- 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
0
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:03 am to DevilDagNS
quote:
A common theme of many of these bills appears to be that of disclosure. What is wrong with the jury knowing the plaintiff doesn't owe the full amount of the medical bills presented? At the end of the day, the jury can still award pretty much whatever they want. Why is disclosure such a problem? Same thing with the legal financing. Why don't they want that disclosed? They also didn't want the jury to know if a plaintiff wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Why do so many things need to be kept in the dark?
Does this transparency extend to disclosing the existence of an insurance policy and its limits to the jury?
The new law alters direct action and literally states you cannot put the name of an insurance company in the caption of a lawsuit. Where’s the transparency there?
This post was edited on 6/19/24 at 9:05 am
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:06 am to TigerAllNightLong
quote:
Rumors flying that Jeff is being blackmailed.
He's not being blackmailed. He is very close with the trial lawyers and has been for a long time. Some of his closest personal friends are big time plaintiffs attorneys. This was known by a lot of us, long before he was elected.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:24 am to LegalEazyE
quote:
Some of his closest personal friends are big time plaintiffs attorneys.
Sounds like a very good reason to override the veto.
And what a POS to screw over everyone because of his drinking(?) buddies. I’d have more respect if he was being blackmailed.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:28 am to BigJim
The plaintiff attorneys made a deal with Landry early to make sure he didn’t step on their feet with tort reform in exchange for them agreeing to not throw money in the way of him being elected
He also extended the prescriptive period to 2 years from 1 year to allow people more time to file suit. That is a gift to plaintiff attorneys.
He is hurting business as a result. He is hurting Louisiana as a result.
Landry is out for himself. He is not looking out for the best interest of this state.
Politics is a slimy business and Landry is a slimy politician
He also extended the prescriptive period to 2 years from 1 year to allow people more time to file suit. That is a gift to plaintiff attorneys.
He is hurting business as a result. He is hurting Louisiana as a result.
Landry is out for himself. He is not looking out for the best interest of this state.
Politics is a slimy business and Landry is a slimy politician
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:33 am to cmac5125
[quote]
What do you do in the instance that the company that guy works for paid his health insurance instead of him? Does he still get the those premiums or is the company reimbursed?
Why should the company receive it? It is part of that person's pay package.
If the injured person doesn't have insurance, the company has to pay the FULL amount charged by the medical system. Why should the insurance company be enriched because the claimant has been a responsible person?
How many Louisiana insurance commissioners have gone to jail!?!? What did they do with laws, etc., to cause these insurance issues in Louisiana?
I am amazed that people want to give up their rights for a promise of lower rates that probably won't materialize... and if they do...it will be temporary. Some of you clearly haven't dealt with scummy insurance companies.
What do you do in the instance that the company that guy works for paid his health insurance instead of him? Does he still get the those premiums or is the company reimbursed?
Why should the company receive it? It is part of that person's pay package.
If the injured person doesn't have insurance, the company has to pay the FULL amount charged by the medical system. Why should the insurance company be enriched because the claimant has been a responsible person?
How many Louisiana insurance commissioners have gone to jail!?!? What did they do with laws, etc., to cause these insurance issues in Louisiana?
I am amazed that people want to give up their rights for a promise of lower rates that probably won't materialize... and if they do...it will be temporary. Some of you clearly haven't dealt with scummy insurance companies.
This post was edited on 6/19/24 at 9:47 am
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:39 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
If he were to leave in January for a Trump cabinet position
I would lose all faith in Trump if he put Jeff fricking Landry in his cabinet. Is this being considered seriously by anyone?
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:50 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
The new law alters direct action and literally states you cannot put the name of an insurance company in the caption of a lawsuit. Where’s the transparency there?
What does the existence of insurance have to do with a plaintiff submitting what amounts to a fake or inflated bill that isn't owed?
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:52 am to DevilDagNS
you abandoned that transparency trope pretty quickly This post was edited on 6/19/24 at 9:52 am
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:22 am to TigerAllNightLong
quote:
And what a POS to screw over everyone because of his drinking(?) buddies. I’d have more respect if he was being blackmailed.
Well, they also have a lot of money to fund his campaigns... and to buy all the booze etc.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:24 am to PetroBabich
quote:
If he were to leave in January for a Trump cabinet position
Not happening. Landry has wanted to be, and planned on running for Governor for a long time.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:31 am to DevilDagNS
quote:Aren't you for transparency? Without insurance being revealed, a jury would mistakenly believe that Mr. Defendant is going to have to personally pay a judgment out of his life savings or kids' college fund to pay for the damage he caused. Thus a jury would be more likely to award small damages, not based on injury, but to protect Mr. Defendant from coming out of pocket.
What does the existence of insurance have to do with a plaintiff submitting what amounts to a fake or inflated bill that isn't owed?
Since you want transparency, I assume you want insurance coverage to be disclosed, right?
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:34 am to SlidellCajun
quote:The trial attorneys were actually opposed to this, as was the defense bar.
He also extended the prescriptive period to 2 years from 1 year to allow people more time to file suit. That is a gift to plaintiff attorneys.
I'm not sure why, as it seems to help both sides - more time to settle cases, so less need for lawsuits. Louisiana has been tied for the shortest prescriptive period in the country, which forces plaintiffs to file more suits.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:56 am to NaturalBeam
quote:
Aren't you for transparency? Without insurance being revealed, a jury would mistakenly believe that Mr. Defendant is going to have to personally pay a judgment out of his life savings or kids' college fund to pay for the damage he caused. Thus a jury would be more likely to award small damages, not based on injury, but to protect Mr. Defendant from coming out of pocket. Since you want transparency, I assume you want insurance coverage to be disclosed, right?
Once insurance limits are revealed, the demand tends to match it.
It’s perverse. If a trucking company carries 100million in insurance coverage and one of their trucks is involved in an accident injuring someone, the plaintiff attorney does not need to know if the trucking company carries $100mil in coverage.
Disclosing it is like waving a banner that says -
“Hey, I have $100mil to give out to anyone that can convince a jury that they’re injured!”
It feeds the plaintiff thirst for false claims or unreasonable demands.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 11:01 am to NaturalBeam
quote:
I'm not sure why, as it seems to help both sides - more time to settle cases, so less need for lawsuits.
Giving a plaintiff more time to file a lawsuit is not good for insurance companies as they like to settle claims as quickly as possible and they like to know the number of claims for a policy period. Giving another year means they got hit with claims that happened up to 2 years ago which means they have to hold more money in reserve to pay potential claims. It creates a larger unknown for the insurance company which is never good.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 11:44 am to SlidellCajun
quote:
Once insurance limits are revealed, the demand tends to match it.
It’s perverse. If a trucking company carries 100million in insurance coverage and one of their trucks is involved in an accident injuring someone, the plaintiff attorney does not need to know if the trucking company carries $100mil in coverage.
Disclosing it is like waving a banner that says -
“Hey, I have $100mil to give out to anyone that can convince a jury that they’re injured!”
It feeds the plaintiff thirst for false claims or unreasonable demands.
We aren't talking about whether the plaintiff gets to know the policy limits - they already do in discovery.
My post was in response to what a jury should be allowed to know in the name of "transparency".
Posted on 6/19/24 at 11:48 am to SlidellCajun
I would imagine the number of claims first reported to an insurance company more than one year after the date of accident to be really small.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 4:19 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Does this transparency extend to disclosing the existence of an insurance policy and its limits to the jury?
What does the amount of available insurance have to do with the damages?
Prove your damages. Maybe there is insurance to pay or maybe you get it directly from the defendant.
The insurance carrier didn’t cause any of the alleged damages
Posted on 6/19/24 at 4:20 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
would imagine the number of claims first reported to an insurance company more than one year after the date of accident to be really small.
Currently true. They come in around 11 months in. It will be 23 months now with 2 year RX
Posted on 6/19/24 at 5:14 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
I would imagine the number of claims first reported to an insurance company more than one year after the date of accident to be really small.
Probably true so why even bother to change the law???
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News