"Lawsuit abuse" costs jobs

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: chess9
Chowderhead:

No kidding! BOA is the one costing the economy dearly. Without these lawsuits what incentive do the banks have for STOPPING THESE PRACTICES? The return to the individual cardholder is meaningless, essentially. What is most important is the deterrant effect such lawsuits have. The right wingers, including that nut job Snow, don't mention that.

This BOA example is the worst example of legal system abuses possible, because it isn't an abuse but a positive for the economy. Most of the truly bad lawsuits (I've seen quite a few.) don't even make it to the newspapers because the judges throw them out very early. You right wingers haven't even seen the worst of them and you're acting like you have some meaningful data. What BS. You don't have a clue....

I'm not prepared to turn our trial system over to the nut cases on the right wing. All they want to do is protect selected constituents. The average guy won't see a penny or realize any benefit. (If you know of a direct benefit to the average American, please detail how and when and through what process that will happen. I didn't think so....)

When you are charged with a capital crime you didn't commit and are sitting on death row ask these right wingers what they have done lately to stem prosecutorial abuses in the legal system. The answer is nothing because they don't give one whit for the common man, including all you right wingers. It is no accident they haven't made it EASIER to sue criminal enterprises and their officers, like Enron, Exxon, Dupont, Phillip Morris, ad nauseam.

Bike racers have two names for you guys. Poseurs and Rookies.

-Robert

Those crazy left winger just want to be lazy and eat bon bons and sue corporations. I could go into detail about the things I've seen, but just won't right now, but they prove this.

When the murderer who killed your parents gets out of jail, ask the bleeding-heart left wingers what they've done to make America a better place.

Lumberjacks have two words for you guys. Log Hoppers and Pancake Flippers.

-ParodyMan

 

[chess9]

Hero:

The sincerest form of flattery....

-Robert

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Spencer278
So you think it would have been better to allow BoA to keep ripping off the consumer?

Because the lawyers allege that they are "ripping off the consumer" it must be true and Bank of America denies any wrongdoing and has agreed to settle this lawsuit to avoid the risk and uncertainty of litigation is meaningless?

they will ALWAYS deny any wrongdoing when they settle. If you trust these large banks to do the right thing without the threat of gov't regulations or lawsuits ... then you are their perfect vict ... ummm customer.

Because they are a Bank/large corporation/rich/ <insert evil capitalist wrongdoer of choice here> they are automatically guilty? That is exactly why they choose to settle out of court because they know chances are good that 12 people that think like some of you will get on a jury ready to stick it to evil corporate America.

Did you ever stop to consider that BoA may have really been in the wrong, e.g., cheating customers by deliberately delaying payments to collect exorbitant late fees?

Do you work for BoA? Why do you presume they are innocent? They had the option of proceeding with a trial. Instead, they surrendered.



I agree there are major problems in our legal system where unscrupulous attorneys extort money from large corporations. Unfortunately, we also have unscrupulous corporations that willfully cheat and harm people to increase their profits. There is wrong-doing on both sides which is why we cannot afford to cap damages. If a company (or person) behaves in an actionable manner, the punishment has to be severe enough to discourage that company -- and everyone else -- from behaving that way in the future. If we cap damages, companies may feel free to engage in all sorts of egregious behavior, knowing there's a limit to the possible cost.

What we lack is a system for dishing out equally severe punishments for attorneys that abuse the system. We also need some sort of check on juries to prevent awards that are unreasonable for the offense. This is tough to do since, in America at least, any such mechanism can be abused by the same environment that has become so friendly to the wealthy and powerful.

 

[Officerdown]

I've always been pro-company

 

[chess9]

Officerdown:

Why? What do you get out of it? Why is it good for America? My dad was a cop and a staunch Republican. I could never figure it out.... The fusking job killed him, too.....

-Robert

 

[Officerdown]

Originally posted by: chess9
Officerdown:

Why? What do you get out of it? Why is it good for America? My dad was a cop and a staunch Republican. I could never figure it out.... The fusking job killed him, too.....

-Robert

I have a ton of respect for any police officer at my department or any department, past or present. I'm sorry he died. Can I ask how?

Why is what good for America?

 

[chess9]

Bow:

Lawyers sue each other for that kind of stuff. Trust me, I've seen a couple guys go down for that behavior. Also, if you want ANY reputation at the courthouse, you don't bring BS claims. The judges will make your life miserable. Then there's the bar....

On the other hand, there are too many lawyers and too many law schools. Many of them resemble the old matchbook ad law schools, I'm sorry to say. But the problem is not with the legal system per se. Underemployed lawyers ARE a menace, particularly those at the bottom of the fish tank.

-Robert

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: chess9
Bow:

Lawyers sue each other for that kind of stuff. Trust me, I've seen a couple guys go down for that behavior. Also, if you want ANY reputation at the courthouse, you don't bring BS claims. The judges will make your life miserable. Then there's the bar....

On the other hand, there are too many lawyers and too many law schools. Many of them resemble the old matchbook ad law schools, I'm sorry to say. But the problem is not with the legal system per se. Underemployed lawyers ARE a menace, particularly those at the bottom of the fish tank.

-Robert

I agree there are avenues that can be used to punish attorneys who abuse the system. I've seen no evidence they are used except in the most blatant cases. Please educate me if my impression is wrong; I haven't researched the topic by any means.

Re. too many lawyers, you are probably correct. Have you ever heard the story of the small town with only one lawyer? The poor guy barely made ends meet. There was little need for his services. Then one day, a second lawyer moved to town. Soon both had more work than they could handle.

 

[chess9]

Bow:

Yes, that's an old one. If I sound like I'm defending lawyers, I'm not. A lot of them, too many, are scumbags. But there are also a lot of great human beings practicing law.

The abuses in the legal system are far less pervasive than the lay public believes. Again, it is not the system, but the excess of DUMB lawyers. (don't touch that! )

And, remember, unlike doctors who seem willing to lie like a rug for each other, lawyers eat their own.

-Robert

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: chess9
Bow:

Yes, that's an old one. If I sound like I'm defending lawyers, I'm not. A lot of them, too many, are scumbags. But there are also a lot of great human beings practicing law.

The abuses in the legal system are far less pervasive than the lay public believes. Again, it is not the system, but the excess of DUMB lawyers. (don't touch that! )

And, remember, unlike doctors who seem willing to lie like a rug for each other, lawyers eat their own.

-Robert

I agree on all counts. I should have mentioned something about perception in my post as well. Just like almost everything else in life, you don't get headlines when the legal system works as it should. We hear about the outlandish failures.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: chess9
Bow:

Yes, that's an old one. If I sound like I'm defending lawyers, I'm not. A lot of them, too many, are scumbags. But there are also a lot of great human beings practicing law.

The abuses in the legal system are far less pervasive than the lay public believes. Again, it is not the system, but the excess of DUMB lawyers. (don't touch that! )

And, remember, unlike doctors who seem willing to lie like a rug for each other, lawyers eat their own.

-Robert

I agree on all counts. I should have mentioned something about perception in my post as well. Just like almost everything else in life, you don't get headlines when the legal system works as it should. We hear about the outlandish failures.

Nobody's arguing that we don't need it, just that we don't need it awarding idiots a million dollars for pouring coffee on themselves. Laws and lawyers protect us, but we just need something protecting us from those protecting us and so on so that we can't be exploited like we've been. Who do you think pays for those $20,000,000 settlements? Not the insurance company. Not the corporation. You and I do...provided you have a job. So stop thinking these suits are sticking it to "the man" because they're sticking it to you.

 

[chess9]

Hero:

I'm sure you're an expert on this topic and not just some right wing wacko spouting off as though he has a remote clue what he is talking about. Don't bother to post all the data in support of your argument because everyone here knows you wouldn't make an outlandish claim without rock solid PROOF.

-Robert

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: chess9
Hero:

I'm sure you're an expert on this topic and not just some right wing wacko spouting off as though he has a remote clue what he is talking about. Don't bother to post all the data in support of your argument because everyone here knows you wouldn't make an outlandish claim without rock solid PROOF.

-Robert

That was nicer than the first response that popped into my head.

 

[alchemize]

Insurance fraud runs 60-85 Billion per year, depending on the estimates. Google it. Don't hear any lefties screaming about that. Not as quaint as bashing wal-mart? I promise you, it is passed along in your rates.

Of course, since it is FRAUD, and it isn't all CAUGHT, then I guess rock solid PROOF is going to be difficult, isn't it.

 

[onelove]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: chess9
Bow:

Yes, that's an old one. If I sound like I'm defending lawyers, I'm not. A lot of them, too many, are scumbags. But there are also a lot of great human beings practicing law.

The abuses in the legal system are far less pervasive than the lay public believes. Again, it is not the system, but the excess of DUMB lawyers. (don't touch that! )

And, remember, unlike doctors who seem willing to lie like a rug for each other, lawyers eat their own.

-Robert

I agree on all counts. I should have mentioned something about perception in my post as well. Just like almost everything else in life, you don't get headlines when the legal system works as it should. We hear about the outlandish failures.

Nobody's arguing that we don't need it, just that we don't need it awarding idiots a million dollars for pouring coffee on themselves. Laws and lawyers protect us, but we just need something protecting us from those protecting us and so on so that we can't be exploited like we've been. Who do you think pays for those 20,000,000 settlements? Not the insurance company. Not the corporation. You and I do...provided you have a job. So stop thinking these suits are sticking it to "the man" because they're sticking it to you.

h.o.p.:
which 20,000,000 settlements are you referring to? in the abstract it seems like a lot, but sometimes lawsuits are about a lot of money. It's easy to rant and rave in the abstract (and perhaps you need an outlet for that), however, its hard to make a judgment about valuation until you have seen what the jury sees or know what the lawyer knows.

is there a particular lawyer exploiting you? just guessing, cuz you seem to have a burr in your saddle, m8.

 

[ReiAyanami]

It creates jobs for lawyers, but having more lawyers isn't good. Society needs less lawyers, more doctors (but not if they're weasly).

If lawsuits cost jobs, then we can pin the whole economy tanking on the moment the RIAA started suing several hundred MP3 users at a time. IT ALL MAKES SENSE!!

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: onelove

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: chess9
Bow:

Yes, that's an old one. If I sound like I'm defending lawyers, I'm not. A lot of them, too many, are scumbags. But there are also a lot of great human beings practicing law.

The abuses in the legal system are far less pervasive than the lay public believes. Again, it is not the system, but the excess of DUMB lawyers. (don't touch that! )

And, remember, unlike doctors who seem willing to lie like a rug for each other, lawyers eat their own.

-Robert

I agree on all counts. I should have mentioned something about perception in my post as well. Just like almost everything else in life, you don't get headlines when the legal system works as it should. We hear about the outlandish failures.

Nobody's arguing that we don't need it, just that we don't need it awarding idiots a million dollars for pouring coffee on themselves. Laws and lawyers protect us, but we just need something protecting us from those protecting us and so on so that we can't be exploited like we've been. Who do you think pays for those 20,000,000 settlements? Not the insurance company. Not the corporation. You and I do...provided you have a job. So stop thinking these suits are sticking it to "the man" because they're sticking it to you.

h.o.p.:
which 20,000,000 settlements are you referring to? in the abstract it seems like a lot, but sometimes lawsuits are about a lot of money. It's easy to rant and rave in the abstract (and perhaps you need an outlet for that), however, its hard to make a judgment about valuation until you have seen what the jury sees or know what the lawyer knows.

is there a particular lawyer exploiting you? just guessing, cuz you seem to have a burr in your saddle, m8.

Hehe...forgot the $ and can see where the confusion could arise...my apologies. The point stands, however.

 

[chess9]

Alchemize:

You are too smart for that argument.

Insurance fraud is rarely abetted by lawyers. It is certainly a major problem, but it won't be cured by limiting class action lawsuits, medical malpractice lawsuits, or liability lawsuits against manufacturers. Furthermore, you act as though insurance companies have no hand in the problem, when in fact they are a major cause of the problems in the auto liability area in particular. Have you ever had an insurance carrier drag their feet or offer you less for your car than it's worth? What's that, just good business? Or, just another way to defraud consumers? Or, something in between?

-Robert

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Insurance fraud runs 60-85 Billion per year, depending on the estimates. Google it. Don't hear any lefties screaming about that. Not as quaint as bashing wal-mart? I promise you, it is passed along in your rates.

Of course, since it is FRAUD, and it isn't all CAUGHT, then I guess rock solid PROOF is going to be difficult, isn't it.

Sorry, I'm confused. Who is arguing for insurance fraud, or even suggesting insurance fraud is not a problem? For my part, I acknowledged we have problems. I simply don't believe the solution is capping damages. See my first post above.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: alchemize
Insurance fraud runs 60-85 Billion per year, depending on the estimates. Google it. Don't hear any lefties screaming about that. Not as quaint as bashing wal-mart? I promise you, it is passed along in your rates.

Of course, since it is FRAUD, and it isn't all CAUGHT, then I guess rock solid PROOF is going to be difficult, isn't it.

Sorry, I'm confused. Who is arguing for insurance fraud, or even suggesting insurance fraud is not a problem? For my part, I acknowledged we have problems. I simply don't believe the solution is capping damages. See my first post above.

Fine. But you are paying those damages. As long as you're fine with that and agree not to bitch about high health insurance costs, then you're welcome to your point of view.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: chess9
Alchemize:

You are too smart for that argument.

Insurance fraud is rarely abetted by lawyers. It is certainly a major problem, but it won't be cured by limiting class action lawsuits, medical malpractice lawsuits, or liability lawsuits against manufacturers. Furthermore, you act as though insurance companies have no hand in the problem, when in fact they are a major cause of the problems in the auto liability area in particular. Have you ever had an insurance carrier drag their feet or offer you less for your car than it's worth? What's that, just good business? Or, just another way to defraud consumers? Or, something in between?

-Robert

Quite the contrary. Lawyers could care less if your "soft tissue damage" injury is real or not, or whether that 5mph accident cause permanent damage. They will sue regardless. They are wholly complicit in the problem.

And no, every claim (house fire, 2x pipe broke, hail storm, 3x accidents) have been handled wonderfully by my the 2 different insurance companies I've used. And I've had to sue also, because my wife had a real injury that the crooks often make so hard to collect on. Of course, she was rear ended at 45MPH vs 5MPH.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: alchemize
Insurance fraud runs 60-85 Billion per year, depending on the estimates. Google it. Don't hear any lefties screaming about that. Not as quaint as bashing wal-mart? I promise you, it is passed along in your rates.

Of course, since it is FRAUD, and it isn't all CAUGHT, then I guess rock solid PROOF is going to be difficult, isn't it.

Sorry, I'm confused. Who is arguing for insurance fraud, or even suggesting insurance fraud is not a problem? For my part, I acknowledged we have problems. I simply don't believe the solution is capping damages. See my first post above.

See my post above. The lawyers are often complicit in the fraud. So are the chiropractors.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: alchemize
Insurance fraud runs 60-85 Billion per year, depending on the estimates. Google it. Don't hear any lefties screaming about that. Not as quaint as bashing wal-mart? I promise you, it is passed along in your rates.

Of course, since it is FRAUD, and it isn't all CAUGHT, then I guess rock solid PROOF is going to be difficult, isn't it.

Sorry, I'm confused. Who is arguing for insurance fraud, or even suggesting insurance fraud is not a problem? For my part, I acknowledged we have problems. I simply don't believe the solution is capping damages. See my first post above.

Fine. But you are paying those damages. As long as you're fine with that and agree not to bitch about high health insurance costs, then you're welcome to your point of view.

Yep. I am perfectly happy to pay for legitimate damage claims if it means there are consequences when companies cheat, maim, and kill their customers. If specific companies do this too much, they will no longer be cost-competitive with their more principled/competent competitors.

Since this bothers you so much, we could pay damage claims directly out of the pockets of the owners (a/k/a shareholders in most cases). It seems fair that the owners of a company should be financially responsible for its behaviour. Perhaps certain greedy investors would be less greedy if they bore the risk directly instead of passing costs back to the very customers they try to cheat or maim.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: alchemize
Insurance fraud runs 60-85 Billion per year, depending on the estimates. Google it. Don't hear any lefties screaming about that. Not as quaint as bashing wal-mart? I promise you, it is passed along in your rates.

Of course, since it is FRAUD, and it isn't all CAUGHT, then I guess rock solid PROOF is going to be difficult, isn't it.

Sorry, I'm confused. Who is arguing for insurance fraud, or even suggesting insurance fraud is not a problem? For my part, I acknowledged we have problems. I simply don't believe the solution is capping damages. See my first post above.

See my post above. The lawyers are often complicit in the fraud. So are the chiropractors.

That does not contradict what I said at all. The solution to fraud is prosecuting the fraud, not instituting price controls. Will that be challenging? Sure. Nonetheless, it's the right answer. Otherwise, we hurt those who have legitimate claims while in effect sanctioning fraud. Treat the problem, not the symptom.

 

[chess9]

Alchemize:

A lawyer might sue for a 5 mph whip lash injury, but unless he can produce a believable expert witness to testify to the Plaintiff's injuries the case is going nowhere. You sound as though this is a common occurrence, when, in fact, it happens RARELY. Most cases-close to 80% were the last figures I saw- are settled between the insurance company and the lawyer. The insurance companies always have the upper hand because they can withhold money and they know the Plaintiffs get tired of fighting and will simply settle.

My wife is going through this very problem right now and the insurance companies have already sent her to 4 doctors, even though the news gets worse for them each time. She was a passenger in a car that was hit from behind at about 15 mph. She has a dislocated vertebra and a torn rotator cuff, both from the seatbelt she was wearing. The medical bills and physical therapy so far have hit over $5,000 and she hasn't had her first surgery yet. The two insurance companies involved are dancing every which way but loose to try to pay as little as possible to an innocent victim. Oh, that's being done for the shareholders too. It certainly isn't fraud.

You don't understand how the system really works. You should talk to an insurance adjustor about the tricks they pull. I know a local lawyer who used to work for Liberty Mutual and was very good at getting "reasonable" settlements after a couple of years of beating the Plaintiff up with his games. Now he represents the Plaintiffs and the adjustors are his breakfast lunch and dinner because he knows ALL the tricks. That's a dog eat dog business and that's exactly why the insurers want an edge and will contribute millions to elect Republicans and sympathetic Dems. It's all about cheating any way they can. Honesty by insurers is a big joke.

-Robert