re: Tort reform in Louisiana - you can only choose 3

quote:

---

It’s $10,000

---

I stand corrected. Thanks.

1) Cap on total general damages of $500k per claimant/plaintiff

No

People are legitimately catastrophically injured sometimes and you need to make sure they are compensated.

The better way to deal with this problem is to do something about future medical expenses and future wage loss, which are inevitably determined by plaintiff whore doctors who make millions of dollars per year based on referrals. It’s absolutely gross.

2) Future medical expenses have to be put in reversionary trust

Yes

3) Loser pays (applies to parties AND attorneys)

No

If a lawyer takes a frivolous case on contingency, he’s out the time money and effort. You’ll never get reimbursed by a brokedick plaintiff. Plus, if the defense loses a plaintiff case, he pays the fees and costs anyway. You don’t want to risk your own defense client paying fees on top.

Contingency fees are necessary for valid PI claims.

I would agree with loser pays atty fees in cases of fraud proven by preponderance, and only on cases where plaintiffs have a contingency fee arrangement.

4) Appointed judges - retention elections (limit of 3 terms)

1000 percent yes

5) Increase mandatory minimum insurance coverage to 25/50/50

This is already the minimum.

I would say for motor vehicle accidents you tie the jury threshold to the minimum limits and if the plaintiff has no insurance the jury threshold is zero.

6) Binding arbitration clauses in insurance policies valid

HELL NO

Arbitration is fascist and so are insurance companies. You think they won’t screw their insured in there?

Plus. The claim versus the insured wouldn’t be arbitratable so the insurer could just pay whatever in arbitration leaving an insured without a defense and exposed to an excess judgment.

Just HELL NO. I HATE arbitration in general unless it is in arms length transactions.

7) Complete elimination of direct action except in 1st party cases

Absolutely not

Direct Action gives an insured additional protection that its own insurance company won’t frick the insured around.

ETA if you think an insurance company wants to protect its insured and won’t screw them over, go meet some hurricane victims and look at the current cost of property insurance, just as an example

8) 863 sanctions mandatory

No.

This would come back to bite the defense bar and business community. If you think either of these interests have any influence over the judiciary - you’re buying left wing propganda, or never have had the glorious experience of being sued in Orleans, St Landry or West Baton Rouge parish.

Dudley Debosier would file sanctions any time a defendant pled an affirmative defense, whatever scholar who replaced Trudy White would magically find that the defense was frivolous. Atrocious idea.

9) Attorney advertising prohibited

Maybe

I’m fine with it but this will never happen bc there are 1st amendment protections. You could probably get away with prohibiting TV ads, or billboards maybe. Stick to a time place and manner restriction, and you’re in better shape.

The Gordons of the world hurt decent plaintiff’s lawyers. I know a lot of them who would be totally fine with it.

Currently atty advertising is regulated by the Supreme Court by and thru the rules of professional conduct. I’d have to figure out who would even have to change the rule/ make a statute.

10) No special weight to opinion of treating physician

No - bc it wouldn’t do anything

11) Two (2) year prescription*

No

Gives witnesses too much time to move, forget and die.

12) Mandatory disclosure of insurance limits

no.

It only helps plaintiffs.

Plus, once suit is filed, the insurer is required to produce an insurance policy anyway so it wouldn’t change anything.

The limits of insurance and policy aren’t admissible into evidence and that’s probably a good thing.

13) "penalty" for failure to accept offer of judgment to include award of attorney's fees

Yes

So long as the legislation is limited to fee arrangements that are calculated on invoiced periodically, with evidence of invoice and payment required to collect. Otherwise Spencer Callahan will double dip on his fee.

An offer of judgement only ever makes sense if it’s difficult for a plaintiff to walk away from. Ie - it should be a foreseeable judgment value or it’s an exercise in futility.

5 and 12

9 was declared unconstitutional 40 years ago.

No chance of that happening.

quote:

---

How about loser pays as the only one. You bring a suit, you lose you pay the fees and damages of the one you sued. That would end the frivolous BS.

---

How do you think of "frivolous", in this context?

You do realize this would just get the Gordans of the world more money, right? And cost insurers millions?

You can do a lot more good, faster, by making Louisiana a "no fault" MVA state.

quote:

---

No more blood sucking lawyer commercials or billboards!!!!

---

The problem with that is commercial speech is protected by the 1A and 14A this was addressed specifically for attorneys by SCOTUS in Bates v State Bar of Arizona. So any limitations would be challenged. State Bars have some level of control over the type and content of ads and you could attack the billboards by limiting/prohibiting them generally. Any legislative attempt to limit attorney advertising would be met with the full might of ATLA and 50 state trial lawyers' associations. Of all the proposals in the OP this is one of the most likely to fail and the most expensive one to attempt.

quote:

---

Arbitration is fascist

---

lol this is a really dumb statement

quote:

---

What does that even mean??

---

MVA = motor vehicle accident. You make LA a no fault state, and you cut the trial lawyers at their knees. People tend to not sue their own insurance companies.....

Works in Florida, amongst others.