Started By
Message
locked post

Ambulance chasers and JBE lost bigly on tort reform at the state capital in BR this week

Posted on 7/3/20 at 11:32 am
Posted by Sentrius
Fort Rozz
Member since Jun 2011
64757 posts
Posted on 7/3/20 at 11:32 am
quote:

They did it, delivering not just a crushing blow to Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards but also changing the balance of power between state Republicans and Democrats and prompting perhaps a permanent shift in power relations between the governor and the Louisiana Legislature.

HB 57 by GOP Speaker Clay Schexnayder in its final form accomplishes most of what Republicans wanted with tort reform. The issues involved, in order of impact in lowering vehicle insurance rates, are (1) lowering the amount in controversy, or the jury trial threshold, (2) calculating more accurately the actual costs involved to deal with injury, or collateral source, (3) eliminating the ability to sue insurance companies directly, or direct action, (4) allowing evidence of seat belt usage in a trial, or the seat belt gag rule, and (5) lengthening the amount of time to file these cases for hearing, or the prescription period.

The version, which attracted large majorities (including some legislative Democrats who had opposed bills with similar provisions in the past but who realized it would pass and decided to jump on the train before it left the station) and drew a pledge from Edwards to sign, lowered the threshold in injury cases to from $50,000 to $10,000, created a process to calculate damages more closely related to actual costs, diluted the ability to launch direct action, and removed the seat belt exclusion. These provisions more closely mirror those in states with far lower vehicle insurance rates. The changes take effect permanently and without contingency in 2021.

At the most immediate and micro level, Edwards suffered a massive defeat. Understand that he gained reelection narrowly last year only as a result of a massive amount of donations from trial lawyer-friendly lobbies. The deal was he had to stand as a bulwark against exactly the kinds of things he will sign, but the Legislature’s Republican leadership, reflecting the primacy their party’s members placed on the issue, tore that up by pursuing a strategy that boxed him in that proffered options he loathed even more, termed the “nuclear option,” that would trigger had he not accepted the HB 57 provisions. As a result, the Louisiana GOP acted like a legislative majority party for the first time in its history.


quote:

Democrat trial lawyers in the Legislature certainly fought these changes tooth and nail, because these will reduce significantly the amount of ratepayer premiums transferred to them in the current very plaintiff-friendly legal environment. But almost every other Democrat in the Legislature followed because, even if disappointed trial lawyer lobbies had the option to withhold donations, those donations will disappear regardless. Simply, HB 57 defunds Louisiana Democrats, because the long-standing deal also required that trial lawyers reaping the benefits of the current regime launder part of those gains back into donations. With those gains pared, donations that almost exclusively have gone to Democrats will fall significantly and strengthen the GOP’s hand in future elections.

In the clash of titanic issue preferences, Edwards lost. At an intermediate level, Democrats lost. But perhaps the most consequential outcome occurred at the macro level: potentially a permanent shift in the balance of power in Louisiana government.


SADOW: Tort reform passage was a crushing blow to John Bel Edwards

All of these changes will go into effect in 2021.

You know how the bill was a blowout against Edwards? He was saying this bill is a decent "compromise" after the bill secured veto proof majorities in the House and Senate with 84 votes and 35 votes respectively.

I'm really encouraged by this show of fortitude and spine by the GOP legislature. Here's hoping they can follow this model perfectly with taxes, economic policy, social issues and just about everything else for the rest of JBE's second term.
Posted by geauxtigers87
Louisiana
Member since Mar 2011
25185 posts
Posted on 7/3/20 at 11:35 am to
i want to be hopeful this is a new era for the LA legislature but i'm not holding my breath
Posted by tigerfoot
Alexandria
Member since Sep 2006
56205 posts
Posted on 7/3/20 at 11:37 am to
Serious question, is this an impactful piece of legislation. As a lay person I don’t inserstand most of this.
Posted by WylieTiger
Member since Nov 2006
12935 posts
Posted on 7/3/20 at 11:43 am to
Hopefully, your auto insurance premiums will decrease a good bit.
Posted by Sentrius
Fort Rozz
Member since Jun 2011
64757 posts
Posted on 7/3/20 at 11:44 am to
quote:

i want to be hopeful this is a new era for the LA legislature but i'm not holding my breath



This is literally the first time in Louisiana history where the legislature acted like a majority and dictated policy and law to the Governor. It's a modern day miracle, especially when its coming from the GOP.

But I agree with you. Here's hoping GOP legislature finally understands leverage and the power they have as legislators and uses that to make John Bel Edwards Mr. Irrelevant all the way to his departure in 2023.


On a side note, it's funny how last year ambulance chasers pulled out all the stops and spent money out of the arse to reelect their boy for a second term only for JBE to bend over and sign a tort reform bill that's a rout for their profession less than a year later.
Posted by tigersbb
Member since Oct 2012
10279 posts
Posted on 7/3/20 at 11:46 am to
quote:

Serious question, is this an impactful piece of legislation. As a lay person I don’t inserstand most of this.



It has tempered some of the more egregious issues in bodily injury claims with little actual harm to plaintiffs. It has closed some a avenues plaintiff attorneys were able to manipulate that were not consistent and allowed their clients to be made more than whole.
Posted by Mickey Goldmill
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2010
23020 posts
Posted on 7/3/20 at 11:47 am to
This was a good compromise bill to make the issue go away for a few years.
Posted by tigersbb
Member since Oct 2012
10279 posts
Posted on 7/3/20 at 11:50 am to
quote:

Hopefully, your auto insurance premiums will decrease a good bit.


Should see the impact of the bill over time as rates are influenced by historical claim costs. There will not e an immediate drop but if the bill works as intended it will begin to show in a few years.
Posted by Mickey Goldmill
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2010
23020 posts
Posted on 7/3/20 at 11:50 am to
quote:

On a side note, it's funny how last year ambulance chasers pulled out all the stops and spent money out of the arse to reelect their boy for a second term only for JBE to bend over and sign a tort reform bill that's a rout for their profession less than a year later.


He signed a bill that is EXTREMELY watered down compared to what was originally passing through the legislature. I don’t think either side is thrilled with it but all can live with it. That’s compromise.
Posted by Sentrius
Fort Rozz
Member since Jun 2011
64757 posts
Posted on 7/3/20 at 11:51 am to
quote:

This was a good compromise bill to make the issue go away for a few years.



Posted by Sentrius
Fort Rozz
Member since Jun 2011
64757 posts
Posted on 7/3/20 at 11:54 am to
quote:

He signed a bill that is EXTREMELY watered down compared to what was originally passing through the legislature.


The bill JBE vetoed was more generous to him and his democrat trial lawyer buddies than the one he's forced to sign now.

Kirk Talbot bent over to give JBE concessions and it was still vetoed.

He should've signed that one.
Posted by Mickey Goldmill
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2010
23020 posts
Posted on 7/3/20 at 11:56 am to
No really, this bill still allows plaintiffs to sue the insurance company directly and it is permissible to reference that the defendant has insurance-just can’t name the insurance company- at trial. On collateral source, plaintiff can still recover up to 40% of the difference between the billed/paid charges.

Posted by PhDoogan
Member since Sep 2018
14947 posts
Posted on 7/3/20 at 12:03 pm to
quote:

(1) lowering the amount in controversy, or the jury trial threshold

quote:

lowered the threshold in injury cases to from $50,000 to $10,000


People will not like this once they start getting summoned for jury duty every other week.
Posted by 2tigergo
Member since Jan 2013
200 posts
Posted on 7/3/20 at 12:03 pm to
While I'm happy to see what appears to be positive movement on tort reform, some of the events and votes still puzzle me:

1). The resolutions that Seabaugh threatened to use if this bill wasn't passed only required majority votes from either house. Why wasn't this tactic used in previous years when Alario was blocking this?

2). The bill originally called for a $5k threshold limit. Why "compromise" with JBE, if they had him "over a barrel" already?

3). Why did Marcelle vote for this? Her vote made no difference, and she has G's backing should a competitor use this as ammo?

quote:

Democrats who had opposed bills with similar provisions in the past but who realized it would pass and decided to jump on the train before it left the station)


4). This seems doubtful. My take, is there's much more to this story....maybe a continuation of Peterson's message to the governor??

Posted by Wednesday
Member since Aug 2017
15396 posts
Posted on 7/3/20 at 12:07 pm to
quote:

Serious question, is this an impactful piece of legislation. As a lay person I don’t inserstand most of this.


It remains to be seen whether this law will actually reduce insurance rates.

I do believe it will provide a check on a judiciary that is completely owned by the plaintiff’s bar, as it will be much easier to get a jury trial. It’s been my experience that the runaway litigation problems in Louisiana are not large Personal Injury cases. Those are expensive to litigate and 9/10 a plaintiff’s lawyer is not going to waste his time and money on a bad injury case that’s non meritorious.

The real problem are these “volume” plaintiffs lawyers. They will take anything no matter what bullshite it is. And then “stipulate” that his case is worth less than $50k so he doesn’t get a jury. Magically, the judge who the same plaintiffs lawyer for elected finds the case is worth $50k.

The collateral source rule change is huge. Eliminating this rule would only allows a personal injury litigant to recover what his health insurance paid in medical expenses, not what the doctor, who in many cases tied in with the plaintiffs bar says he would accept for the same service. Let’s say Blue Cross paid $25,000 for a surgery, and the Doctors’ invoice says $40,000. The plaintiff recovers $40,000, even tho he was never out of pocket anything bc his health insurance paid the tab. The plaintiff pays back blue cross $25k, and gets a $15k windfall. I tried a case once where that windfall would have been $135,000, on one procedure. And the guy had several. It was so gross.

You would be horrified to see the unholy union that has resulted btwn doctors, particularly pain management and neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons and plaintiffs lawyers as a result of the collateral source rule. It’s lucrative and stomach turning. This is a very positive change
Posted by Mickey Goldmill
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2010
23020 posts
Posted on 7/3/20 at 12:12 pm to
quote:

The collateral source rule change is huge. Eliminating this rule would only allows a personal injury litigant to recover what his health insurance paid in medical expenses, not what the doctor, who in many cases tied in with the plaintiffs bar says he would accept for the same service.


It doesn’t eliminate it completely. After trial, the judge can still award up to 40% of the difference due to the health insurance premiums the plaintiff paid that the defendant benefitted from.
Posted by tigersbb
Member since Oct 2012
10279 posts
Posted on 7/3/20 at 12:14 pm to
quote:

I tried a case once where that windfall would have been $135,000, on one procedure. And the guy had several. It was so gross.


What area do you practice?
Posted by rumproast
Member since Dec 2003
12093 posts
Posted on 7/3/20 at 12:17 pm to
Sadly, the collateral source rule, which allowed plaintiffs to get the benefit of their insurer's reduced rates (which the plaintiffs pay for in monthly premiums), was one of the things that helped settle cases, saving everybody time and money. Now with a 10k jury threshold, and a significantly thrown out collateral source rule, our Courts are fixing to get really busy...and our constituents can't complain when they are subpoena'd for jury duty multiple times next year.
Posted by boudinman
Member since Nov 2019
5019 posts
Posted on 7/3/20 at 12:21 pm to
quote:

Hopefully, your auto insurance premiums will decrease a good bit.



With Jim Donelon as Insurance Commissioner, don't hold your breath on any rates being lowered.
Posted by NaturalBeam
Member since Sep 2007
14521 posts
Posted on 7/3/20 at 12:26 pm to
quote:

Serious question, is this an impactful piece of legislation. As a lay person I don’t inserstand most of this.
It depends. It is impactful to plaintiffs and plaintiff's lawyers (me, full disclosure) and could reduce the amount many plaintiffs will recover.

Reducing recoveries to plaintiffs, just for the sake of it, is important to some people, whatever their reasoning. Many people don't like it when plaintiffs sue. I'm not hating on those people - they're entitled to their opinion - it's just a fact.

But if you are asking whether it is impactful to YOU (assuming you aren't a plaintiff), then then answer is no. It won't affect your insurance premiums in anyway. They could have made that a part of the bill, but didn't.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram