CBO: Tort Reform=Savings of $54 Billion

[cannon_fodder]

Well, hope you have a good vacation.

I admit to being stuck on the aspect concerning the damage cap.  That's what enrages me.  They make everything more difficult for the victim and then if they still manage to win refuse to allow a jury to make the whole.  That's my hangup.  I give you props for arguing all your other points and understand your side better in those regards (SJ standard, experts, etc.).  But damage caps are a naked gift from the citizens of Oklahoma to the medical profession, I see no other explanation.

SJ standard:  Yes, Federal Court requires much more work to survive summary judgment.  I essentially have to try my case twice:  once to the judge and again to the jury.  It requires TONS of additional time from the Plaintiffs attorney (who isn't getting paid by the hour).    The threshold in Federal Court isn't really if there is a reasonable question as to a material fact - the threshold is if the Judge thinks you will win.  Write off a couple days just to draft the damn brief.

I totally understand why a Defense firm would love that.  They collect $4,000+ in fees and make some other poor bastage do an equal amount of work for free.   Jerks.    Though, by my own admission, I have never had a SJ granted against me that I would fervently argue was wrong (under the law as interpreted by the Court).  However, I would point out that the Federal SJ standard applied to state courts would prohibit any matter under $25,000 from ever being heard in Court.  If a matter was worth less than that it simply wouldn't make financial sense to fight about it if it required full briefs and argument.  I'm always against cutting people out of the Courts (ever been to SC court?  May as well shake an 8 ball.  Haven't been since Hogshead left).

Per the joint and several law:  the theory is simple.  There is one party who is entirely fault free - the victim/plaintiff.   Allow them to collect against any party who is responsible for the fault and then let those at fault fight amongst themselves.  I understand the argument against:  it isn't fair to the negligent parties.   But at the end of the day the public policy of Oklahoma felt it was more important to make the innocent party whole than to equitably distribute the fault.   Again, I certainly understand how this is frustrating from a Defense perspective and to Defendants.

On expert fees:   I'm basing it on firms I have worked for in the past on both sides of the med mal aisle.  Tens of thousands of dollars were the norm.  Expenses of over $100,000 on a med mal case are not unusual.  Doctors and hospitals have big bucks and are well known for defending vigorously.  They certainly make you work even on a very solid claim (I was at a firm where a sponge was left in a guys butt, literally, and it cost $60,000 in expenses to prosecute it).

So I largely understand your perspective on many things, I may not agree, but I get the argument.  But not as to damage caps.  That's my problem and where I whine about immunity.

[Red Arrow]

1. So the difference is that we shouldn't allow large judgments against people we can collect them against?

2. A bus driver, as a commercial driver, would likely have a large insurance policy via their employer.
- - -

1.  Just noting that the impression I got from your statement about the bus driver was that if a jury awarded it, it was a done deal. You get your money.  People in less fortunate circumstances can also cause injury or damage.  A few years ago, a friend got hit in his car by an uninsured motorist (OK had mandatory insurance by then) that ran a red light.  The other driver got a ticket, my friend did not.  The other driver was not required to make any restitution to my friend who had liability insurance but not collision coverage on his car.  No lawyer would touch it since the uninsured driver had nothing to take. It leads me to believe that lawyers are only interested in helping the wronged or injured if there is money in it.  That's OK, lawyers have to eat and want a roof over their head too. Just don't act like lawyers are always a great altruistic bunch.  I'm sure you can cite some specific examples otherwise but they will be the exception.   The law would not garnish the (lawbreaking) uninsured driver's wages or put him in jail.  In essence, being an uninsured motorist cost him nothing but his own wrecked car.  It pays to have nothing.


2. I expect the driver would have insurance but don't know how much.  Maybe a couple $million?  Would it cover a bus load of claims?  30 or 40 passengers at $500,000. each adds up quickly.  What happens when the insurance is exceeded?  Do the injured get the driver's house, 401K, savings, garnish wages (assuming the driver is alive and can work), the driver's kids' college fund, any credit available......?  Does the driver's spouse deserve to lose everything or does the spouse get to keep half like in a divorce?  I know it's dangerous to ask questions you don't know the answer to but I am curious.  Where does it end?

Disclaimer:  I've been lucky so far.  No major accidents.  Good doctors etc.   I am also tending towards insurance poor to protect what I do have from others that may think my pockets are deeper than they are. 

[cannon_fodder]

Just don't act like lawyers are always a great altruistic bunch.

A law firm is a business. Do doubt.   I have turned down some very worthy cases because I couldn't afford to take them.  If it will cost me $2000 in actual costs and ~50 hours of work and won't bring in any money, I can't do it.  You are correct.

Per insurance, it is not unusual for a commercial company to have a $1,000,000 policy and a $5,000,000 umbrella. 

Per collecting against the driver - yes, a judgment would be entered against the driver personally.  However, when it came time to collect that judgment you can not take their house, their 401K, a college fund, their vehicle, or a ton of other things.  You would be able to garnish wages up to a certain percent of "disposable wages" (which, for a bus driver would probably be $150 a month or so).  And assets of the Spouse are not collectible unless they are joint assets (joint bank account, title, etc.).    So in the case of the bus driver, there would be very little worth collecting against, if you pressed a $1mil claim it would just result in a discharge in bankruptcy.

For general advice on keeping yourself out of trouble, PLEASE know that the minimum coverage in Oklahoma is a total joke.  $25,000 goes away very, very quickly in an accident of any consequence.  Additionally, get yourself UM coverage of at least $100,000.  Too many idiots are uninsured, will run away from an accident, or think $25,000 coverage is worth something.

[Red Arrow]

For general advice on keeping yourself out of trouble, PLEASE know that the minimum coverage in Oklahoma is a total joke.  $25,000 goes away very, very quickly in an accident of any consequence.  Additionally, get yourself UM coverage of at least $100,000.  Too many idiots are uninsured, will run away from an accident, or think $25,000 coverage is worth something.

$25K won't even cover much of a single new car anymore.  I carry the max standard available OK car insurance.  Airplane insurance has some weird limits but I carry the max standard.  It's sad but you are probably better off to kill someone in an accident than to injure them for life.

[cannon_fodder]

You are correct:  from an amortization standpoint, it is more costly to an insurance company to have a person live for a long time after a severe injury than to just die.  It entails more suffering (only up to $500K in Oklahoma)), lost wages, medical care (including future medical), etc.  If they die, you get lost wages, a funeral, loss of consortium (my spouse died) and loss of companionship (by father died).

[rwarn17588]

$25K won't even cover much of a single new car anymore. 

It won't? There are brand-new Honda hybrids that are only $20K. I've driven sub-$16K cars for years.

[cannon_fodder]

It won't? There are brand-new Honda hybrids that are only $20K. I've driven sub-$16K cars for years.

Per the Federal Trade Comission:

the average price of a new car sold in the United States is $28,400

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/autos/aut11.shtm

So no, the minimum insurance in Oklahoma will not cover the average cost of a new car in Oklahoma - let alone any injuries, lost wages, or whatever else may have been caused by the accident.  Do yourself a favor, get UM coverage!

[Red Arrow]

Per the Federal Trade Comission:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/autos/aut11.shtm

So no, the minimum insurance in Oklahoma will not cover the average cost of a new car in Oklahoma - let alone any injuries, lost wages, or whatever else may have been caused by the accident.  Do yourself a favor, get UM coverage!

Sometimes there are more than one vehicle involved. Two totaled $16K cars already exceeds the Oklahoma minimum.  UM only covers medical, not the cost of fixing your car.

[nathanm]

It won't? There are brand-new Honda hybrids that are only $20K. I've driven sub-$16K cars for years.

Most people don't drive sub-$16K cars. I wouldn't even consider having less than $100,000 in liability insurance. (I have 100/300/100, that is $100,000 per person for medical/whatever, $300,000 total per incident, and $100,000 in property damage) Even that could be easily exhausted in any serious crash that turns out to be your fault. The upcharge from carrying just the minimums isn't much at all, so it's easily worth it.

If I had any assets, like say a house, I'd probably spend the $20-$50 a month on a $1,000,000 umbrella liability policy.

Didn't Oklahoma used to only require 12.5/25/12.5?

[Hoss]

Most people don't drive sub-$16K cars. I wouldn't even consider having less than $100,000 in liability insurance. (I have 100/300/100, that is $100,000 per person for medical/whatever, $300,000 total per incident, and $100,000 in property damage) Even that could be easily exhausted in any serious crash that turns out to be your fault. The upcharge from carrying just the minimums isn't much at all, so it's easily worth it.

If I had any assets, like say a house, I'd probably spend the $20-$50 a month on a $1,000,000 umbrella liability policy.

Didn't Oklahoma used to only require 12.5/25/12.5?

Actually, when I started driving and until this last law update, it was 10/20/10.