- 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: 2024- LA Legislature Tort Reform Bills
Posted on 3/13/24 at 4:05 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
Posted on 3/13/24 at 4:05 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
I do not understand why anyone wants a longer prescriptive period. As long as insurers do not disclose limits, suits will be filed early. Plus, the longer period will result in lost evidence and lost witnesses.
I believe the two biggest problems with La. tort law are future meds and the bad faith climate. Good to see something being proposed on the meds part. As to the bad faith aspect, I would love to see insurers more free to try cases.
I believe the two biggest problems with La. tort law are future meds and the bad faith climate. Good to see something being proposed on the meds part. As to the bad faith aspect, I would love to see insurers more free to try cases.
2
Posted on 3/13/24 at 4:45 pm to AlxTgr
Today I learned that Alan Seabaugh’s minion, Michael Melerine, himself a State Rep and a lawyer at Seabaugh’s firm, filed a lawsuit alleging a consortium claim arising out of a car accident his wife was in. He and his wife also alleged bad faith against their UM carrier 
The literal definition of “every lawsuit in the courthouse is frivolous except my own”.
The literal definition of “every lawsuit in the courthouse is frivolous except my own”.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 4:57 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
Why would extending the statute of limitations (prescriptive period) to 3 years create a more favorable legal environment for insurers?
Seems to me that they’d rather have a shorter period.
Seems to me that they’d rather have a shorter period.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 5:00 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Today I learned that Alan Seabaugh’s minion, Michael Melerine, himself a State Rep and a lawyer at Seabaugh’s firm, filed a lawsuit alleging a consortium claim arising out of a car accident his wife was in. He and his wife also alleged bad faith against their UM carrier
The literal definition of “every lawsuit in the courthouse is frivolous except my own”.
That said...don't hate the player, hate the game.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 5:11 pm to BigJim
I forgot add… Alan Seabaugh signed the petition
Posted on 3/13/24 at 5:19 pm to AlxTgr
Assume it's a 3 year prescriptive period. Plaintiff gets rear ended by a Walmart 18 wheeler. Savvy plaintiff attorney signs up the client, sends them to numerous doctors, multiple surgeries, etc. all before Walmart knows about the lawsuit. The plaintiff's attorney has effectively prevented Walmart from getting their own doctor to review the patient before the surgery. Then, at trial, the plaintiff's attorney attacks the defendants doctor for never seeing g the plaintiff before the surgery and only relying on the records.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 5:21 pm to SlidellCajun
It doesn't, imo. But the argument is that it allows them more time to settle cases without incurring "legal fees"
Posted on 3/13/24 at 5:45 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
quote:
SB 84 – Provides for motion for judgment on offer of judgment
Proposed law provides that if the final judgment obtained by the plaintiff-offeree is at least 25% less than the amount of the offer of judgment made by the defendant-offeror or if the final judgment is in favor of the defendant, the offeree must pay the offeror's costs and attorney fees incurred after the offer was made, as fixed by the court.
This one confused me because we already have offers of judgment per La.C.C.P. 970, so I looked up SB 84. Then, I realized what this was about.
Senator Seabaw says that he wants to amend 970 "to provide for costs and attorney fees; to provide relative to parties; to provide for certain terms, conditions, and procedures; and to provide for related matters" when it really just changes the law so that only defendants (no longer "any party") can send and move to enforce offers of judgment. Well, it also allows the defendants to get attorney fees now.
Why doesn't good ole Seabaw just say that he only wants defendants to benefit from Offers of Judgments because 970 is currently too fair to both sides? Why hide the ball when the Republican Party controls both chambers of the state legislature?
Posted on 3/13/24 at 6:07 pm to LSU28605
quote:
Why doesn't good ole Seabaw just say that he only wants defendants to benefit from Offers of Judgments because 970 is currently too fair to both sides? Why hide the ball when the Republican Party controls both chambers of the state legislature?
Same thing with his summary judgment bill I posted earlier in the thread.
If a defendant files a motion for summary judgment and it’s not granted, should plaintiffs not be awarded costs and attorneys fees for having to oppose such a non-meritorious motion?
Posted on 3/13/24 at 7:25 pm to boosiebadazz
Costs are always fair game to be awarded both ways post trial and post motion.
Now I agree with both of you on SB84. If you are going to add attorneys' fees, it has to go both ways. But honestly, La. C.C.P. art. 970, as it currently stands, is a one way street. If the plaintiff recovers 25% more than their Offer of Judgment, they get their costs, which is what they get anyway. It isn't really additive. i.e. it is already a one way street.
My concern will always be if we decide to go down the attorneys' fees road, who is going to pay the attorneys' fees if the defendants win? Without some portion of the law requiring the plaintiff's attorney to cover the fees, it's a pointless law for 99.9% of cases.
Attorneys' fees are a slippery slope and not one I'd advise the legislature flirt with unless they want to completely revamp the structure of civil law in Louisiana. It's all fun and games in a $15k/$30k rear end accident. But it would presumably apply in commercial lit cases and/or some other high end exposure civil cases. That's dangerous and not a rock I'd like to look under. I don't trust our elected officials enough for that.
Now I agree with both of you on SB84. If you are going to add attorneys' fees, it has to go both ways. But honestly, La. C.C.P. art. 970, as it currently stands, is a one way street. If the plaintiff recovers 25% more than their Offer of Judgment, they get their costs, which is what they get anyway. It isn't really additive. i.e. it is already a one way street.
My concern will always be if we decide to go down the attorneys' fees road, who is going to pay the attorneys' fees if the defendants win? Without some portion of the law requiring the plaintiff's attorney to cover the fees, it's a pointless law for 99.9% of cases.
Attorneys' fees are a slippery slope and not one I'd advise the legislature flirt with unless they want to completely revamp the structure of civil law in Louisiana. It's all fun and games in a $15k/$30k rear end accident. But it would presumably apply in commercial lit cases and/or some other high end exposure civil cases. That's dangerous and not a rock I'd like to look under. I don't trust our elected officials enough for that.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 7:42 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
Why can’t they just make the prescriptive period for MVAs and slip and falls 2 years without screwing with my nice 1 year period?
Posted on 3/13/24 at 7:46 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
quote:
Assume it's a 3 year prescriptive period. Plaintiff gets rear ended by a Walmart 18 wheeler. Savvy plaintiff attorney signs up the client, sends them to numerous doctors, multiple surgeries, etc. all before Walmart knows about the lawsuit
This is exactly the issue.
Only way to avoid it is to require the filing of a claim and to give the insurer certain pre-litigation "rights." The other way is to allow insurers/defendants to assert spoliation of evidence if they do this sort of shite.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 7:47 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
a non-meritorious motion
A finding of a genuine issue of material fact =/= non-meritorious
Posted on 3/13/24 at 7:50 pm to udtiger
Then what’s the rationale for awarding defendants if the motion is granted?
Posted on 3/13/24 at 7:59 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
Extending the prescriptive period is terrible for civil defendants. Terrible.
Medical expenses in a reversionary trust will substantially reduce the problem of runaway judgements fueled by whore doctors. Of everything on this list, this is the most important. And I hope it passes.
ETA-
A general damages cap is unnecessary if this becomes the law. There are plenty of procedural protections about general damages awards.
Medical expenses in a reversionary trust will substantially reduce the problem of runaway judgements fueled by whore doctors. Of everything on this list, this is the most important. And I hope it passes.
ETA-
A general damages cap is unnecessary if this becomes the law. There are plenty of procedural protections about general damages awards.
This post was edited on 3/13/24 at 8:09 pm
Posted on 3/13/24 at 8:01 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
quote:
My concern will always be if we decide to go down the attorneys' fees road, who is going to pay the attorneys' fees if the defendants win? Without some portion of the law requiring the plaintiff's attorney to cover the fees, it's a pointless law for 99.9% of cases.
Correct. The only way for this to work would require it to be a sanction of some type on the plaintiff’s attorney.
Loser pays attorneys fees will only serve to increase verdicts on plaintiffs cases and increase settlement. You are so right. Tie it to costs
Posted on 3/13/24 at 8:03 pm to boosiebadazz
You are correct Boosie. Dumb idea.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 8:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm not shocked that some of these sound good if you ONLY look at MVA civil actions. For non-MVA cases, yes, a lot of these are utterly insane.
As an atty who handles non-MVA tort claims all the time, I can attest, this is completely accurate.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 8:26 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Correct. The only way for this to work would require it to be a sanction of some type on the plaintiff’s attorney.
Loser pays attorneys fees will only serve to increase verdicts on plaintiffs cases and increase settlement. You are so right. Tie it to costs
For me to properly advise my clients and to make sure my interests are not adverse to theirs, should I not be able to discover the billing records of the defendants if me or my client may be cast in judgment to pay them?
And should I be able to traverse them if I’m cast in judgment for them? If not, are we not in bizarro world where the defendants can charge whatever they want on paper and/or run a separate sets of books (which is exactly what they accuse the plaintiffs’ bar and doctors of doing right now)?
This post was edited on 3/13/24 at 8:30 pm
Posted on 3/13/24 at 8:35 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
quote:
Assume it's a 3 year prescriptive period. Plaintiff gets rear ended by a Walmart 18 wheeler. Savvy plaintiff attorney signs up the client, sends them to numerous doctors, multiple surgeries, etc. all before Walmart knows about the lawsuit. The plaintiff's attorney has effectively prevented Walmart from getting their own doctor to review the patient before the surgery. Then, at trial, the plaintiff's attorney attacks the defendants doctor for never seeing g the plaintiff before the surgery and only relying on the records.
Those cases are still somewhat rare. The big money drain is the PI mills, who do whatever they can not to file suit. The extension of the Rx is to decrease litigation costs with these firms specifically.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News