- 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: Tort reform in Louisiana - you can only choose 3
Posted on 2/19/24 at 9:00 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 2/19/24 at 9:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
so I have no way to answer your framed question.
Oh, you most certainly have a way. You just don't have the will.
Let's hit it tangentially. Why shouldn't a jury award be based solely on the nature and circumstance of injury, rather than on depth of a defendant's pockets?
1
Posted on 2/19/24 at 9:29 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
How much is your leg worth? Either one. Give us a number.
Billboard lawyers don’t sue over real injuries only fake whiplash on people who already have handicapped tags
Posted on 2/19/24 at 9:34 am to udtiger
A cap makes no logical sense.
Direct Action keeps recalcitrant insurers in line and actually reduces litigation costs for all.
Direct Action keeps recalcitrant insurers in line and actually reduces litigation costs for all.
Posted on 2/19/24 at 9:38 am to udtiger
quote:
3) Loser pays (applies to parties AND attorneys)
quote:
9) Attorney advertising prohibited
quote:
12) Mandatory disclosure of insurance limits
Posted on 2/19/24 at 9:50 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Oh, you most certainly have a way. You just don't have the will.
I can't read minds of real people, let alone fake people.
You're asking me to determine why a hypothetical jury would award a hypothetical amount of money, compared to another hypothetical jury awarding a different hypothetical amount of money.
quote:
Why shouldn't a jury award be based solely on the nature and circumstance of injury
That's how jurors are mandated to decide the case.
I can't read the minds of real people, let alone hypothetical ones, and I can't explain hypothetical results that don't exist in reality (especially without the basis in reality to analyze the decision).
Posted on 2/19/24 at 9:51 am to BugAC
quote:
3) Loser pays (applies to parties AND attorneys)
This would only increase costs to insurance companies.
Nobody has ever given a rational explanation of how loser pays wouldn't be terrible for insurers/defendants.
Posted on 2/19/24 at 10:34 am to udtiger
quote:
9) Attorney advertising prohibited
Posted on 2/19/24 at 11:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Nobody has ever given a rational explanation of how loser pays wouldn't be terrible for insurers/defendants.
Not a lawyer but, to me, it would disincentivize frivolous lawsuits.
Posted on 2/19/24 at 11:22 am to BugAC
quote:
Not a lawyer but, to me, it would disincentivize frivolous lawsuits
It would also disincentivize defending weak cases.
Posted on 2/19/24 at 11:24 am to BugAC
quote:
it would disincentivize frivolous lawsuits.
These have already been disincentivized where they don't really exist.
These MVA cases that create the Gordons and what not pretty much universally have clear liability. The only issue is damages. You institute loser pays, and those lawyers get a piggy bank to add to their contingency fees.
This could MAYBE thwart the legacy pollution cases (as liability isn't so sure there), but they're so massive (often 8-9 figures) the juice becomes worth the squeeze.
Posted on 2/19/24 at 11:26 am to udtiger
quote:
It would also disincentivize defending weak cases.
It would take the power from the defense (especially the insurance defense) from the case entirely.
I could see some conflicts arise, too, when demands remain above policy limits. May cause the actual defense costs to skyrocket in addition to adding having to pay for the plaintiffs' litigation costs.
Posted on 2/19/24 at 11:43 am to SlowFlowPro
It's all a stupid discussion if the plaintiff attorney isn't on the hook. Taking a case to trial is like a $50-$100k proposition. The vast majority of the population couldn't afford it and the insurance company would not have a means to recoup the funds.
It also really only makes sense when connected with an Offer of Judgment.
It also really only makes sense when connected with an Offer of Judgment.
Posted on 2/19/24 at 11:45 am to The Johnny Lawrence
quote:
It's all a stupid discussion if the plaintiff attorney isn't on the hook.
Why would that change anything?
Morris Bart, Gordon, etc. are taking cases with clear liability.
quote:
It also really only makes sense when connected with an Offer of Judgment.
That's more rational than making it "loser" pays
Posted on 2/19/24 at 12:08 pm to lowhound
quote:
9) Attorney advertising prohibited
Maybe just a change in the scope and wording of advertising
Sponsorships are okay. (IE game day ads like Spenser Callahan spots would be okay)
Ads where you talk about types cases you handle, are okay.
No Testimonials or celebrity endorsements.
No Claim or settlement amounts in advertising.
No Play on word advertising, where you say something about the size of settlements or accidents.
No Dramatizations, ads need to focus on areas of law practiced and not a jazz band following an attorney into a court room or a tranny having a party to a catchy tune.
Posted on 2/19/24 at 12:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Hell, when the defendant is under oath in deposition they'd be obligated to tell you (and the insurer and its chosen attorney would create a conflict of interest in preventing the defendant from revealing this information).
Defendant can choose to not answer the question.
It’s interesting to me that rewards are often aligned with the amount of insurance a person carries.
If I have an auto accident and only carry the minimum, then that is what get sued for. If I carry 5 mil limit, I get sued for 5mil.
Curious isn’t it?
This post was edited on 2/19/24 at 1:02 pm
Posted on 2/19/24 at 12:34 pm to Tarps99
quote:
Maybe just a change in the scope and wording of advertising
Sponsorships are okay. (IE game day ads like Spenser Callahan spots would be okay)
Ads where you talk about types cases you handle, are okay.
No Testimonials or celebrity endorsements.
No Claim or settlement amounts in advertising.
No Play on word advertising, where you say something about the size of settlements or accidents.
No Dramatizations, ads need to focus on areas of law practiced and not a jazz band following an attorney into a court room or a tranny having a party to a catchy tune.
Can we do the same thing for insurance companies? Just name, types of lines offered, and a phone number or website?
No more geckos and emus and mayhem?
This post was edited on 2/19/24 at 12:35 pm
Posted on 2/19/24 at 12:54 pm to boosiebadazz
Personally, I'd love no more insurance commercials and no more billboards from attorneys, but the first amendment exists.
I think a consequence of lawyer advertising that no one has mentioned is the consolidation of power into a few firms. When I started, there were a number of smaller personal injury firms with 3-10 attorneys and a ton of solo practices. Those are all being swallowed up. It's almost impossible to do personal injury outside of one of the big firms.
I think a consequence of lawyer advertising that no one has mentioned is the consolidation of power into a few firms. When I started, there were a number of smaller personal injury firms with 3-10 attorneys and a ton of solo practices. Those are all being swallowed up. It's almost impossible to do personal injury outside of one of the big firms.
Posted on 2/19/24 at 12:59 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
quote:
It's almost impossible to do personal injury outside of one of the big firms.
Correct.
I see lots of firms who got saved by Laura claims holding onto the hope that they can remain as PI, but I just don't see it. Unless you're a local legacy firm or one of the big guys, it's too hard to get cases.
I think PI advertising in LA is still the most expensive Google ad category.
We didn't have to deal with this in LC until about 7 years ago and then Gordon and Morris Bart moved in.
Posted on 2/19/24 at 1:04 pm to Wednesday
Wednesday is either a plaintiff attorney or somehow affiliated
Posted on 2/19/24 at 1:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
It's almost impossible to do personal injury outside of one of the big firms.
Correct.
They have completely sucked up all the oxygen. Very good solo practioners/small firms doing PI work have been killed off.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News