- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: LA State Rep Michael Melerine: Gov. Landry needs to sign House Bill 423 into law
Posted on 6/12/24 at 3:51 pm to udtiger
Posted on 6/12/24 at 3:51 pm to udtiger
thats giving the defendant the benefits of the plaintiff’s insurance premiums.
The damages are the billed amount. we need to pass a statute to legally change that.
The damages are the billed amount. we need to pass a statute to legally change that.
This post was edited on 6/12/24 at 4:02 pm
1
Posted on 6/12/24 at 3:54 pm to Alt26
quote:
I think that is a valid argument...which has been the basis for upholding the collateral source rule in past decisions. But the counter argument is that a plaintiff shouldn't be entitled to the difference that legally can't be collected by the provider either. I have my doubts it will actually lower premiums (TBD), but I do think there is a reasonable middle ground when it come to the collateral source rule.
We are at the middle ground. This is the insurance companies getting greedy. We used to be 100% they got 60% of what they wanted.
The only reason to give favorable treatment to insurance companies and idiots who drive into other people is to lower everyone else’s premiums. and that didn’t happen.
Posted on 6/12/24 at 4:07 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
thats giving the defendant the benefits of the plaintiff’s insurance premiums
Which he/she was paying anyway.
At best...AT BEST...the plaintiff is "damaged" in that some percentage of their premium is being allocated to pay for medical treatment from an accident. Fine. They can recover 25% of the premium they paid for the year before the accident.
This post was edited on 6/12/24 at 4:12 pm
Posted on 6/18/24 at 5:30 pm to ragincajun03
quote:Good Lord, I'd hope so. I'm sitting here with repair of an injury which would represent significant financial loss, were I in full practice mode. Obvious a claimant should be compensated for that. A PI attorney scraping away 50% of the award based on trial costs and fees, NO! not so much.
claimants are allowed to recover more money than was actually paid for their medical treatment.
Posted on 6/18/24 at 5:34 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Payment for that doesnt come from what was proposed to be cut.
with repair of an injury which would represent significant financial loss
This post was edited on 6/18/24 at 5:37 pm
Posted on 6/18/24 at 5:41 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Good Lord, I'd hope so. I'm sitting here with repair of an injury which would represent significant financial loss, were I in full practice mode. Obvious a claimant should be compensated for that.
Shouldn’t that be a seperate calculation / decision?
Posted on 6/18/24 at 6:10 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:Perhaps, but under the proposal, would it have been?
Shouldn’t that be a seperate calculation / decision?
Posted on 6/18/24 at 6:48 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Perhaps, but under the proposal, would it have been?
Lost earnings is certainly something that can be part of damages.
Page 4 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News