- 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
Tort Reform: Louisiana’s “Jury Threshold “ of $50,000
Posted on 10/14/19 at 8:19 am
Posted on 10/14/19 at 8:19 am
On another thread, a poster opined that the above referenced statute works to encourage personal injury litigation. It was a bit of a derail in that thread, but an interesting question, so I am starting thread to discuss.
I actually had to do a bit of research, because Texas does not have a similar arrangement. In essence, a Louisiana litigant is not entitled to a jury trial unless the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $50,000. Any smaller controversy will be tried directly to the judge.
At first glance, the “jury threshold“ strikes me as a “tort reform“ provision, for several reasons.
First, empaneling a jury and holding a jury trial is expensive and time consuming. By excluding juries from smaller controversies, it would seem that the court system would be saving a significant amount of judicial resources.
Second, the conventional wisdom (at least in Texas) is that a judge is less likely than a jury to make an outrageous award. Thus, it strikes me that this provision would reduce the number of excessive plaintiff judgments.
Why is this provision seen as a “bad thing” in Louisiana?
I actually had to do a bit of research, because Texas does not have a similar arrangement. In essence, a Louisiana litigant is not entitled to a jury trial unless the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $50,000. Any smaller controversy will be tried directly to the judge.
At first glance, the “jury threshold“ strikes me as a “tort reform“ provision, for several reasons.
First, empaneling a jury and holding a jury trial is expensive and time consuming. By excluding juries from smaller controversies, it would seem that the court system would be saving a significant amount of judicial resources.
Second, the conventional wisdom (at least in Texas) is that a judge is less likely than a jury to make an outrageous award. Thus, it strikes me that this provision would reduce the number of excessive plaintiff judgments.
Why is this provision seen as a “bad thing” in Louisiana?
13
Posted on 10/14/19 at 8:22 am to AggieHank86
It used to be much lower, when the juries were more conservative/moderate in their awards.
When they started giving bigger money, and while the judges were still reliably conservative, it was raised.
Once the judges in certain jurisdictions started basically being a guaranteed $50k, the push to drop the threshold started back up.
When they started giving bigger money, and while the judges were still reliably conservative, it was raised.
Once the judges in certain jurisdictions started basically being a guaranteed $50k, the push to drop the threshold started back up.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 8:23 am to udtiger
quote:
Once the judges in certain jurisdictions started basically being a guaranteed $50k, the push to drop the threshold started back up.
This. New Orleans, Marksville, etc... are well known to be guaranteed pay days.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 8:28 am to AggieHank86
It's tough to get a relatively quick jury trial date. Thus, presumably, there would be incentive for the plaintiff to settle quicker and lower than waiting a long time for a jury trial
That may be the case in Texas, but you have a lot of judges in LA who are very tied in with plaintiff's attorneys (i.e. campaign financiers). In that situation an attorney takes a very questionable case, but with a very favorable judge, and stipulates that damages don't exceed $50k. The logic is that the judge will award him far more (up to $50k) than a jury would in the same scenario. In essence, he lowers his ceiling for a big verdict, but raise the floor on a low or potentially zero verdict.
Personally, I don't think lowering the threshold will have a huge effect other than the clog up dockets. But then again, that might be the goal. Clog up the dockets to force quicker, lower, settlements
quote:
Second, the conventional wisdom (at least in Texas) is that a judge is less likely than a jury to make an outrageous award. Thus, it strikes me that this provision would reduce the number of excessive plaintiff judgments.
That may be the case in Texas, but you have a lot of judges in LA who are very tied in with plaintiff's attorneys (i.e. campaign financiers). In that situation an attorney takes a very questionable case, but with a very favorable judge, and stipulates that damages don't exceed $50k. The logic is that the judge will award him far more (up to $50k) than a jury would in the same scenario. In essence, he lowers his ceiling for a big verdict, but raise the floor on a low or potentially zero verdict.
Personally, I don't think lowering the threshold will have a huge effect other than the clog up dockets. But then again, that might be the goal. Clog up the dockets to force quicker, lower, settlements
Posted on 10/14/19 at 8:28 am to AggieHank86
Aren't judges getting significant campaign contributions from trial lawyers?
Posted on 10/14/19 at 8:35 am to Alt26
quote:
That may be the case in Texas, but you have a lot of judges in LA who are very tied in with plaintiff's attorneys (i.e. campaign financiers). In that situation an attorney takes a very questionable case, but with a very favorable judge, and stipulates that damages don't exceed $50k. The logic is that the judge will award him far more (up to $50k) than a jury would in the same scenario. In essence, he lowers his ceiling for a big verdict, but raise the floor on a low or potentially zero verdict.
Personally, I don't think lowering the threshold will have a huge effect other than the clog up dockets. But then again, that might be the goal. Clog up the dockets to force quicker, lower, settlements
Pretty spot on. I do think this would help in lowering premiums, also, because A) like you said, it's no longer a quick pay day and B) by significantly lowering the settlement amount, the "payday" is cheaper.
The tort reform law had other parts as well that were aimed at stifling the injury attorneys. The NAMED plaintiff amendment was another one. Essentially, the plaintiff attorney can and does, go into court and point at the defense team for the insurance company and say, "look at these people in their fancy suits. HOW DARE YOU! How dare you sit there and deny these poor people money. XYZ Insurance company made millions last year, surely they can afford $70,000". The amendment would ban lawyers from naming the insurance company in court, as the defendent. Making it less likely the ambulance chasers use that tactic and garner jury sympathy.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 8:37 am to AggieHank86
$50,000 is a large sum of money. Louisiana average yearly income in 2018 is $46,145.
All the judges are elected. All judge candidates depend upon trial lawyers for their election campaign funds. No pay, no play, no job with a nice black robe.
It’s only a tort “reform” at a lower “suggested retail price”!
All the judges are elected. All judge candidates depend upon trial lawyers for their election campaign funds. No pay, no play, no job with a nice black robe.
It’s only a tort “reform” at a lower “suggested retail price”!
Posted on 10/14/19 at 8:37 am to BugAC
It increases the value of small whiplash cases.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 8:43 am to AggieHank86
Will never happen. Too much money involved, and it’s insurance company money so it’s treated like an ATM, and we’re counting on lawyers to make the change. Nope.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 8:44 am to BugAC
Re: Direct Action lawsuits
As a young lawyer, I did a good bit of insurance defense work, including some silicosis cases in South Louisiana. “The direct action” provisions in Louisiana always struck me as counter-intuitive. The policyholder (and not the plaintiff) has the contractual relationship with the insurance company, and the insurance company owes its duty to the policyholder rather than to some future claimant.
As a young lawyer, I did a good bit of insurance defense work, including some silicosis cases in South Louisiana. “The direct action” provisions in Louisiana always struck me as counter-intuitive. The policyholder (and not the plaintiff) has the contractual relationship with the insurance company, and the insurance company owes its duty to the policyholder rather than to some future claimant.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 8:53 am to AggieHank86
quote:
“The direct action” provisions in Louisiana always struck me as counter-intuitive.
Why? The direct action statute applies in limited cases to help an injured person when the tortfeasor is insolvent, absent or dead:
quote:
(a) The insured has been adjudged bankrupt by a court of competent jurisdiction or when proceedings to adjudge an insured bankrupt have been commenced before a court of competent jurisdiction.
(b) The insured is insolvent.
(c) Service of citation or other process cannot be made on the insured.
(d) When the cause of action is for damages as a result of an offense or quasi-offense between children and their parents or between married persons.
(e) When the insurer is an uninsured motorist carrier.
(f) The insured is deceased.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 8:54 am to AggieHank86
quote:
“The direct action” provisions in Louisiana always struck me as counter-intuitive. The policyholder (and not the plaintiff) has the contractual relationship with the insurance company, and the insurance company owes its duty to the policyholder rather than to some future claimant.
well that's more of an ethical issue, imho
i understand the concerns about closing arguments in front of a jury but procedurally, it makes sense, ESPECIALLY for domestic insurance providers. you're part of a regulatory scheme within the state and that coverage is mandated by law. i don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to be parties to the suit.
you can fix the worries about "it's not his money it's the insurance company's money" with evidentiary rules without blowing up the entire scheme
Posted on 10/14/19 at 8:56 am to Motorboat
quote:Because in most states you can still sue the folks you listed, with the insurer having ultimate financial responsibility. The ability to name a big insurance company as a defendant just seems unduly prejudicial.
Why? The direct action statute applies in limited cases to help an injured person when the tortfeasor is insolvent, absent or dead:
Posted on 10/14/19 at 8:58 am to AggieHank86
It’s a backend way to expand government if you do this. Judges are already burdened with cases so now you all but guarantee that least five more judges plus staff will be added on average to each state court across the state.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 9:01 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The ability to name a big insurance company as a defendant just seems unduly prejudicial.
to an insurance company? cry me a river.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 9:06 am to Motorboat
quote:
to an insurance company? cry me a river.
And you are the people the trial lawyers are targeting. YOU ARE THE INSURANCE COMPANY. When they get sued, YOU ARE GETTING SUED. They aren't eating that cost. It's insurance. Your money is pooled with everyone else to lower the total cost.
This post was edited on 10/14/19 at 9:07 am
Posted on 10/14/19 at 9:07 am to AggieHank86
quote:Haha, no.
a judge is less likely than a jury to make an outrageous award.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 9:09 am to AggieHank86
Because a lot fo the judged are very liberal and there are some jurisdictions where a $50,000.00 Bench trial will net any case $50,000.00
Posted on 10/14/19 at 9:09 am to Motorboat
quote:Your brain has been poisoned.
to an insurance company? cry me a river.
Posted on 10/14/19 at 9:52 am to BugAC
quote:
They aren't eating that cost. It's insurance. Your money is pooled with everyone else to lower the total cost.
Don't think the insurance company doesn't like it either, they're just as complicit in the threshold. It's less likely to go to court and in some cases the $50k reward isn't enough. Good example is a friend of mine who had been rear-ended in an accident that totaled her brand new car. The cost to replace the vehicle and physical therapy was much more than $50k. Additionally the wonderful attorney certainly took his cut, to the tune of $15k. So now she was left with $35k, just enough to pay off her new vehicle and maybe a doctor's visit or two.
It costs them far less to settle. Both the plaintiff attorneys and insurance companies benefit while the rest of us get screwed in the end.
This post was edited on 10/14/19 at 9:53 am
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News