-20% on every case is a major revenue issue
if you have a proper case, it won't be as different. still going to rely on your venue and the demos of the jury, etc.
if you have a proper case, it won't be as different. still going to rely on your venue and the demos of the jury, etc.
Posted on 7/1/20 at 7:46 am to SlowFlowPro
I think this is a poorly written law and leaves too many loopholes. While some of the Plaintiff Mill attorneys weren't Order of the Coif or Harvard grads, they are all extremely smart and saavy at manipulating the system in their favor. They are financially incentivized to do so. I get it and don't blame them.
I think it takes them a little time where they are fumbling around trying to get their feel for the new system. But they are all smart, they will work together to come up with a new scheme. They may hold off on paying anything until after trial. They may use loan companies. Paying what insurance pays is only relevant if insurance actually pays.
I'm just not convinced this changes anything in the long term.
I think it takes them a little time where they are fumbling around trying to get their feel for the new system. But they are all smart, they will work together to come up with a new scheme. They may hold off on paying anything until after trial. They may use loan companies. Paying what insurance pays is only relevant if insurance actually pays.
I'm just not convinced this changes anything in the long term.
Posted on 7/1/20 at 7:50 am to LuckySo-n-So
quote:
Sachertorte is hands down the winner. Especially if eaten in Vienna. Sehr gut.
Sitting in the Hotel Sacher eating Sachertorte is worth the trip.
Posted on 7/1/20 at 7:57 am to theronswanson
quote:
Giving up rights so multi billion dollar companies can make more profits.
What rights have we given up by passing this piece of legislation? Please be specific.
Posted on 7/1/20 at 8:01 am to boosiebadazz
It's tort light, the bill Edward's vetoed was better, until he had his cronies submit a flawed last second amendment- so he could veto. Wasnt Talbot that screwed it up, it was done by our illustrious governors lawyer/legislative buddies. This bill was compromise with as much as he would sign - prescriptive period, Edwards specifically said he would veto.
I'll take it, we are on base with a single and can hopefully strengthen in the future. This wont lower rates today, but it already has attention of some insurance companies who are now considering moving back into the LA market.
I'll take it, we are on base with a single and can hopefully strengthen in the future. This wont lower rates today, but it already has attention of some insurance companies who are now considering moving back into the LA market.
Posted on 7/1/20 at 8:13 am to Ash Williams
Sorry , meant to say that the reform was to change it
Posted on 7/1/20 at 8:17 am to Obtuse1
quote:Is there a study on this somewhere?
Longer prescriptive periods also arguably have a positive impact on judicial economy since in general, it means fewer lawsuits are filed
Posted on 7/1/20 at 8:22 am to theronswanson
quote:
Congratulations Louisianans. Giving up rights so multi billion dollar companies can make more profits
PI attorney is pissed here. Don't care that much about premiums going down. I just don't want every fender bender to be an income source for trashy attorneys and plantiffs. Posted on 7/1/20 at 8:24 am to Jake88
quote:
Don't care that much about premiums going down. I just don't want every fender bender to be an income source for trashy attorneys and plantiffs.
like i said earlier
this isn't about "lowering rates"
it's just about hurting plaintiffs
Posted on 7/1/20 at 8:25 am to geauxskeet
quote:
prescriptive period, Edwards specifically said he would veto.
but why?
Posted on 7/1/20 at 8:31 am to fallguy_1978
quote:I don't buy the notion the insurance co's, sheriff's and plaintiff atty's push about the high number of uninsured motorist raising my rates either. Can someone explain it?
Texas has massive amounts of uninsured drivers. Louisiana may be a poor state but it's pretty comparable to MS, AL, AR etc. Why do we have big insurance cost discrepancies with those states?
The Bossier sheriff, DA, and BCPD spent millions on LPR cameras to supposedly crack down on uninsured motorists to "lower my rates". They think we the tax payers are morons: poor people won't or can't afford insurance and these dudes peddle the notion the uninsured will pay a $200+/- fine and then buy insurance.
Posted on 7/1/20 at 8:32 am to goofball
quote:
I'm a huge flan of pop torts.
I enjoy pop torts after a hard day's work.
This post was edited on 7/1/20 at 8:33 am
Posted on 7/1/20 at 8:35 am to geauxskeet
quote:
Edwards specifically said he would veto.
the advocate article said he was going to sign the bill into law.
Is this not accurate?
Posted on 7/1/20 at 8:36 am to geauxskeet
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/15/21 at 11:17 am
Posted on 7/1/20 at 8:41 am to White Bear
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/15/21 at 11:17 am
Posted on 7/1/20 at 8:42 am to boosiebadazz
So prescription is never?
Posted on 7/1/20 at 8:54 am to beachdude
Tort reform =/= lower insurance rates. It’s just a way to sell tort reform to simpletons. I’m not against tort reform at all. I’m against two things 1) selling this as a way to lower insurance rates & 2) the piecemeal random approach to this.
This is what I’m talking about. Jury thresholds are a red herring. A jury in St Tammany is going to be different than a jury in Orleans Parish. The same way judges currently are. It changes little.
The legislature just tried passing random laws without looking at the system as a whole.
If you want tort reform (which I’m okay with) look at the Courts and funding and evidentiary rules. Not just a smattering of this and that.
If you want lower insurance rates; fix the roads, crack down on uninsured drivers & increase wages/credit ratings of citizens.
quote:
The lowering of the amount in controversy to $10,000 to obtain a jury trial is the most important aspect in all of this. Louisiana is and has been the outlier in this regard in civil litigation for 100 years. Go look at the other states‘ jury thresholds.
This is what I’m talking about. Jury thresholds are a red herring. A jury in St Tammany is going to be different than a jury in Orleans Parish. The same way judges currently are. It changes little.
The legislature just tried passing random laws without looking at the system as a whole.
If you want tort reform (which I’m okay with) look at the Courts and funding and evidentiary rules. Not just a smattering of this and that.
If you want lower insurance rates; fix the roads, crack down on uninsured drivers & increase wages/credit ratings of citizens.
Posted on 7/1/20 at 8:59 am to geauxskeet
quote:
the bill Edward's vetoed was better, until he had his cronies submit a flawed last second amendment- so he could veto. Wasnt Talbot that screwed it up, it was done by our illustrious governors lawyer/legislative buddies
Actually, the last second amendment that made the whole thing screwy was added by Talbot.
There's a whole article about it. The governor's staff wasn't involved in that at all.
The insurance companies didn't even like it because it meant they HAD to pay 1.5x 12 months worth of health insurance premiums which couldve been much more than the actual medicals on a fender bender
For political showmanship, after the veto, LABI put out a statement saying they were upset and disappointed he vetoed it, but in reality, had he signed it into law, they were prepared to submit a new bill in the special session to fix all of its flaws anyway.
There was a sigh of relief by insurers when that bill was vetoed
Posted on 7/1/20 at 9:15 am to Michael T. Tiger
quote:
Can lawyers bring up whether an accident victim was wearing their seatbelt in court now?
They can’t do that? Even in LA where we have partial fault?
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News