- 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: Does anyone hope that the La. legislature will pass a "loser pays" law?
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:42 pm to LSURussian
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:42 pm to LSURussian
Link? Do you have any factual data to back any of this up? I can't imagine Alaska was a high volume state of litigation anyway.
1
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:43 pm to Sentrius
quote:
That is a law just begging for more ambulance chasers to move here to this state to get rich off of suits against companies who actually provide gainful employment to people here.
classic
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:44 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:It just doesn't make sense to a loser pays, unless blatant, which SFP showed is already in place.
I'm glad you've got this all figured out even though you have no substantive rebuttal to the fact that most cases involve clear liability.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
Are you seriously arguing that only lawyers know what liability means? Don't flatter yourself.
In the example you gave about your wife, under loser pays the adjuster would have an additional incentive to pay the claim fairly. If he isn't fair and the claiming party sues and wins, his company would not only be on the hook for the judgement but would also be responsible for a portion of the other party's now grossly inflated (according to you) attorney's fees.
In the example you gave about your wife, under loser pays the adjuster would have an additional incentive to pay the claim fairly. If he isn't fair and the claiming party sues and wins, his company would not only be on the hook for the judgement but would also be responsible for a portion of the other party's now grossly inflated (according to you) attorney's fees.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:46 pm to NIH
quote:According to this article, it's very limited in its scope of payment. Alec Policy Forum
Link? Do you have any factual data to back any of this up? I can't imagine Alaska was a high volume state of litigation anyway.
quote:
Alaska is considered the only state that follows loser pays, but it actually follows a limited version of the system that permits only modest recovery of fees and is riddled with exceptions.
quote:
Under Alaska law, a prevailing party may seek a relatively small portion of his or her attorneys’ fees ranging from one percent to thirty percent depending on whether the case was contested or uncontested, resolved with or without a trial, and on the amount of the judgment.
quote:
But Alaska law provides the judge with ten potential reasons to depart from this schedule.
This post was edited on 2/14/17 at 4:49 pm
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:46 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
riddled with exceptions.
ie rare as shite
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:47 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Are you seriously arguing that only lawyers know what liability means? Don't flatter yourself
Do you know how to prove liability at trial? Is an offense report admissible evidence? How does hearsay work?
Also if the adjustor manipulates you into taking an unfair settlement there won't be a suit at all.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:49 pm to buckeye_vol
this would likely kill some suits, like slip and falls
the real policy analysis is looking at the total "lawsuit industry" and then seeing how the total pie would be affected
so if 10% (a very generous figure for Russian's argument) of all the pie would vanish, but 75% (again, very generous for Russian's argument) would get a 10% bump in value, would that cause more or less spending by consumers (via insurers)?
so you lose 10% and 75% gets increased by 10%, that means society comes out ahead (b/c that 75% would now be worth 82.5%, an increase of less than the 10% lost)
what if the 75% increase by 15%? now you come out behind, as the 75% is not worth 86.25% or more than the 10% of the pie that you'd lose
the real policy analysis is looking at the total "lawsuit industry" and then seeing how the total pie would be affected
so if 10% (a very generous figure for Russian's argument) of all the pie would vanish, but 75% (again, very generous for Russian's argument) would get a 10% bump in value, would that cause more or less spending by consumers (via insurers)?
so you lose 10% and 75% gets increased by 10%, that means society comes out ahead (b/c that 75% would now be worth 82.5%, an increase of less than the 10% lost)
what if the 75% increase by 15%? now you come out behind, as the 75% is not worth 86.25% or more than the 10% of the pie that you'd lose
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:The Alaskan law didn't seem to have much an impact anyways.
this would likely kill some suits, like slip and falls
quote:
The Judicial Council observed that the rule did not seem to have an impact on the filing of frivolous claims, while recognizing that it is difficult to measure such an impact.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
like slip and falls
i loved how this was a threat in the sopranos
"we'll send you to frickin' slip and fall school"
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:54 pm to CorporateTiger
Your entire mindset is based on everyone having to sue, or use a plaintiff attorney threatening to sue on their behalf, to receive just compensation.
That system is broken and costs everyone too much. But it keeps a lot of lawyers employed.
I would much rather have a system which provides incentives for agreeing to fair compensation for the injured person without always involving the sleazy lawyers.
That system is broken and costs everyone too much. But it keeps a lot of lawyers employed.
I would much rather have a system which provides incentives for agreeing to fair compensation for the injured person without always involving the sleazy lawyers.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:54 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Are you seriously arguing that only lawyers know what liability means? Don't flatter yourself.
no. that's literally nowhere in my statement
i said people like you would not need one. not everyone is as sophisticated/intelligent as you or trusting of the system. also, some people just would rather pay a lawyer 1/3 of the damages to handle everything rather than handle it themselves (just like how people can invest on their own but many are more than willing to let a banker do it for them. nothing wrong with that)
quote:
In the example you gave about your wife, under loser pays the adjuster would have an additional incentive to pay the claim fairly. If he isn't fair and the claiming party sues and wins, his company would not only be on the hook for the judgement but would also be responsible for a portion of the other party's now grossly inflated (according to you) attorney's fees.
until the lawyer gets involved, they have no such worry
but imagine this scenario as the vast majority of cases. do you really want to incentivize more lawyers to be able to sell to people like my ex with "my fees are not even a contingency because on top of your damages, the insurance company will pay my fees, too". she didn't want to give up 1/3 of her claim to hire an attorney. in "loser pays", she wouldn't have that concern
see where i'm going with this?
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:55 pm to LSURussian
this thread is akin to us coming in some financial thread and making a bunch of broad, bullshite statements about your industry and how to fix it
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:57 pm to LSURussian
If you ever find a system where common people are fairly compensated without requiring attorneys then I will 100% support you. I still haven't seen this system.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:58 pm to NIH
Well to be fair, attorneys did that. It was the disaster we know as Dodd-Frank. You would think people in the financial sector would realize the folly of trying to fix someone's else industry.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 5:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:That's the whole fricking point! Give the adjuster a financial incentive to offer a fair amount of compensation without having to involve a lawyer.
until the lawyer gets involved, they have no such worry
Posted on 2/14/17 at 5:03 pm to NIH
Give it a shot. Be my guest.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 5:07 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Give the adjuster a financial incentive to offer a fair amount of compensation without having to involve a lawyer.
we're slightly getting off topic, but they already have this incentive
the adjuster's incentive is to make the case as small as possible. the lawyer's incentive is to make the case as big as possible.
if adjusters were giving "market" rate offers to people, they'd never hire attorneys. however, adjusters do not do this and it makes attorneys valuable to the market. if you want to know how bad most adjuster offers are, most clients get more money AFTER the attorney and chiro gets paid off than they were officially offered. now imagine the total difference in cost to the insurance company (aka you the consumer)
this gap exists and even the threat of increasing the cost to the insurer that dramatically is not enough of an incentive to give "market" offers to these people. i am not going to argue that this is an efficient system whatsoever, BUT it's clear that it's profitable for adjusters to extremely lowball un-represented parties and the numbers are big enough in that market to make the risk of the "attorney inflation" less of a concern for the remainder
This post was edited on 2/14/17 at 5:08 pm
Posted on 2/14/17 at 5:11 pm to LSURussian
Since a solid majority of the legislature are trial lawyers or funded by trial lawyers, I foresee rough seas ahead.
But, it would be glorious to see the hit taken by the Buddy Barts, Gordan McKernans and Richard Arsenaults of the world.
Truly glorious.
But, it would be glorious to see the hit taken by the Buddy Barts, Gordan McKernans and Richard Arsenaults of the world.
Truly glorious.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 5:12 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
But, it would be glorious to see the hit taken by the Buddy Barts, Gordan McKernans
they'd make more money
quote:
Richard Arsenaults
i thought he mostly concentrated on MDL and national class action stuff these days
Page 4 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News